Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 11

The link turn is empirically denied - alarmism is high now and responses to warming are low

Foust and Murphy 2009

Foust and Murphy 2009 (Christina R. Foust is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. William O’Shannon Murphy is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. "Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse" , Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3:2, 151-167 )

the American public has been faced with steadily increasing amounts of communication regarding climate change. Large majorities of Americans believe that global warming is real and consider it a serious problem, yet global warming remains a low priority large-scale policy changes or even a precursory conversation about overhauling the energy economy have been slow in coming. Meanwhile, climate scientists and others concerned about global warming have continued to sound the alarm with increasing urgency

the American public has been faced with increasing communication regarding climate change Large majorities believe global warming is real yet global warming remains a low priority Meanwhile climate scientists and others have continued to sound the alarm with increasing urgency

Since the release of Al Gore's award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, the American public has been faced with steadily increasing amounts of communication regarding climate change. Leiserowitz (2007) concludes, "Large majorities of Americans believe that global warming is real and consider it a serious problem, yet global warming remains a low priority relative to other national and environmental issues" (p. 44). Though the USA emits a shockingly disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases, large-scale policy changes or even a precursory conversation about overhauling the energy economy have been slow in coming. Meanwhile, climate scientists and others concerned about global warming have continued to sound the alarm with increasing urgency (Moser & Dilling, 2004).

<h4>The link turn is empirically denied - alarmism is high now and responses to warming are low</h4><p><u><strong>Foust and Murphy 2009</u></strong> (Christina R. Foust is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. William O’Shannon Murphy is a doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. "Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse" , Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture, 3:2, 151-167 )</p><p>Since the release of Al Gore's award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, <u><mark>the American public has been faced with</mark> steadily <mark>increasing</mark> amounts of <mark>communication regarding climate change</mark>.</u> Leiserowitz (2007) concludes, "<u><mark>Large</mark> <mark>majorities</mark> of Americans <mark>believe</mark> that <mark>global warming is real</mark> and consider it a serious problem, <mark>yet global warming remains a low priority</u></mark> relative to other national and environmental issues" (p. 44). Though the USA emits a shockingly disproportionate amount of greenhouse gases, <u>large-scale policy changes or even a precursory conversation about overhauling the energy economy have been slow in coming. <mark>Meanwhile</mark>, <mark>climate scientists and others</mark> concerned about global warming <mark>have continued to sound the alarm with increasing urgency</u></mark> (Moser & Dilling, 2004).</p>

1NR

Hemp

Apoc UQ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

N

Kentucky

5

UTD LO

Kristen Stout

1ac was marijuana with hemp and cartels 1nc was security and gop bad midterms and marijuana word pic and t legalization spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was case and security

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

This too has been codified in the legal system – though some laws prohibiting physician assisted suicide have been lifted, one of the earliest pro-PAS measures, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, employs “mental competency” standards which embrace a paternalistic view of disabled bodies as unable to ever act on their own which reinforces ableism – Sara Qualls and Julia Kasl-Godley explain that

Sara Honn, Professor, Kraemer Family Professor of Aging, Director of Gerontology Center and Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University, and Julia, Ph.D from USC, End-of-Life Issues, Grief, and Bereavement: What Clinicians Need to Know, 2010, p.269-271 SJE

Disability experts have raised concerns about the capability clause. They point to evidence that people without disabilities assess the quality of the lives of people with disabilities to be dramatically lower than do people with disabilities A ‘competent’ person knows that society considers the need for assistance in activities of daily living to be degrading and undignified,” , capacity assessment may be “the Trojan horse” of assisted- suicide policies it is meant to provide protection, but it hides dangers. Its chief danger is that it is subjective “clinicians are left to decide on their own [what to use and] how strict a standard to use” ableist biases influence evaluations of the rationality of physician-assisted suicide requests. The patient must be determined not to suffer from a mental condition impairing judgment No medication to end a patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression causing impaired judgment. This clause is meant to provide safeguards but it is so vague and weak to be practically meaningless. the clause allows for petitioners to have mental disorders as long as these disorders do not impair judgment—an oxymoron based on current U.S. mental evaluation standards Another paradox in the mental disorder clause is that within current standards, suicidal ideation is a symptom par excellence of impaired judgment and mental disorder suicidal ideation is one of the few legal justifications for involuntary psychological treatment within the physician assisted-suicide competence model, providing the lethal means is the main decision to make in response to suicidal intention Whether petitioners receive suicide prevention or suicide enabling depends solely on their health or disability status, which disability experts view as evidence of, and a vehicle for ableist ideologies

Disability experts raised concerns about¶ the capability clause capacity assessment is meant to provide protection, but it is subjective. clinicians¶ are left to decide on their own how strict a standard to use ableist biases influence evaluations of the rationality of physician-assisted¶ suicide requests.¶ The patient must be determined not to suffer from a mental condition impairing¶ judgment No medication shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the¶ patient is not suffering from a disorder This clause is so vague and weak to be practically meaningless within current standards, suicidal ideation is a symptom par excellence¶ of impaired judgment suicidal ideation is one of¶ the few legal justifications for involuntary psychological treatment within the physician assisted-suicide competence model, providing the¶ lethal means is the main decision to make in response to suicidal intention Whether petitioners receive suicide prevention or enabling depends solely on their disability status, which experts view as evidence of, and a vehicle for ableist ideologies

Opponents of assisted suicide concur with the perspective that the capability evaluation clause is unworkable because of conceptual and empirical limitations, but they view these limitations as an argument against¶ assisted suicide rather than a reason to proceed without such an evaluation¶ (Hendin & Foley, 2008). Disability experts (Coleman, 1992, 2002; Gill,¶ 1992, 1998; Longmore, 2005; 01km, 2005) have raised other concerns about¶ the capability clause. They point to evidence that people without disabilities¶ assess the quality of the lives of people with disabilities to be dramatically¶ lower than do people with disabilities, and they wonder whether a request¶ for physician-assisted suicide from a person with disabilities might then “be¶ subject to less scrutiny because the decision makes sense to others” (01km,¶ 2005, p. 70). “A ‘competent’ person knows that society considers the need¶ for assistance in activities of daily living to be degrading and undignified,”¶ writes Coleman (2002, p. 224). “In other words, when asked to describe¶ the ‘indignities’ that assisted suicide would help people avoid, proponents¶ describe disability” (Coleman, 2002 p. 220). “If professionals think that of¶ course the disabled person would want to die” because of the indignities¶ of disability, “might not these expectations play a disheartening role in some¶ one’s decision to seek physician-assisted suicide?” asks Olkin (2005, p. 70). In conclusion, capacity assessment may be “the Trojan horse” of assisted-¶ suicide policies (Martyn & Bourguignon, 2000, p. 388). Like the Trojan¶ horse, it is meant to provide protection, but it hides dangers. Its chief danger is that it is subjective. As advocates of assisted suicide recognize “clinicians¶ are left to decide on their own [what to use and] how strict a standard to use”¶ (Werth et al., 2000, p. 356).¶ Clinicians asked to bring their expertise on assessments of the capability¶ to make requests to die should exercise great caution in what they promise¶ they can deliver. They should he educated and educate others about the¶ limits of scientific knowledge on capability assessment. They should also be¶ aware about the danger, in the absence of scientifically robust standards, that¶ ableist biases influence evaluations of the rationality of physician-assisted¶ suicide requests.¶ The patient must be determined not to suffer from a mental condition impairing¶ judgment. If either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a ¶ psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must be referred for a psychological¶ evaluation. No medication to end a patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner¶ shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the¶ patient is not suffering from a psychiatric or psychological disorder or depression¶ causing impaired judgment. This clause, like the one about capacity, is meant¶ to provide safeguards against the influence of psychological disorders on¶ judgment, but it is so vague and weak to be practically meaningless. First ¶ of all, it is an “exceedingly minimalist” clause (Burt, 2000. p. 383) because¶ it rules out only mental conditions that impair judgment. In other words,¶ the clause allows for petitioners to have mental disorders as long as these¶ disorders do not impair judgment—an oxymoron based on current U.S. mental evaluation standards (Burt, 2000; N. G. Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005;¶ Sullivan et al., 1998). Another paradox in the mental disorder clause is¶ that within current standards, suicidal ideation is a symptom par excellence¶ of impaired judgment and mental disorder. In fact, suicidal ideation is one of¶ the few legal justifications for involuntary psychological treatment (Sullivan¶ et al., 1998). Based on current clinical standards, the presence of suicidal¶ intention calls for an automatic finding of incompetence and obligates the¶ clinician to suicide prevention, including removal of lethal means. By contrast, within the physician assisted-suicide competence model, providing the¶ lethal means is the main decision to make in response to suicidal intention¶ (N. G. Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005). Whether petitioners receive suicide prevention or suicide enabling depends solely on their health or disability status, which disability experts view as evidence of, and a vehicle for ableist ideologies (Coleman, 2002).

<h4>This too has been codified in the legal system – though some laws prohibiting physician assisted suicide have been lifted, one of the earliest pro-PAS measures, the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, employs “mental competency” standards which embrace a paternalistic view of disabled bodies as unable to ever act on their own which reinforces ableism – Sara Qualls and Julia Kasl-Godley explain that</h4><p>Sara Honn, Professor, Kraemer Family Professor of Aging, Director of Gerontology Center and Ph.D. from The Pennsylvania State University, and Julia, Ph.D from USC, End-of-Life Issues, Grief, and Bereavement: What Clinicians Need to Know, 2010, p.269-271 SJE</p><p>Opponents of assisted suicide concur with the perspective that the capability evaluation clause is unworkable because of conceptual and empirical limitations, but they view these limitations as an argument against¶ assisted suicide rather than a reason to proceed without such an evaluation¶ (Hendin & Foley, 2008). <u><strong><mark>Disability experts</u></strong></mark> (Coleman, 1992, 2002; Gill,¶ 1992, 1998; Longmore, 2005; 01km, 2005) <u><strong>have <mark>raised</u></strong></mark> other <u><strong><mark>concerns about</u>¶<u> the capability clause</mark>. They point to evidence that people without disabilities</u>¶<u> assess the quality of the lives of people with disabilities to be dramatically</u>¶<u> lower than do people with disabilities</u></strong>, and they wonder whether a request¶ for physician-assisted suicide from a person with disabilities might then “be¶ subject to less scrutiny because the decision makes sense to others” (01km,¶ 2005, p. 70). “<u><strong>A ‘competent’ person knows that society considers the need</u>¶<u> for assistance in activities of daily living to be degrading and undignified,”</u></strong>¶ writes Coleman (2002, p. 224). “In other words, when asked to describe¶ the ‘indignities’ that assisted suicide would help people avoid, proponents¶ describe disability” (Coleman, 2002 p. 220). “If professionals think that of¶ course the disabled person would want to die” because of the indignities¶ of disability, “might not these expectations play a disheartening role in some¶ one’s decision to seek physician-assisted suicide?” asks Olkin (2005, p. 70). In conclusion<u><strong>, <mark>capacity assessment</mark> may be “the Trojan horse” of assisted-</u>¶<u> suicide policies</u></strong> (Martyn & Bourguignon, 2000, p. 388). Like the Trojan¶ horse, <u><strong>it <mark>is meant to provide protection, but </mark>it hides dangers. Its chief danger is that <mark>it is subjective</u></strong>.</mark> As advocates of assisted suicide recognize <u><strong>“<mark>clinicians</u>¶<u> are left to decide on their own </mark>[what to use and] <mark>how strict a standard to use</mark>”</u></strong>¶ (Werth et al., 2000, p. 356).¶ Clinicians asked to bring their expertise on assessments of the capability¶ to make requests to die should exercise great caution in what they promise¶ they can deliver. They should he educated and educate others about the¶ limits of scientific knowledge on capability assessment. They should also be¶ aware about the danger, in the absence of scientifically robust standards, that¶ <u><strong><mark>ableist biases influence evaluations of the rationality of physician-assisted</u></strong>¶<u><strong> suicide requests.</u>¶<u> The patient must be determined not to suffer from a mental condition impairing</u>¶<u> judgment</u></strong></mark>. If either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a ¶ psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must be referred for a psychological¶ evaluation. <u><strong><mark>No medication </mark>to end a patient’s life in a humane and dignified manner</u>¶<u> <mark>shall be prescribed until the person performing the counseling determines that the</u>¶<u> patient is not suffering from a </mark>psychiatric or psychological <mark>disorder </mark>or depression</u>¶<u> causing impaired judgment. <mark>This clause</u></strong></mark>, like the one about capacity, <u><strong>is meant</u>¶<u> to provide safeguards</u></strong> against the influence of psychological disorders on¶ judgment, <u><strong>but it <mark>is so vague and weak to be practically meaningless</mark>.</u></strong> First ¶ of all, it is an “exceedingly minimalist” clause (Burt, 2000. p. 383) because¶ it rules out only mental conditions that impair judgment. In other words,¶ <u><strong>the clause allows for petitioners to have mental disorders as long as these</u>¶<u> disorders do not impair judgment—an oxymoron based on current U.S. mental evaluation standards</u></strong> (Burt, 2000; N. G. Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005;¶ Sullivan et al., 1998). <u><strong>Another paradox in the mental disorder clause is</u>¶<u> that <mark>within current standards, suicidal ideation is a symptom par excellence</u>¶<u> of impaired judgment</mark> and mental disorder</u></strong>. In fact, <u><strong><mark>suicidal ideation is one of</u>¶<u> the few legal justifications for involuntary psychological treatment</u></strong></mark> (Sullivan¶ et al., 1998). Based on current clinical standards, the presence of suicidal¶ intention calls for an automatic finding of incompetence and obligates the¶ clinician to suicide prevention, including removal of lethal means. By contrast, <u><strong><mark>within the physician assisted-suicide competence model, providing the</u>¶<u> lethal means is the main decision to make in response to suicidal intention</u></strong></mark>¶ (N. G. Hamilton & Hamilton, 2005). <u><strong><mark>Whether petitioners receive suicide prevention or </mark>suicide <mark>enabling depends solely on their </mark>health or <mark>disability status, which </mark>disability <mark>experts view as evidence of, and a vehicle for ableist ideologies</u></strong></mark> (Coleman, 2002).</p>

1ac

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

A

NDT

3

UTD LO

Heidt, Shook, Lundberg

1AC PAS genealogy- same assimilar to USC PAS 1AC 1NC T- Framework K- Szaz Medicalization of death 2NR T

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Everyone says “yes”---CP spurs broad legalization and state-level experimentation, but the waiver creates a functional condition that checks industry capture

Kleiman 14

Kleiman 14 – Mark Kleiman, Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs, “How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis Legalization”, Washington Monthly, March/April/May, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a_hash_out_of049291.php?page=all

To avoid getting locked into bad policies, lawmakers need to act, and quickly What’s needed is federal legislation requiring states that legalize cannabis to structure their pot markets such that they won’t get captured by commercial interests. There are any number of ways to do that, so the legislation wouldn’t have to be overly prescriptive. States could, for instance, allow marijuana to be sold only through nonprofit outlets, or distributed via small consumer-owned co-ops The most effective way would be through a system of state-run retail stores There’s plenty of precedent for this: states from Utah to Pennsylvania to Alabama restrict hard liquor sales to stateoperated or state-controlled outlets. Such “ABC” stores operationally they work fine. Similar “pot control” stores could work fine for marijuana, too. A “state store” system would also allow the states to control the pot supply chain. By contracting with many small growers, rather than a few giant ones, states could check the industry’s political power (concentrated industries are almost always more effective at lobbying than those comprised of many small companies) States could insist that the private growers sign contracts forbidding them from marketing to the public How could the federal government get the states to structure their pot markets in ways like these? By giving a new twist to a tried-and-true tool that the Obama administration has wielded particularly effectively: the policy waiver The federal government would recognize the legal status of cannabis under a state system—making the activities permitted under that system actually legal, not merely tolerated, under federal law—only if the state system contained adequate controls to protect public health and safety, as determined by the attorney general and the secretary of the department of health and human services. That would change the politics of legalization at the state level, with legalization advocates and the cannabis industry supporting tight controls in order to get, and keep, the all-important waiver. Then we would see the laboratories of democracy doing some serious experimentation

needed is legislation requiring states that legalize structure markets such that they won’t get captured States could allow marijuana sold only through state-run stores By contracting with small growers states could check industry’s political power concentrated industries are more effective at lobbying States could insist private growers sign contracts forbidding marketing federal government get states to structure markets like these? By giving a tried-and-true tool Obama wielded effectively: the waiver federal government would recognize legal status making activities actually legal, not merely tolerated only if state contained adequate controls That would change the politics with advocates and industry supporting tight controls to get, and keep, the all-important waiver we would see laboratories doing serious experimentation

To avoid getting locked into bad policies, lawmakers in Washington need to act, and quickly. I know it’s hard to imagine anything good coming out of the current Congress, but there’s no real alternative. What’s needed is federal legislation requiring states that legalize cannabis to structure their pot markets such that they won’t get captured by commercial interests. There are any number of ways to do that, so the legislation wouldn’t have to be overly prescriptive. States could, for instance, allow marijuana to be sold only through nonprofit outlets, or distributed via small consumer-owned co-ops (see Jonathan P. Caulkins, “Nonprofit Motive”). The most effective way, however, would be through a system of state-run retail stores. There’s plenty of precedent for this: states from Utah to Pennsylvania to Alabama restrict hard liquor sales to stateoperated or state-controlled outlets. Such “ABC” (“alcoholic beverage control”) stores date back to the end of Prohibition, and operationally they work fine. Similar “pot control” stores could work fine for marijuana, too. A “state store” system would also allow the states to control the pot supply chain. By contracting with many small growers, rather than a few giant ones, states could check the industry’s political power (concentrated industries are almost always more effective at lobbying than those comprised of many small companies) and maintain consumer choice by avoiding a beer-like oligopoly offering virtually interchangeable products. States could also insist that the private growers sign contracts forbidding them from marketing to the public. Imposing that rule as part of a vendor agreement rather than as a regulation might avoid the “commercial free speech” issue, thus eliminating the specter of manipulative marijuana advertising filling the airwaves and covering highway billboards. To prevent interstate smuggling, the federal government should do what it has failed to do with cigarettes: mandate a minimum retail price. Of course, there’s a danger that states themselves, hungry for tax dollars, could abuse their monopoly power over pot, just as they have with state lotteries. To avert that outcome, states should avoid the mistake they made with lotteries: housing them in state revenue departments, which focus on maximizing state income. Instead, the new marijuana control programs should reside in state health departments and be overseen by boards with a majority of health care and substance-abuse professionals. Politicians eager for revenue might still press for higher pot sales than would be good for public health, but they’d at least have to fight a resistant bureaucracy. How could the federal government get the states to structure their pot markets in ways like these? By giving a new twist to a tried-and-true tool that the Obama administration has wielded particularly effectively: the policy waiver. The federal government would recognize the legal status of cannabis under a state system—making the activities permitted under that system actually legal, not merely tolerated, under federal law—only if the state system contained adequate controls to protect public health and safety, as determined by the attorney general and the secretary of the department of health and human services. That would change the politics of legalization at the state level, with legalization advocates and the cannabis industry supporting tight controls in order to get, and keep, the all-important waiver. Then we would see the laboratories of democracy doing some serious experimentation.

<h4>Everyone says “yes”---CP spurs broad legalization and state-level experimentation, but the waiver creates a functional condition that checks industry capture</h4><p><u><strong>Kleiman 14</u></strong> – Mark Kleiman, Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs, “How Not to Make a Hash Out of Cannabis Legalization”, Washington Monthly, March/April/May, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_may_2014/features/how_not_to_make_a_hash_out_of049291.php?page=all</p><p><u>To avoid getting locked into bad policies, lawmakers</u> in Washington <u>need to act, and quickly</u>. I know it’s hard to imagine anything good coming out of the current Congress, but there’s no real alternative.</p><p><u>What’s <mark>needed is</mark> federal <mark>legislation requiring states that legalize</mark> cannabis to <mark>structure</mark> their pot <mark>markets such that they <strong>won’t get captured</mark> by commercial interests</strong>. There are any number of ways to do that, so the legislation wouldn’t have to be overly prescriptive. <mark>States could</mark>, for instance, <mark>allow marijuana</mark> to be <mark>sold only</mark> through nonprofit outlets, or distributed via small consumer-owned co-ops</u> (see Jonathan P. Caulkins, “Nonprofit Motive”). <u>The most effective way</u>, however, <u>would be <mark>through</mark> a system of <strong><mark>state-run</mark> retail <mark>stores</u></strong></mark>.</p><p><u>There’s plenty of precedent for this: states from Utah to Pennsylvania to Alabama restrict hard liquor sales to stateoperated or state-controlled outlets. Such “ABC”</u> (“alcoholic beverage control”) <u>stores</u> date back to the end of Prohibition, and <u>operationally they work fine. Similar “pot control” stores could work fine for marijuana, too. A “state store” system would also allow the states to control the pot supply chain. <mark>By contracting with</mark> many <mark>small growers</mark>, rather than a few giant ones, <mark>states could <strong>check</mark> the <mark>industry’s political power</u></strong></mark> <u>(<mark>concentrated industries are</mark> almost always <mark>more effective at lobbying</mark> than those comprised of many small companies)</u> and maintain consumer choice by avoiding a beer-like oligopoly offering virtually interchangeable products.</p><p><u><mark>States could</u></mark> also <u><mark>insist</mark> that the <mark>private growers sign contracts forbidding</mark> them from <mark>marketing</mark> to the public</u>. Imposing that rule as part of a vendor agreement rather than as a regulation might avoid the “commercial free speech” issue, thus eliminating the specter of manipulative marijuana advertising filling the airwaves and covering highway billboards. To prevent interstate smuggling, the federal government should do what it has failed to do with cigarettes: mandate a minimum retail price.</p><p>Of course, there’s a danger that states themselves, hungry for tax dollars, could abuse their monopoly power over pot, just as they have with state lotteries. To avert that outcome, states should avoid the mistake they made with lotteries: housing them in state revenue departments, which focus on maximizing state income. Instead, the new marijuana control programs should reside in state health departments and be overseen by boards with a majority of health care and substance-abuse professionals. Politicians eager for revenue might still press for higher pot sales than would be good for public health, but they’d at least have to fight a resistant bureaucracy.</p><p><u>How could the <mark>federal government get</mark> the <mark>states to structure</mark> their pot <mark>markets</mark> in ways <mark>like these? By giving a</mark> new twist to a <mark>tried-and-true tool</mark> that the <mark>Obama</mark> administration has <strong><mark>wielded</mark> particularly <mark>effectively</strong>: the</mark> <strong>policy <mark>waiver</u></strong></mark>. <u>The <mark>federal government would recognize</mark> the <mark>legal status</mark> of cannabis under a state system—<mark>making</mark> the <mark>activities</mark> permitted under that system <strong><mark>actually legal, not merely tolerated</strong></mark>, under federal law—<strong><mark>only if</strong></mark> the <mark>state</mark> system <mark>contained adequate controls</mark> to protect public health and safety, as determined by the attorney general and the secretary of the department of health and human services. <mark>That would <strong>change the politics</mark> of legalization</strong> at the state level, <mark>with</mark> legalization <mark>advocates and</mark> the cannabis <mark>industry <strong>supporting tight controls</strong></mark> in order <mark>to get, and keep, <strong>the all-important</strong> waiver</mark>. Then <mark>we would see</mark> the <strong><mark>laboratories</mark> of democracy</strong> <mark>doing</mark> some <strong><mark>serious experimentation</u></strong></mark>.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

*TWO, trade doesn’t stop war

Parlow and Chakrabati 9

Parlow and Chakrabati 9 Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf

conflict does not explain trade and trade does not explain current level of conflicts Meaning there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations. the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all.

trade does not explain current level of conflicts there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all

The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that conflict does not explain trade and trade does not explain current level of conflicts. Meaning there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables using the sample chosen here. Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations. Furthermore the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model (very low R2 and F-value). The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all. There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates.

<h4>*TWO, trade doesn’t stop war</h4><p><u><strong>Parlow and Chakrabati 9 </u></strong>Does trade promote peace? A new window in Economics Anton Parlow and Prof. Avik Chakrabati University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Department of Economics November 24, 2009 https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/aparlow/www/papers/conflict_2.pdf</p><p>The regression results for the unrestricted bivariate VAR-model including one lag are presented in table 5. The main result is that <u><strong>conflict does not explain trade and <mark>trade does not explain current level of conflicts</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Meaning <mark>there is no relationship between past values trade and conflict on current values of the two variables</u></strong></mark> using the sample chosen here. <u>Both variables are only explained by their own past realizations.</u> Furthermore <u>the conflict equation is hardly valid as a model </u>(very low R2 and F-value). <u><mark>The coefficients of the past realizations of conflict on trade and trade on conflict are unusual in magnitude and not significant at all</mark>.</u> There is no comparable approach so far in the literature which means we need further research to con_rm these results. Furthermore a longer time pe- riod is needed and maybe more variables for the VAR-model e.g. GDP as a measurement for economic size. A problem with adding more variables to a VAR-system is that it gets less tractable and needs some structure to make useful interpretations of the parameter estimates.</p>

1NC

Banks

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

N

NDT

1

Harvard DH

Eric Short, Chris Thiele, Dan Stout

1ac was online gambling with econ and china advantages 1nc was security edelman and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Fairness first – it’s a pre-requisite to maintaining debate as an open marketplace of ideas for your project to flourish.

Speice and Lyle ‘3

Speice and Lyle ‘3 [Patrick (Wake Forest Debater) and Jim (Director of Debate @ Clarion). “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More than Ever”. The Debater’s Research Guide, 2003. groups.wfu.edu/debate ]

creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent

As with any game or sport, creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted toward one particular competitor, the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants

<h4><u><strong>Fairness first – it’s a pre-requisite to maintaining debate as an open marketplace of ideas for your project to flourish. </h4><p>Speice and Lyle ‘3</p><p></u></strong>[Patrick (Wake Forest Debater) and Jim (Director of Debate @ Clarion). “Traditional Policy Debate: Now More than Ever”. The Debater’s Research Guide, 2003. groups.wfu.edu/debate ]</p><p>As with any game or sport, <u><strong>creating a level playing field that affords each competitor a fair chance of victory is integral to the continued existence of debate as an activity. If the game is slanted</u></strong> toward one particular competitor, <u><strong>the other participants are likely to pack up their tubs and go home, as they don’t have a realistic shot of winning such a “rigged game.” </u></strong>Debate simply wouldn’t be fun if the outcome was pre-determined and certain teams knew that they would always win or lose. <u><strong>The incentive to work hard to develop new and innovative arguments would be non-existent</u></strong> because wins and losses would not relate to how much research a particular team did. TPD, as defined above, offers the best hope for a level playing field that makes the game of debate fun and educational for all participants</p>

1NR

T

OV

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

N

UMKC

5

Iowa HS

Brian Lain

1AC was organ simony 1NC was the university k topicality and case 2NC was the university k 1nr was topicality and case 2nr was the university k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Economic impacts create a state of emergency which allows sovereignty to exercise violence

Agamben 2k

Agamben 2k, philosopher and professor of aesthetics at University of Verona Italy, Means Without End: Notes on Politics, 2000, pg. 133

those who have turned money into their only raison d’etre periodically wave around the scarecrow of economic crisis those who have made themselves stolidly complicitous with the imbalance of the public debt, by handing all their savings over to the state in exchange for bonds, now receive the warning blow without batting an eyelash the crisis is always in process and that it constitutes the internal motor of capitalism in its present phase, much as the state of exception is today the normal structure of political power. the state of exception requires that there be increasingly numerous sections of residents reduced to naked life, demands that the people of the Third World become increasingly poor, but also that a growing percentage of the citizens of the industrialized societies be marginalized and without a job.

those who have turned money into their only raison d’etre wave around the scarecrow of economic crisis those who have made themselves stolidly complicitous receive the warning blow without batting an eyelash the state of exception requires that there be increasingly numerous sections of residents reduced to naked life, demands people of the Third World become increasingly poor, but also that a growing percentage of the citizens of the industrialized societies be marginalized and without a job

Nothing is more nauseating than the impudence with which those who have turned money into their only raison d’etre periodically wave around the scarecrow of economic crisis: the rich nowadays wear plain rags so as to warn the poor that sacrifices will be necessary for everybody. And the docility is just as astonishing; those who have made themselves stolidly complicitous with the imbalance of the public debt, by handing all their savings over to the state in exchange for bonds, now receive the warning blow without batting an eyelash and ready themselves to tighten their belts. And yet those who have any lucidity left in them know that the crisis is always in process and that it constitutes the internal motor of capitalism in its present phase, much as the state of exception is today the normal structure of political power. And just as the state of exception requires that there be increasingly numerous sections of residents deprived of political rights and that in fact at the outer limit all citizens be reduced to naked life, in such a way crisis, having now become permanent, demands not only that the people of the Third World become increasingly poor, but also that a growing percentage of the citizens of the industrialized societies be marginalized and without a job. And there is no so-called democratic state today that is not compromised and up to its neck in such a massive production of human misery.

<h4>Economic impacts create a state of emergency which allows sovereignty to exercise violence </h4><p><u><strong>Agamben 2k</u></strong>, philosopher and professor of aesthetics at University of Verona Italy, Means Without<u> End: Notes on Politics, 2000, pg. 133</p><p></u>Nothing is more nauseating than the impudence with which<u> <mark>those who have turned money into their only raison d’etre</mark> periodically <mark>wave around the scarecrow of economic crisis</u></mark>: the rich nowadays wear plain rags so as to warn the poor that sacrifices will be necessary for everybody. And the docility is just as astonishing; <u><mark>those who have made themselves stolidly complicitous</mark> with the imbalance of the public debt, by handing all their savings over to the state in exchange for bonds, now <mark>receive the warning blow without batting an eyelash</u></mark> and ready themselves to tighten their belts. And yet those who have any lucidity left in them know that <u>the crisis is always in process and that it constitutes the internal motor of capitalism in its present phase, much as the state of exception is today the normal structure of political power. </u>And just as <u><mark>the state of exception requires that there be increasingly numerous sections of residents</u></mark> deprived of political rights and that in fact at the outer limit all citizens be <u><mark>reduced to naked life,</u></mark> in such a way crisis, having now become permanent, <u><mark>demands</u></mark> not only <u>that the <mark>people of the Third World become increasingly poor, but also that a growing percentage of the citizens of the industrialized societies be marginalized and without a job</mark>.</u> And there is no so-called democratic state today that is not compromised and up to its neck in such a massive production of human misery.</p>

1NC

Econ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

N

Kentucky

2

Mary Washington SY

Rebecca Steiner

1ac was marihuana legalization with advantages of cartels and econ 1nc was t legalization security kritik gop bad midterms da the marijuana word pic and case 2nc was security 1nr was t and case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

They remove barriers to entry and push Afghanistan farmers out of the market

Fox 14 Vitz

Marlowe Fox 14, “Drug Cartels, Terrorism, and Marijuana,” http://raybounmulligan.com/mexican-drug-cartels-afghanistan-and-marijuana/, Vitz

Goodman illustrates some of the possible benefits of legalizing marijuana. Goodman notes that Afghanistan is the world’s largest supplier of cannabis and legalization would allow Afghans to realize an immediate revenue stream , he does not consider the fact that legalization would remove barriers of entry for American and international entrepreneurs. Goodman cites Rand Corporation figures that Americans spend approximately $40.6 billion a year on marijuana Hence, entrepreneurs from around the world would put their hat into the ring and effectively push Afghan growers out of any new market created by legalization the conjectured stabilization in Afghanistan as a result from marijuana legalization is not likely to happen.

Goodman illustrates the benefits of legalizing marijuana and legalization would allow Afghans to realize an immediate revenue stream he does not consider the fact that legalization would remove barriers of entry for American and international entrepreneurs entrepreneurs from around the world would put their hat into the ring and effectively push Afghan growers out of any new market created by legalization the stabilization is not likely to happen

In his recent blog, H.A. Goodman illustrates some of the possible benefits of legalizing marijuana. Goodman notes that Afghanistan is the world’s largest supplier of cannabis and legalization would allow Afghans to realize an immediate revenue stream. Goodman concludes that this revenue would contribute to the overall stability in the region. However, he does not consider the fact that legalization would remove barriers of entry for American and international entrepreneurs. Goodman cites Rand Corporation figures that Americans spend approximately $40.6 billion a year on marijuana. Hence, entrepreneurs from around the world would put their hat into the ring and effectively push Afghan growers out of any new market created by legalization. Thus, the conjectured stabilization in Afghanistan as a result from marijuana legalization is not likely to happen.

<h4>They remove barriers to entry and push Afghanistan farmers out of the market </h4><p>Marlowe<u><strong> Fox 14</u></strong>, “Drug Cartels, Terrorism, and Marijuana,” http://raybounmulligan.com/mexican-drug-cartels-afghanistan-and-marijuana/, <u><strong>Vitz</p><p></u></strong>In his recent blog, H.A. <u><mark>Goodman illustrates</mark> some of <mark>the</mark> possible <mark>benefits of legalizing marijuana</mark>. Goodman notes that Afghanistan</u> <u>is the world’s largest supplier of cannabis <mark>and legalization would allow Afghans to realize an immediate revenue stream</u></mark>. Goodman concludes that this revenue would contribute to the overall stability in the region. However<u>, <mark>he does not consider the fact that legalization would</mark> <strong><mark>remove barriers of entry</u></strong> <u>for American and international entrepreneurs</mark>. Goodman cites Rand Corporation figures that Americans spend approximately $40.6 billion a year on marijuana</u>. <u>Hence, <mark>entrepreneurs from around the world would put their hat into the ring and effectively push <strong>Afghan growers out of any new market created by legalization</u></strong></mark>. Thus, <u><mark>the</mark> conjectured <mark>stabilization </mark>in Afghanistan as a result from marijuana legalization <mark>is <strong>not likely to happen</mark>.</p></u></strong>

1NR

War on Drugs

Turn

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

N

Fullerton

3

Michigan AP

Jared Anderson

1ac was marijuana with a war on drugs advantage 1nc was ontological security k neolib k afropessimism k nearly all spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Diversity cushions shocks

International Oil Daily ‘3

International Oil Daily ‘3

World oil supply is becoming "more diverse," BP's chief economist, Davies, said As a result oil markets proved resilient and flexible, with current structures able to maintain oil supplies without excessive price spikes during unexpected disruptions.

World oil supply is becoming "more diverse," As a result oil markets proved resilient and flexible, with current structures able to maintain oil supplies without excessive price spikes during unexpected disruptions

HEADLINE: Diversity of Oil Market Helps Cushion Against Price Shocks: BP World oil supply is becoming "more diverse," while global production capacity "comfortably exceeds" demand, BP's chief economist, Peter Davies, said Tuesday in London, at the launch of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2003.The underlying factors for the trend include a significant 1.45 million barrel per day increase in non-Opec oil output last year, coupled with largely flat demand growth. The exception was China, which accounted for all of the increase in oil demand last year, and 68.5% of the rise in global primary energy consumption. As a result, Davies said oil markets proved resilient and flexible, with current structures able to maintain oil supplies without excessive price spikes during the Iraqwar and unexpected disruptions. "Producers were able to meet the needs of oil consumers during the Iraqwar and during unplanned supply disruptions in Venezuelaand Nigeria. Consuming nations were not required to tap their emergency reserves," he said.

<h4><u><strong>Diversity cushions shocks</h4><p>International Oil Daily ‘3 </p><p></u></strong>HEADLINE: Diversity of Oil Market Helps Cushion Against Price Shocks: BP <u><strong> </strong><mark>World oil supply is becoming "more diverse,"</u></mark> while global production capacity "comfortably exceeds" demand, <u><strong>BP's chief economist, </u></strong>Peter <u><strong>Davies, said </u></strong>Tuesday in London, at the launch of the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2003.The underlying factors for the trend include a significant 1.45 million barrel per day increase in non-Opec oil output last year, coupled with largely flat demand growth. The exception was China, which accounted for all of the increase in oil demand last year, and 68.5% of the rise in global primary energy consumption. <u><mark>As a result</u></mark>, Davies said <u><mark>oil markets proved resilient and flexible, with current structures able to maintain oil supplies without excessive price spikes during</u> </mark>the Iraqwar and <u><mark>unexpected disruptions<strong></mark>.</u></strong> "Producers were able to meet the needs of oil consumers during the Iraqwar and during unplanned supply disruptions in Venezuelaand Nigeria. Consuming nations were not required to tap their emergency reserves," he said.</p>

1NR

Cartels

Oil Shocks

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

N

Kentucky

5

UTD LO

Kristen Stout

1ac was marijuana with hemp and cartels 1nc was security and gop bad midterms and marijuana word pic and t legalization spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was case and security

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

This vested interest in preserving a vital community categorizes life according to purity, creating a vicious form of state racism used to protect sovereignty. Foucault explains

Michel, “Society Must Be Defended,” (Lectures at College de France), Lecture Four, 1/28/76 SJE

At the time when this discourse was being converted into a revolutionary discourse it was only natural that attempts should he made by one side to recode the old counterhistory in terms of race in the biological and medical sense of that term. You thus see the appearance of what will¶ become actual racism. This racism takes over and reconverts the form and function of the discourse on race struggle, but it distorts them, and it will be characterized by the fact that the theme of historical war will be replaced by the postevolutionist theme of the struggle for existence. It is a struggle in the biological sense: the differentiation of species, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest species. the State is no longer an instrument that one race uses against another: the State is, and must be, the protector of the integrity, the superiority, and the purity of the race racism is born at the point when the theme of racial purity replaces that of race struggle and when counterhistory begins to be converted into a biological racism Whereas the discourse of races, of the struggle between races, was a weapon to be used against the historico-political discourse of Roman sovereignty, the discourse of race was a way of turning that weapon against those who had forged it using it to preserve the sovereignty of the State, a sovereignty whose luster and vigor were no longer guaranteed by magico-juridical rituals, but by medico-normalizing techniques. sovereignty was able to invest or take over the discourse of race struggle and reutilize it for its own strategy. State sovereignty thus becomes the imperative to protect the race It becomes both an alternative to and a way of blocking the call for revolution

. At the time when this discourse was being converted into a revolutionary discourse it was natural that attempts should he made to recode the old counterhistory in terms¶ of race in the biological and medical sense You thus see the appearance of what will¶ become actual racism. This racism takes over and reconverts the form¶ and function of the discourse on race struggle the theme of historical war will be replaced by the postevolutionist theme of the struggle¶ for existence. the State is no longer an instrument one race uses¶ against another: the State is the protector of the superiority of the race. racism is born when the theme of racial purity replaces that of race struggle the discourse of races, of the struggle between races, was a weapon to be used against the historico-political the discourse of race was a way of turning that weapon against those who had forged it using it to preserve the sovereignty of the State whose vigor were guaranteed by medico-normalizing techniques sovereignty was able¶ to take race for its own strategy. State sovereignty becomes the imperative to¶ protect the race an alternative to and a way of blocking the call for revolution

I think this provides us with a starting point for understanding¶ how and why historical discourse could become a new issue in the¶ mid nineteenth century. At the time when this discourse was being displaced, translated, or converted into a revolutionary discourse, at the time when the notion of race struggle was about to be¶ replaced by that of class struggle—and in fact, when I say “the mid-¶ nineteenth century,” that’s too late; it was in the first half of the¶ nineteenth century, as it was [Thiers] who transformed race struggle¶ into class struggle—at the time when this conversion was going on,¶ it was in fact only natural that attempts should he made by one side¶ to recode the old counterhistory not in terms of class, but in terms¶ of races-—races in the biological and medical sense of that term. And¶ it was at the moment when a counterhistory of the revolutionary type¶ was taking shape that another counterhistory began to take shape—¶ but it will be a counterhistory in the sense that it adopts a biologicomedical perspective and crushes the historical dimension that was¶ present in this discourse. You thus see the appearance of what will¶ become actual racism. This racism takes over and reconverts the form¶ and function of the discourse on race struggle, but it distorts them,¶ and it will be characterized by the fact that the theme of historical war—with its battles, its invasions. its looting. its victories, and its¶ defeats—will be replaced by the postevolutionist theme of the struggle¶ for existence. It is no longer a battle in the sense that a warrior would¶ understand the term, but a struggle in the biological sense: the differentiation of species, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest¶ species. Similarly, the theme of the binary society which is divided¶ into two races or two groups with different languages, laws, and so¶ on will he replaced by that of a society that is, in contrast, biologically¶ monist. Its only problem is this: it is threatened by a certain number of heterogeneous elements which are not essential to it, which do not¶ divide the social body, or the living body of society, into two parts,¶ and which are in a sense accidental, hence the idea that foreigners¶ have infiltrated this society, the theme of the deviants who are this¶ society’s by products. The theme of the counterhistory of races was,¶ finally, that the State was necessarily unjust. It is now inverted into¶ its opposite: the State is no longer an instrument that one race uses¶ against another: the State is, and must be, the protector of the integrity, the superiority, and the purity of the race. The idea of racial¶ purity, with all its monistic, Statist, and biological implications: that¶ is what replaces the idea of race struggle.¶ I think that racism is born at the point when the theme of racial purity replaces that of race struggle, and when counterhistory begins to be converted into a biological racism. The connection between racism and antirevolutionary discourse and politics in the West is not,¶ then, accidental; it is not simple an additional ideological edifice that¶ appears at a given moment in a sort of’ grand antirevolutionary protect.¶ At the moment when the discourse of race struggle was being trans¶ formed into revolutionary discourse, racism was revolutionary¶ thought. Although they had their roots in the discourse of race struggle, the revolutionary project and revolutionary propheticism now¶ began to take a very different direction. Racism is, quite literally,¶ revolutionary discourse in an inverted form. Alternatively, we could¶ put it this way: Whereas the discourse of races, of the struggle between races, was a weapon to be used against the historico-political¶ discourse of Roman sovereignty, the discourse of race (in the singular) was a way of turning that weapon against those who had forged it,¶ of using it to preserve the sovereignty of the State, a sovereignty whose¶ luster and vigor were no longer guaranteed by magico-juridical rituals,¶ but by medico-normalizing techniques. Thanks to the shift from law¶ to norm, from races in the plural to race in the singular, from the¶ emancipatorv protect to a concern with purity, sovereignty was able¶ to invest or take over the discourse of race struggle and reutilize it¶ for its own strategy. State sovereignty thus becomes the imperative to¶ protect the race. It becomes both an alternative to and a way of blocking the call for revolution that derived from the old discourse of struggles, interpretations, demands, and promises.

<h4>This vested interest in preserving a vital community categorizes life according to purity, creating a vicious form of state racism used to protect sovereignty. Foucault explains</h4><p>Michel, “Society Must Be Defended,” (Lectures at College de France), Lecture Four, 1/28/76 SJE</p><p>I think this provides us with a starting point for understanding¶ how and why historical discourse could become a new issue in the¶ mid nineteenth century<mark>. <u><strong>At the time when this discourse was being</u></strong></mark> displaced, translated, or <u><strong><mark>converted into a revolutionary discourse</u></strong></mark>, at the time when the notion of race struggle was about to be¶ replaced by that of class struggle—and in fact, when I say “the mid-¶ nineteenth century,” that’s too late; it was in the first half of the¶ nineteenth century, as it was [Thiers] who transformed race struggle¶ into class struggle—at the time when this conversion was going on,¶ <u><strong><mark>it was</u></strong></mark> in fact <u><strong>only <mark>natural that attempts should he made</mark> by one side</u>¶<u> <mark>to recode the old counterhistory</u></strong></mark> not in terms of class, but <u><strong><mark>in terms</u>¶<u> of race</u></strong></mark>s-—races <u><strong><mark>in the biological and medical sense</mark> of that term.</u></strong> And¶ it was at the moment when a counterhistory of the revolutionary type¶ was taking shape that another counterhistory began to take shape—¶ but it will be a counterhistory in the sense that it adopts a biologicomedical perspective and crushes the historical dimension that was¶ present in this discourse. <u><strong><mark>You thus see the appearance of what will¶ become actual racism. This racism takes over and reconverts the form</u>¶<u> and function of the discourse on race struggle</mark>, but it distorts them,</u>¶<u> and it will be characterized by the fact that <mark>the theme of historical war</u></strong></mark>—with its battles, its invasions. its looting. its victories, and its¶ defeats—<u><strong><mark>will be replaced by the postevolutionist theme of the struggle</u>¶<u> for existence. </mark>It is </u></strong>no longer a battle in the sense that a warrior would¶ understand the term, but <u><strong>a struggle in the biological sense: the differentiation of species, natural selection, and the survival of the fittest</u>¶<u> species.</u></strong> Similarly, the theme of the binary society which is divided¶ into two races or two groups with different languages, laws, and so¶ on will he replaced by that of a society that is, in contrast, biologically¶ monist. Its only problem is this: it is threatened by a certain number of heterogeneous elements which are not essential to it, which do not¶ divide the social body, or the living body of society, into two parts,¶ and which are in a sense accidental, hence the idea that foreigners¶ have infiltrated this society, the theme of the deviants who are this¶ society’s by products. The theme of the counterhistory of races was,¶ finally, that the State was necessarily unjust. It is now inverted into¶ its opposite: <u><strong><mark>the State is no longer an instrument </mark>that <mark>one race uses</u>¶<u> against another: the State is</mark>, and must be, <mark>the protector of the </mark>integrity, the <mark>superiority</mark>, and the purity <mark>of the race</u></strong>.</mark> The idea of racial¶ purity, with all its monistic, Statist, and biological implications: that¶ is what replaces the idea of race struggle.¶ I think that <u><strong><mark>racism is born </mark>at the point <mark>when the theme of racial purity replaces that of race struggle</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>and when counterhistory begins to be converted into a biological racism</u></strong>. The connection between racism and antirevolutionary discourse and politics in the West is not,¶ then, accidental; it is not simple an additional ideological edifice that¶ appears at a given moment in a sort of’ grand antirevolutionary protect.¶ At the moment when the discourse of race struggle was being trans¶ formed into revolutionary discourse, racism was revolutionary¶ thought. Although they had their roots in the discourse of race struggle, the revolutionary project and revolutionary propheticism now¶ began to take a very different direction. Racism is, quite literally,¶ revolutionary discourse in an inverted form. Alternatively, we could¶ put it this way: <u><strong>Whereas <mark>the discourse of races, of the struggle between races, was a weapon to be used against the historico-political</u></mark>¶<u> discourse of Roman sovereignty, <mark>the discourse of race</u></strong></mark> (in the singular)<u><strong> <mark>was a way of turning that weapon against those who had forged it</u></strong></mark>,¶ of <u><strong><mark>using it to preserve the sovereignty of the State</mark>, a sovereignty <mark>whose</u></mark>¶<u> luster and <mark>vigor were </mark>no longer <mark>guaranteed by</mark> magico-juridical rituals,</u>¶<u> but by <mark>medico-normalizing techniques</mark>.</u></strong> Thanks to the shift from law¶ to norm, from races in the plural to race in the singular, from the¶ emancipatorv protect to a concern with purity, <u><strong><mark>sovereignty was able</u>¶<u> to </mark>invest or <mark>take </mark>over the discourse of <mark>race </mark>struggle and reutilize it</u>¶<u> <mark>for its own strategy. State sovereignty</mark> thus <mark>becomes the imperative to</u>¶<u> protect the race</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>It becomes both <mark>an alternative to and a way of blocking the call for revolution</u></strong></mark> that derived from the old discourse of struggles, interpretations, demands, and promises.</p>

1ac

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

A

NDT

3

UTD LO

Heidt, Shook, Lundberg

1AC PAS genealogy- same assimilar to USC PAS 1AC 1NC T- Framework K- Szaz Medicalization of death 2NR T

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Pot consolidation waters down regulations---causes environmental destruction and corporate takeover

Mitchell 14

Mitchell 14 – Dan Mitchell, Independent Journalist for Fortune and the New York Times, “Federal Inaction Spells Bad News For Marijuana Business”, Fortune, 3-21, http://fortune.com/2014/03/21/federal-inaction-spells-bad-news-for-marijuana-business/

the lack of oversight will almost certainly end up with the pot business consolidated in the hands of a few big companies with enormous political and economic power, to the detriment of customers the environment, and social well-being after several more states legalize marijuana, which would create legitimate pot-industry constituencies in states where there currently are none a hodgepodge of incompatible state laws will be enacted, which will destroy any chance of the federal government getting a handle on rationally taxing and regulating it. This could lead to all kinds of problems, such as pot businesses marketing to children, inadequate labeling, and environmental problems. (Without smart regulation, pot cultivation can ravage the environment.) Further, taxing marijuana sales only at the state level could lead to rampant smuggling between states with different tax rates, as we see now with tobacco It could also lead, eventually, to massive industry consolidation, as happened with beer after prohibition was lifted when regulation was left almost entirely to the states. Rather than open marketplaces filled with lots of small, competing players, the pot industry could end up being a corporate-controlled oligopoly that resists competition and enjoys massive lobbying power to keep itself in place

lack of oversight will end with pot consolidated in a few big companies with enormous power, to the detriment of the environment a hodgepodge of state laws will destroy any chance of rationally regulating This could lead to environmental problems. (Without smart regulation, pot cultivation can ravage the environment taxing could lead to rampant smuggling between states with different rates It could lead to massive consolidation pot could end up a corporate-controlled oligopoly that resists competition

In the short term, an industry that most Americans want to see legitimized is severely hampered by the fact that what it does is a still serious federal crime. In the long term, the lack of federal oversight now, in the industry’s nascent stages, will almost certainly end up with the pot business consolidated in the hands of a few big companies with enormous political and economic power, to the detriment of its own customers, people who work in the business, the environment, and our social well-being. This week, we learned just how unlikely it is that our moribund Congress will take the steps necessary to create an environment for a healthy, thriving, relatively harmless marijuana industry to take root. The Denver Post reported on Thursday that a bill that would allow banks to serve marijuana companies that are legal under state laws is being met with silence by nearly all 99 members of the two House committees that could get it passed. Marijuana businesses can’t use credit cards, get loans, or receive any of the other banking services that are routine for most companies. Bill sponsor Denny Heck, a Democrat of Washington (which along with Colorado is one of two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use) said that when he approaches his fellow members to discuss the bill, they have nothing to say. “The almost universal response is the rolling of one’s eyes,” he told the Post. So operators of legitimate businesses in Colorado and Washington, plus the 18 other states and Washington, D.C. that allow sales of medical marijuana, are still hauling giant wads of cash around with them and — along with their customers — must be constantly on guard against robbers and thieves. And they’ll be doing so until at least next year. The industry’s main lobbyist, the National Cannabis Industry Association, remains optimistic, and even understanding, to some degree, of the intractable Congress. “A few years ago, there would have been no such bill,” says Taylor West, the group’s deputy director. The “dramatic change in public opinion over the past few years” will simply take time to have its effect on Congress. Despite the swell of public support for legitimizing the pot business (more than half the country is now in favor, according to most polls), many members of Congress are hesitant in part because their own states haven’t yet legalized marijuana for either medicinal or recreational use. It so happens that most of the members of the two committees — Financial Services and Judiciary — that could push the banking bill to the House floor represent districts in states where marijuana remains entirely illegal. The Justice Department last month approved rules for prosecuting marijuana crimes that explicitly excluded banks from being prosecuted for doing business with the pot industry. But those rules don’t amount to a guarantee, and they aren’t nearly good enough for the banks, most of which will likely continue to steer clear of the industry until stronger protections are in place. Ironically, the Justice Department’s move seems to be helping to keep the banking bill stuck in committee. The Post reports that some members questioned the need for the bill given the administration’s order to federal prosecutors to stand down. It likely that action on the bills will come only after several more states legalize either medical or recreational marijuana, which would create legitimate pot-industry constituencies in states where there currently are none. The Marijuana Policy Project estimates that five more states will legalize pot in one way or another over the next year, which would put the number over half. Will that be enough for Congress? “It’s hard to predict anything with this Congress,” says West. And it doesn’t seem likely that the next Congress will be any more predictable or reliable. Even if the banking bill were passed, and even if most or all states were to legalize pot in some form, there would still be the enormous problem of the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic, which puts it on a par with heroin in terms of the criminal penalties for possession and sale. The NCIA for now isn’t even really trying to get marijuana rescheduled to (at the very least) make it a lesser offense. “It’s just less than feasible right now,” West says. So the NCIA is taking an incremental approach with Congress, trying for now just to get the banking bill passed and to get IRS rules changed so that state-sanctioned pot businesses can take what are for other businesses legitimate tax deductions. A provision of the Internal Revenue Code still considers marijuana sales to be “drug trafficking,” and bars such deductions. This puts a serious crimp in earnings. “In fact, some medical cannabis operations could be driven out of business on account of this provision,” according to the NCIA. As the years wear on and the federal government continues to take tiny steps toward legitimizing the industry, a hodgepodge of incompatible state laws will be enacted, which not only will burden the industry, but will destroy any chance of the federal government getting a handle on rationally taxing and regulating it. This could lead to all kinds of problems, such as pot businesses marketing to children, inadequate labeling, and environmental problems. (Without smart regulation, pot cultivation can ravage the environment.) Further, taxing marijuana sales only at the state level could lead to rampant smuggling between states with different tax rates, as we see now with tobacco. It could also lead, eventually, to massive industry consolidation, as happened with the beer business in the years and decades after prohibition was lifted in 1933, when regulation was (and still is) left almost entirely to the states. Rather than thriving, open marketplaces filled with lots of small, competing players, the pot industry could end up being a corporate-controlled oligopoly that resists competition and enjoys massive lobbying power to keep itself in place.

<h4>Pot consolidation waters down regulations---causes environmental destruction and corporate takeover</h4><p><u><strong>Mitchell 14</u></strong> – Dan Mitchell, Independent Journalist for Fortune and the New York Times, “Federal Inaction Spells Bad News For Marijuana Business”, Fortune, 3-21, http://fortune.com/2014/03/21/federal-inaction-spells-bad-news-for-marijuana-business/</p><p>In the short term, an industry that most Americans want to see legitimized is severely hampered by the fact that what it does is a still serious federal crime. In the long term, <u>the <mark>lack of</u></mark> federal <u><mark>oversight</u></mark> now, in the industry’s nascent stages, <u><mark>will</mark> almost certainly <mark>end</mark> up <mark>with</mark> the <mark>pot</mark> business <strong><mark>consolidated</strong> in</mark> the hands of <mark>a <strong>few big companies</strong> with <strong>enormous</mark> political and economic <mark>power</strong>, to the detriment of</u></mark> its own <u>customers</u>, people who work in the business, <u><mark>the <strong>environment</strong></mark>, and</u> our <u>social well-being</u>.</p><p>This week, we learned just how unlikely it is that our moribund Congress will take the steps necessary to create an environment for a healthy, thriving, relatively harmless marijuana industry to take root. The Denver Post reported on Thursday that a bill that would allow banks to serve marijuana companies that are legal under state laws is being met with silence by nearly all 99 members of the two House committees that could get it passed. Marijuana businesses can’t use credit cards, get loans, or receive any of the other banking services that are routine for most companies.</p><p>Bill sponsor Denny Heck, a Democrat of Washington (which along with Colorado is one of two states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use) said that when he approaches his fellow members to discuss the bill, they have nothing to say. “The almost universal response is the rolling of one’s eyes,” he told the Post.</p><p>So operators of legitimate businesses in Colorado and Washington, plus the 18 other states and Washington, D.C. that allow sales of medical marijuana, are still hauling giant wads of cash around with them and — along with their customers — must be constantly on guard against robbers and thieves. And they’ll be doing so until at least next year.</p><p>The industry’s main lobbyist, the National Cannabis Industry Association, remains optimistic, and even understanding, to some degree, of the intractable Congress. “A few years ago, there would have been no such bill,” says Taylor West, the group’s deputy director. The “dramatic change in public opinion over the past few years” will simply take time to have its effect on Congress.</p><p>Despite the swell of public support for legitimizing the pot business (more than half the country is now in favor, according to most polls), many members of Congress are hesitant in part because their own states haven’t yet legalized marijuana for either medicinal or recreational use. It so happens that most of the members of the two committees — Financial Services and Judiciary — that could push the banking bill to the House floor represent districts in states where marijuana remains entirely illegal.</p><p>The Justice Department last month approved rules for prosecuting marijuana crimes that explicitly excluded banks from being prosecuted for doing business with the pot industry. But those rules don’t amount to a guarantee, and they aren’t nearly good enough for the banks, most of which will likely continue to steer clear of the industry until stronger protections are in place. Ironically, the Justice Department’s move seems to be helping to keep the banking bill stuck in committee. The Post reports that some members questioned the need for the bill given the administration’s order to federal prosecutors to stand down.</p><p>It likely that action on the bills will come only <u>after several more states legalize</u> either medical or recreational <u>marijuana, which would create legitimate pot-industry constituencies in states where there currently are none</u>. The Marijuana Policy Project estimates that five more states will legalize pot in one way or another over the next year, which would put the number over half.</p><p>Will that be enough for Congress? “It’s hard to predict anything with this Congress,” says West. And it doesn’t seem likely that the next Congress will be any more predictable or reliable.</p><p>Even if the banking bill were passed, and even if most or all states were to legalize pot in some form, there would still be the enormous problem of the federal government’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 narcotic, which puts it on a par with heroin in terms of the criminal penalties for possession and sale. The NCIA for now isn’t even really trying to get marijuana rescheduled to (at the very least) make it a lesser offense.</p><p>“It’s just less than feasible right now,” West says. So the NCIA is taking an incremental approach with Congress, trying for now just to get the banking bill passed and to get IRS rules changed so that state-sanctioned pot businesses can take what are for other businesses legitimate tax deductions. A provision of the Internal Revenue Code still considers marijuana sales to be “drug trafficking,” and bars such deductions. This puts a serious crimp in earnings. “In fact, some medical cannabis operations could be driven out of business on account of this provision,” according to the NCIA.</p><p>As the years wear on and the federal government continues to take tiny steps toward legitimizing the industry, <u><mark>a hodgepodge of</mark> incompatible <mark>state laws will</mark> be enacted, which</u> not only will burden the industry, but <u>will <strong><mark>destroy any chance</strong> of</mark> the federal government getting a handle on <strong><mark>rationally</mark> taxing</strong> and <strong><mark>regulating</strong></mark> it. <mark>This could lead to</mark> all kinds of problems, such as pot businesses <strong>marketing to children</strong>, <strong>inadequate labeling</strong>, and <strong><mark>environmental problems</strong>. (Without smart regulation, pot cultivation can <strong>ravage the environment</strong></mark>.) Further, <mark>taxing</mark> marijuana sales only at the state level <mark>could lead to <strong>rampant smuggling</strong> between states with different</mark> tax <mark>rates</mark>, as we see now with tobacco</u>.</p><p><u><mark>It could</mark> also <mark>lead</mark>, eventually, <mark>to massive</mark> industry <mark>consolidation</mark>, as happened with</u> the <u>beer</u> business in the years and decades <u>after prohibition was lifted</u> in 1933, <u>when regulation was</u> (and still is) <u>left almost entirely to the states. Rather than</u> thriving, <u>open marketplaces filled with lots of small, competing players, the <mark>pot</mark> industry <mark>could end up</mark> being <mark>a <strong>corporate-controlled oligopoly</strong> that resists competition</mark> and enjoys <strong>massive lobbying power</strong> to keep itself in place</u>.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

They don’t meet their counterinterp – “almost all” means all but a small finite set, usually about one

Wikipedia 14

Wikipedia 14

the phrase "almost all" has specialised uses. "Almost all" is used with "all but [except] finitely many" , a cofinite set or "all but a countable set" almost all prime numbers are odd, which is based on the fact that all but one prime number are odd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all In mathematics, the phrase "almost all" has a number of specialised uses.¶ "Almost all" is sometimes used synonymously with "all but [except] finitely many" (formally, a cofinite set) or "all but a countable set" (formally, a cocountable set); see almost.¶ A simple example is that almost all prime numbers are odd, which is based on the fact that all but one prime number are odd. (The exception is the number 2, which is prime but not odd.)

<h4>They don’t meet their counterinterp<u><strong> – “almost all” means all but a small finite set, usually about one </h4><p>Wikipedia 14</p><p></u></strong>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_all</p><p>In mathematics, <u>the phrase "almost all" has</u> a number of <u>specialised uses.</u><strong>¶<u></strong> "Almost all" is </u>sometimes <u>used</u> synonymously <u>with "all but [except] finitely many"</u> (formally<u>, a cofinite set</u>) <u>or "all but a countable set"</u> (formally, a cocountable set); see almost.¶ A simple example is that <u>almost all prime numbers are odd, which is based on the fact that all but one prime number are odd</u>. (The exception is the number 2, which is prime but not odd.)</p>

1NR

T

Interp

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

N

UMKC

5

Iowa HS

Brian Lain

1AC was organ simony 1NC was the university k topicality and case 2NC was the university k 1nr was topicality and case 2nr was the university k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

DSM is fine now and gambling doesn’t matter.

Davey 2014

Davey 2014

WTO members have implicitly endorsed the WTO dispute settlement system by making extensive use of it. The extensive use by developing countries has continued to date China has joined the United States and the European Union as a frequent user, probably in large part in response to the frequent use of the system against it by those two members by any measure the system has been quite active and can be said to have reached a normal, sustainable level of consultation requests. Overall, from the cases that are brought, it appears that the system continues to serve the function of providing a forum for resolving significant disputes between the major trading nations I have done on two separate periods of WTO dispute settlement, it appears that close to one-half of the cases are disposed of appropriately at the based on its usage, the system seems to be functioning well The consultation process has been effective is resolving many disputes. Based on studies consultation stage As to those cases that result in a panel and/or Appellate Body report, the DSU recommendations in the vast majority of cases are implemented In the two studies mentioned above, I found that in general during the periods examined, there was a implementation rate of 80-85%. if one takes a longer term perspective and asks in which disputes implementation has never been achieved, it can be said that for the most part, there are only a few, relatively insignificant cases that have remained on the DSB's surveillance agenda at the DSB meeting of 25 April 2014, there were 10 items on the agenda One of those cases involved a US antidumping measure on shrimp The third case concerned US claims that China has failed to implement completely the decision in the China — Electronic Payment Systems case.53 Implementation was long overdue in the remaining six cases. Four of those case involved EU and/or Japanese complaints against US measures that overall involve relatively little trade Finally, there is the Antiguan challenge to US restrictions on cross-border internet gaming, a matter that the United States has negotiated settlements with all other interested WTO members while it would be nice to see these items finally removed from the DSB's agenda, they are not major cases

WTO members have endorsed the d s m by making extensive use of it China has joined the U S and the E U as a frequent user the system has reached a , sustainable level of consultation a forum for resolving significant disputes there was a implementation rate of 85%. there are only a few, insignificant cases that have remained on the DSB's agenda there is the Antiguan challenge to internet gaming, a matter that the U S has negotiated settlements with all other interested WTO members while it would be nice to see these items finally removed from the DSB's agenda, they are not major cases

William J., Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law Emeritus, University of Illinois College of Law, The WTO and Rules-Based Dispute Settlement: Historical Evolution, Operational Success and Future Challenges, Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series No. 14-41 WTO members have implicitly endorsed the WTO dispute settlement system by making extensive use of it. There are four particular features of member usage that warrant comment. First, the pattern of usage among WTO members has varied over time. Initially, in the first five years of the system’s operation, the overwhelmingly dominant users of the system were the United States and the European Union.38 These two members have remained the most frequent users of the system since then, but they have not been as dominant as they were in the early years. Instead, starting in 2000 or thereabouts, there was a significant expansion of use by developing countries, and particularly the large developing countries.39 The extensive use by developing countries has continued to date.40 Second, in the last few years, China has joined the United States and the European Union as a frequent user, probably in large part in response to the frequent use of the system against it by those two members.41 Third, in terms of respondents, the United States is by far the WTO member whose measures are challenged the most frequently in WTO dispute settlement. Indeed, since 2000, the United States has been the respondent in 47% of the panel reports issued (and in 54% of the Appellate Body reports issued).42 In the first 5 years of WTO dispute settlement, it was the respondent in only 21% of the panel reports issued.43 The EU is a distant second, as it has been the respondent in only 15% of the panel reports issued since 2000, a figure that was the same in the early years.44 The third most often challenged country in recent years is China. All others WTO members lag far behind on this metric. Fourth, in recent years there has been a noticeable drop in annual consultations requests since the 1997 peak of 50. The average for the years 2009-2011 was 13 consultation requests per year. However, recently there has been an upsurge in dispute settlement activity. There were 27 such requests in 2012 and 21 in 2013. 45 I doubt this moderation in the number of annual consultation requests signals any dissatisfaction with the system on the part of the WTO membership, rather I tend to think that it is due mainly to better case selection by the parties – they have a better sense of when it would be useful to initiate a case – and secondarily to the fact that there was some pent-up demand to bring cases at the end of the Uruguay Round, which resulted in a larger than normal number of consultation requests in the early years of WTO dispute settlement. 46 In any event, by any measure the system has been quite active and can be said to have reached a normal, sustainable level of consultation requests. Overall, from the cases that are brought, it appears that the system continues to serve the function of providing a forum for resolving significant disputes between the major trading nations – the Airbus-Boeing dispute would be a prime example, but there are many cases involving the United States, the European Union and China – and the system continues to serve as a forum for challenges by I have done on two separate periods of WTO dispute settlement, it appears that close to one-half of the cases are disposed of appropriately at the other nations to actions taken by those Big Three nations – Brazil’s challenges to EU sugar subsidies and US cotton subsidies would be examples. Thus, based on its usage, the system seems to be functioning well. B. Dispute resolution: Results of consultations and DSU recommendations The consultation process has been effective is resolving many disputes. Based on studies consultation stage. ; While the parties often do not notify a solution to the DSB as they are supposed to do. further research — such as interviews with the individuals involved in the case or an examination of the status of the challenged measure — confirms this high disposition rate. In more recent years, the percentage of settlements through consultations has fallen as a higher percentage of cases end up before panels, but the consultation requirement still seems useful as many cases are settled at that stage. As to those cases that result in a panel and/or Appellate Body report, the DSU recommendations in the vast majority of cases are implemented. That is to say, the non- compliant measure is brought into conformity with WTO obligations or there is a mutually agreed solution to the case. In the two studies mentioned above, I found that in general during the periods examined, there was a implementation rate of 80-85%.49 Indeed, if one takes a longer term perspective and asks in which disputes implementation has never been achieved, it can be said that for the most part, there are only a few, relatively insignificant cases that have remained on the DSB's surveillance agenda. For example, at the DSB meeting of 25 April 2014, there were 10 items on the surveillance part of the agenda and in respect of one of the items the reasonable period of time for implementation had not expired.'0 In three cases, implementation may have been overdue, but only by a year or two. One of those cases involved a US antidumping measure on shrimp challenged by Vietnam, where some of the contested implementation issues are soon to be considered by a new panel sought by Vietnam in respect of related US antidumping measures on shrimp.5' The second case involved a Filipino challenge to various Thai customs measures involving Thai treatment of Filipino cigarettes, a matter which has been implemented for the most part.'2 The third case concerned US claims that China has failed to implement completely the decision in the China — Electronic Payment Systems case.53 Implementation was long overdue in the remaining six cases. Four of those case involved EU and/or Japanese complaints against US measures that overall involve relatively little trade (Section 111 — Havana Club; Section 1105 — Irish Music)54 or have been partially implemented or settled (Hot-Rolled Steel and Byrd)." One involved a US complaint against the EU (Biotech) that the EU has settled with the other complainants." Finally, there is the Antiguan challenge to US restrictions on cross-border internet gaming, a matter that the United States has negotiated settlements with all other interested WTO members. Thus, while it would be nice to see these items finally removed from the DSB's agenda, they are not major cases. While this implementation record is very good, two caveats must be mentioned. First, in many cases, as described below, implementation was not at all achieved in a timely matter. Second, in some cases, it is likely that the complainants have not pursued the matter — for cost or whatever reasons — even though they believe that full implementation has not occurred.

<h4><u><strong>DSM is fine now and gambling doesn’t matter.</h4><p>Davey 2014</p><p></u></strong>William J., Guy Raymond Jones Chair in Law Emeritus, University of Illinois College of Law, The WTO and Rules-Based Dispute Settlement: Historical Evolution, Operational Success and Future Challenges, Illinois Public Law and Legal Theory Research Papers Series No. 14-41</p><p><u><mark>WTO members have</mark> implicitly <mark>endorsed the</mark> WTO <mark>d</mark>ispute <mark>s</mark>ettlement syste<mark>m</mark> <mark>by making extensive use of it</mark>.</u> There are four particular features of member usage that warrant comment. First, the pattern of usage among WTO members has varied over time. Initially, in the first five years of the system’s operation, the overwhelmingly dominant users of the system were the United States and the European Union.38 These two members have remained the most frequent users of the system since then, but they have not been as dominant as they were in the early years. Instead, starting in 2000 or thereabouts, there was a significant expansion of use by developing countries, and particularly the large developing countries.39 <u>The extensive use by developing countries has continued to date</u>.40 Second, in the last few years, <u><mark>China has joined the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>and the E</mark>uropean <mark>U</mark>nion <mark>as a frequent user</mark>, probably in large part in response to the frequent use of the system against it by those two members</u>.41 Third, in terms of respondents, the United States is by far the WTO member whose measures are challenged the most frequently in WTO dispute settlement. Indeed, since 2000, the United States has been the respondent in 47% of the panel reports issued (and in 54% of the Appellate Body reports issued).42 In the first 5 years of WTO dispute settlement, it was the respondent in only 21% of the panel reports issued.43 The EU is a distant second, as it has been the respondent in only 15% of the panel reports issued since 2000, a figure that was the same in the early years.44 The third most often challenged country in recent years is China. All others WTO members lag far behind on this metric. Fourth, in recent years there has been a noticeable drop in annual consultations requests since the 1997 peak of 50. The average for the years 2009-2011 was 13 consultation requests per year. However, recently there has been an upsurge in dispute settlement activity. There were 27 such requests in 2012 and 21 in 2013. 45 I doubt this moderation in the number of annual consultation requests signals any dissatisfaction with the system on the part of the WTO membership, rather I tend to think that it is due mainly to better case selection by the parties – they have a better sense of when it would be useful to initiate a case – and secondarily to the fact that there was some pent-up demand to bring cases at the end of the Uruguay Round, which resulted in a larger than normal number of consultation requests in the early years of WTO dispute settlement. 46 In any event, <u>by any measure <mark>the system has </mark>been quite active and can be said to have <mark>reached a </mark>normal<mark>, sustainable level of consultation</mark> requests. Overall, from the cases that are brought, it appears that the system continues to serve the function of providing <mark>a forum for resolving significant disputes</mark> between the major trading nations</u> – the Airbus-Boeing dispute would be a prime example, but there are many cases involving the United States, the European Union and China – and the system continues to serve as a forum for challenges by <u>I have done on two separate periods of WTO dispute settlement, it appears that close to one-half of the cases are disposed of appropriately at the </u>other nations to actions taken by those Big Three nations – Brazil’s challenges to EU sugar subsidies and US cotton subsidies would be examples. Thus, <u>based on its usage, the system seems to be functioning well</u>. B. Dispute resolution: Results of consultations and DSU recommendations <u>The consultation process has been effective is resolving many disputes. Based on studies consultation stage</u>. ; While the parties often do not notify a solution to the DSB as they are supposed to do. further research — such as interviews with the individuals involved in the case or an examination of the status of the challenged measure — confirms this high disposition rate. In more recent years, the percentage of settlements through consultations has fallen as a higher percentage of cases end up before panels, but the consultation requirement still seems useful as many cases are settled at that stage. <u>As to those cases that result in a panel and/or Appellate Body report, the DSU recommendations in the vast majority of cases are implemented</u>. That is to say, the non- compliant measure is brought into conformity with WTO obligations or there is a mutually agreed solution to the case. <u>In the two studies mentioned above, I found that in general during the periods examined,<mark> there was a implementation rate of</mark> 80-<mark>85%.</u></mark>49 Indeed, <u>if one takes a longer term perspective and asks in which disputes implementation has never been achieved, it can be said that for the most part, <strong><mark>there are only a few, </mark>relatively <mark>insignificant cases</strong> that have remained on the DSB's</mark> surveillance <mark>agenda</u></mark>. For example, <u>at the DSB meeting of 25 April 2014, there were 10 items on the</u> surveillance part of the <u>agenda</u> and in respect of one of the items the reasonable period of time for implementation had not expired.'0 In three cases, implementation may have been overdue, but only by a year or two. <u>One of those cases involved a US antidumping measure on shrimp</u> challenged by Vietnam, where some of the contested implementation issues are soon to be considered by a new panel sought by Vietnam in respect of related US antidumping measures on shrimp.5' The second case involved a Filipino challenge to various Thai customs measures involving Thai treatment of Filipino cigarettes, a matter which has been implemented for the most part.'2 <u>The third case concerned US claims that China has failed to implement completely the decision in the China — Electronic Payment Systems case.53 Implementation was long overdue in the remaining six cases. Four of those case involved EU and/or Japanese complaints against US measures that overall involve relatively little trade</u> (Section 111 — Havana Club; Section 1105 — Irish Music)54 or have been partially implemented or settled (Hot-Rolled Steel and Byrd)." One involved a US complaint against the EU (Biotech) that the EU has settled with the other complainants." <u>Finally,<mark> there is the Antiguan challenge to</mark> US restrictions on cross-border <mark>internet gaming, a matter that <strong>the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>has negotiated settlements with all other interested WTO members</u></strong></mark>. Thus, <u><strong><mark>while it would be nice to see these items finally removed from the DSB's agenda, they are not major cases</u></strong></mark>. While this implementation record is very good, two caveats must be mentioned. First, in many cases, as described below, implementation was not at all achieved in a timely matter. Second, in some cases, it is likely that the complainants have not pursued the matter — for cost or whatever reasons — even though they believe that full implementation has not occurred.</p>

1NC

China

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

N

NDT

1

Harvard DH

Eric Short, Chris Thiele, Dan Stout

1ac was online gambling with econ and china advantages 1nc was security edelman and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No internal to state budget -- just a drop in the bucket

Gleckman 12

Gleckman 12 Howard, 12-6-2012, "Dude, Would Legalizing And Taxing Weed Solve Our Budget Woes?," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/12/06/dude-would-legalizing-and-taxing-weed-solve-states-budget-woes/, AB

Could taxing stoners help balance state budgets The answer is yes, but it wouldn’t help much legalizing pot would both reduce spending and raise tax revenue by about 0.5 percent the revenue estimates from an excise tax are much less certain revenues could be much lower current users might even stop or curtail their usage once dope becomes mainstream people would smoke more pot But some users might also reduce their intake of booze that substitution of one drug for another might also reduce the net increase in tax revenue. how about supply suppliers would no longer incur the costs of prohibition On the other, they would face new regulatory costs lower enforcement costs might be offset a bit by higher medical and regulatory costs. taxing dope would increase revenues by 9 billion which isn’t very much money Legalizing certainly won’t prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff

Could taxing stoners help balance state budgets it wouldn’t help much revenue estimates are much less certain. current users might even stop or curtail their usage once dope becomes mainstream users might also reduce their intake of booze that substitution might also reduce the net increase in tax revenue. suppliers would face new regulatory costs lower enforcement costs might be offset a bit by higher medical and regulatory costs. Legalizing won’t prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff

Starting today, it is legal to smoke marijuana in Washington State. That got me thinking: Could taxing stoners help balance state budgets? The answer is yes, but it wouldn’t help much. One 2010 study, done for the libertarian CATO Institute, figures legalizing and taxing weed would increase state tax revenues by about $9 billion a year and reduce spending on enforcement by about the same amount. Overall, legalizing pot would both reduce spending and raise tax revenue by about 0.5 percent, according to the authors, Jeffrey Miron and Katherine Waldock. The RAND Corporation, in its own 2010 report, concludes the revenue estimates from an excise tax on dope are much less certain. California officials estimated a state pot tax of $50 an ounce could generate as much as $1.4 billion but RAND concluded revenues could be much lower or even somewhat higher. Btw, the $50 tax is not pulled out of a hat—or, um, a bong. It is roughly equal to the tax on cigarettes. As with any excise tax, the amount of revenue a weed tax could generate is a function of four big things: The tax rate, supply, demand, and price. Each, of course, affects the other three. And, with marijuana, this gets pretty interesting—at least for a tax wonk. Besides, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Tea Party. How much would legalization boost demand? Well, economists can only guess. RAND reports there is good research on the response of cocaine use to changes in price, but not much when it comes to pot. Don’t ask. Stoners probably wouldn’t change behavior much. They seem to be getting as high as they want, even with illegal weed. Some current users might even stop or curtail their usage once dope becomes mainstream, and thus boring. Economists call this the “forbidden fruit” effect. Still, it is reasonable to expect legalization would increase demand overall–in part because casual users who won’t buy illicit marijuana might purchase once it is legal. On net, people would smoke more pot. But some users might also reduce their intake of booze. If so, that substitution of one drug for another might also reduce the net increase in tax revenue. And how about supply? Well, the two-handed economists strike again. On one hand, suppliers would no longer incur the costs of prohibition (such as, say, arrest). On the other, they would face new regulatory costs—and those pesky taxes. C’mon dude. Why can’t I get a straight answer? By comparing prices in the Netherlands, where grass was de facto legal, with prices in the U.S., Miron and Waldock figure the price of dope would fall by as much as half if the drug were legalized in the U.S. The RAND authors conclude it would decline even more, so legal weed (including tax) would cost only one-quarter to one-third as much as illicit marijuana. A brief word on spending. Both studies suggest that net costs to state and local governments would fall if pot is legalized. However lower enforcement costs might be offset a bit by higher medical and regulatory costs. All this seems to suggest two results. First, given an excuse (and some funding), economists will research almost anything. Second, legalizing dope will trim spending and generate some new taxes. Nationally, Miron and Waldock estimate that taxing dope would increase revenues by about $9 billion which, in the scheme of things, isn’t very much money. Legalizing dope and making it widely available certainly won’t prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff. On the other hand, maybe we won’t care as much.

<h4><u><strong>No internal to state budget -- just a drop in the bucket</h4><p>Gleckman 12</p><p></u></strong>Howard, 12-6-2012, "Dude, Would Legalizing And Taxing Weed Solve Our Budget Woes?," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/12/06/dude-would-legalizing-and-taxing-weed-solve-states-budget-woes/, AB</p><p>Starting today, it is legal to smoke marijuana in Washington State. That got me thinking: <u><strong><mark>Could taxing stoners help balance state budgets</u></strong></mark>? <u>The answer is yes, but <strong><mark>it wouldn’t help much</u></strong></mark>. One 2010 study, done for the libertarian CATO Institute, figures legalizing and taxing weed would increase state tax revenues by about $9 billion a year and reduce spending on enforcement by about the same amount. Overall, <u><strong>legalizing pot would both reduce spending and raise tax revenue by about 0.5 percent</u></strong>, according to the authors, Jeffrey Miron and Katherine Waldock. The RAND Corporation, in its own 2010 report, concludes <u>the <mark>revenue estimates</mark> from an excise tax</u> on dope <u><strong><mark>are much less certain</u></strong>.</mark> California officials estimated a state pot tax of $50 an ounce could generate as much as $1.4 billion but RAND concluded <u><strong>revenues could be much lower </u></strong>or even somewhat higher. Btw, the $50 tax is not pulled out of a hat—or, um, a bong. It is roughly equal to the tax on cigarettes. As with any excise tax, the amount of revenue a weed tax could generate is a function of four big things: The tax rate, supply, demand, and price. Each, of course, affects the other three. And, with marijuana, this gets pretty interesting—at least for a tax wonk. Besides, it gives a whole new meaning to the phrase Tea Party. How much would legalization boost demand? Well, economists can only guess. RAND reports there is good research on the response of cocaine use to changes in price, but not much when it comes to pot. Don’t ask. Stoners probably wouldn’t change behavior much. They seem to be getting as high as they want, even with illegal weed. Some <u><strong><mark>current users might even stop or curtail their usage once dope becomes mainstream</u></strong></mark>, and thus boring. Economists call this the “forbidden fruit” effect. Still, it is reasonable to expect legalization would increase demand overall–in part because casual users who won’t buy illicit marijuana might purchase once it is legal. On net, <u>people would smoke more pot</u>. <u>But some <strong><mark>users might also reduce their intake of booze</u></strong></mark>. If so, <u><strong><mark>that substitution</strong></mark> of one drug for another <mark>might also <strong>reduce the net increase in tax revenue.</mark> </u></strong>And <u>how about supply</u>? Well, the two-handed economists strike again. On one hand, <u><mark>suppliers</mark> would no longer incur the costs of prohibition</u> (such as, say, arrest). <u>On the other, <strong>they <mark>would face new regulatory costs</u></strong></mark>—and those pesky taxes. C’mon dude. Why can’t I get a straight answer? By comparing prices in the Netherlands, where grass was de facto legal, with prices in the U.S., Miron and Waldock figure the price of dope would fall by as much as half if the drug were legalized in the U.S. The RAND authors conclude it would decline even more, so legal weed (including tax) would cost only one-quarter to one-third as much as illicit marijuana. A brief word on spending. Both studies suggest that net costs to state and local governments would fall if pot is legalized. However <u><strong><mark>lower enforcement costs might be offset a bit by higher medical and regulatory costs.</mark> </u></strong>All this seems to suggest two results. First, given an excuse (and some funding), economists will research almost anything. Second, legalizing dope will trim spending and generate some new taxes. Nationally, Miron and Waldock estimate that <u>taxing dope would increase revenues</u> <u>by</u> about $<u>9 billion</u> <u>which</u>, in the scheme of things, <u><strong>isn’t very much money</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Legalizing</u></strong></mark> dope and making it widely available <u><strong>certainly <mark>won’t prevent us from going over the fiscal cliff</u></strong></mark>. On the other hand, maybe we won’t care as much.</p>

1NC

Econ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

N

Kentucky

2

Mary Washington SY

Rebecca Steiner

1ac was marihuana legalization with advantages of cartels and econ 1nc was t legalization security kritik gop bad midterms da the marijuana word pic and case 2nc was security 1nr was t and case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Afghan stability is resolved by regional cooperation and institutions

PAN 4/27

PAN 4/27 (Pajhwok Afghanistan News, April 27, 2013, “Regional states underline Afghan stability”, http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2013/04/27/regional-states-underline-afghan-stability, AB)

the international community and the region had a shared responsibility and common interest in working together for the sake of Afghanistan and the region as a whole. The support of non-regional countries and organisations is essential to the success Our shared interests are best served by cooperation, rather than competition in the Heart of Asia. The first priority and area of common concern is security Contemporary security threats have a global character and the only possible way to effectively counter them is for states to work together according to agreed principles and mechanisms of cooperation. we are determined to work together through the Istanbul Process to respond to our common security challenges and threats

the international community had a shared responsibility and common interest in working together for Afghanistan and the region interests are served by cooperation rather than competition The first concern is security. to effectively counter them is for mechanisms of cooperation we are determined to work together to respond to threats

It added the international community and the region had a shared responsibility and common interest in working together for the sake of Afghanistan and the region as a whole. The support of non-regional countries and organisations involved in the Istanbul Process is essential to the success of this shared effort. It welcomed efforts to promote a stable, independent, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan. “Our shared interests are best served by cooperation, rather than competition, in the Heart of Asia. We will therefore use the Istanbul Process to build a common platform of shared regional interests, as well as a secure and prosperous ‘Heart of Asia’ region where Afghanistan has a crucial role as a land-bridge, connecting South Asia, Central Asia, Eurasia, and the Middle East. “The first priority and area of common concern is security. Contemporary security challenges and threats have a global character and impact and the only possible way to effectively counter them is for states to work together according to agreed principles and mechanisms of cooperation. “In this context, as representatives of a region that is most affected by common security challenges, we are determined to work together through the Istanbul Process to respond to our common security challenges and threats,” the document said.

<h4>Afghan stability is resolved by regional cooperation and institutions </h4><p><u><strong><mark>PAN 4/27</u></strong></mark> (Pajhwok Afghanistan News, April 27, 2013, “Regional states underline Afghan stability”, http://www.pajhwok.com/en/2013/04/27/regional-states-underline-afghan-stability, AB)</p><p>It added <u><mark>the international community</mark> and the region <mark>had a <strong>shared responsibility</u></strong></mark> <u><mark>and</u></mark> <u><strong><mark>common interest</mark> </strong><mark>in working together for</mark> the sake of <mark>Afghanistan</mark> <mark>and the region</mark> as a whole. The support of non-regional countries and organisations</u> involved in the Istanbul Process <u>is essential</u> <u>to the success</u> of this shared effort. It welcomed efforts to promote a stable, independent, prosperous and democratic Afghanistan. “<u>Our shared <mark>interests</mark> <mark>are</mark> best <mark>served by <strong>cooperation</mark>, <mark>rather than competition</u></strong></mark>, <u>in</u> <u>the Heart of Asia.</u> We will therefore use the Istanbul Process to build a common platform of shared regional interests, as well as a secure and prosperous ‘Heart of Asia’ region where Afghanistan has a crucial role as a land-bridge, connecting South Asia, Central Asia, Eurasia, and the Middle East. “<u><mark>The</mark> <mark>first</mark> priority and area of common <mark>concern is security</u>. <u></mark>Contemporary security</u> challenges and <u>threats have a global character and</u> impact and <u>the only possible way <mark>to effectively counter them is for</mark> states to work together according to agreed principles and <strong><mark>mechanisms of cooperation</strong></mark>. </u>“In this context, as representatives of a region that is most affected by common security challenges, <u><strong><mark>we are determined to work together</u></strong></mark> <u>through the Istanbul Process <mark>to</mark> <mark>respond to</mark> our common security challenges and <mark>threats</u></mark>,” the document said.</p>

1NR

War on Drugs

Afghan Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

N

Fullerton

3

Michigan AP

Jared Anderson

1ac was marijuana with a war on drugs advantage 1nc was ontological security k neolib k afropessimism k nearly all spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No risk of bioterror

Ivanov 9/23

Ivanov 9/23 (Sandra Ivanov, postgraduate student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand, 9-23-14, “HOW TO MAKE THE ‘EBOLA BOMB': WHY YOU SHOULD STOP WORRYING ABOUT BIOTERRORISM,” http://cimsec.org/make-ebola-bomb-stop-worrying-bioterrorism/13069) gz

Many studies from a health, as well as a humanities perspective, assume that terrorists could successfully generate biological or chemical agents and weaponise them any terrorist group wanting to create and weaponise a biological or chemical agent will need to have an appropriate kitchen a standard biosafety level 4 scene will be required Some features of these laboratories include decontamination mechanisms, pest management systems, air filters, and special suits the kitchen will have to be in a separate building, or in an isolated area within a building to meet the safety requirements the baking process will need to be kept in total secrecy. The constant threat of law enforcements raiding facilities, and intelligence and secret services detecting activities will have to be avoided there are only some fifty of these laboratories successfully maintained worldwide a terrorist group must decide what kind of agent they would like to use in a bioterror attack Although Ebola infection of animals through aerosol particles can be effective, it has not successfully been transferred with this method to humans a substantial amount of material and money is required. Investment is needed from the very outset – taking into account membership size and capabilities of a terrorist group, financial assets of a group, and making sure territory and proper infrastructure is available for the biological agent. For a successful bomb to be created, a group must think about the resources they will need for each stage of the baking process, such as weapons production, potential testing phases, and logistics, such as transportation and communications technologies Resources needed for an “Ebola Bomb” will most likely need to be imported from the outside, and a group must determine the feasibility of acquiring the materials and technologies needed for the bomb A surplus of money would also be a smart idea in case technical difficulties arise. 5 Cups of Expertise the recipe will require the right kind of know-how a terrorist group should have members with high levels of education and training in science, engineering, and technological development, to deal with highly virulent agents, and for successful weaponisation A group may need to be integrated into knowledge flows and institutions, or be able to recruit members to their cause with this specific expertise Knowledge and expertise is required to create the correct strain, handling the agent, growing the agent with the desired characteristics, and maintaining the agent. Taking Ebola specifically requires synthesising proteins which make it infectious, and becomes a task that is difficult and unlikely to succeed If Ebola is successfully created in the kitchen, it is not itself a biological weapon – an expert will be required to transform the virus into a workable mechanism for dissemination spoon of Risk The decision MARKED to use biological weapons for an attack is in itself extremely risky bioterrorism could cause dissenting views among followers, and that public approval and opinion may channel the way a group operates terrorists are political communicators, wanting to bring attention to their grievances. If a group becomes polarised or resented by their actions, they will not see the benefits of pursuing certain methods. Terrorists want to send powerful messages, gain more members, in which these members assist to bring about certain plans and demands. Therefore, public opinion and political opportunism will be risked in a quest to create a bioweapon a terrorist group may be subject to more scrutiny or attention States will be more vigilant towards groups that are known to be seeking and acquiring biological and chemical capabilities risk will always cling on to funding requirements, and potential technical difficulties in all stages of the bioweapon making process. A fist full of time may be needed so that knowledge, both tacit and explicit, can be acquired, as well as accounting for the various mistakes and learning curves to overcome It will take time to create a successful weapon with prior testing, and wait for the correct environmental conditions when it comes to dissemination. A Pinch of Curiosity of the Unknown risk coincides with uncertainty, and there will need to be a commitment to potential unknown factors. It is unknown what will happen once a virus is disseminated. Will the weapon even work in the first place? Weather conditions are unpredictable and Ebola will not have a prominent effect in certain environments. What happens to the terrorist group if the attack fails? What happens to the reputation of the group and its membership, or will the group cease to exist? If the recipe is a success, it is impossible to control the biological agent which is released – not only can it affect the targeted population, but it may annihilate the terrorist group itself. There will be an unknown into potentially losing local and international support, and donors if this causes widespread catastrophe. The process of turning a biological agent into a weapon for attack is the phase with the most hurdles for terrorist groups it has to be disseminated through an effective delivery mechanism Weaponising a live host is more difficult than other agents which can be cultured on dishes of nutrients. The process has many stages which involve testing, refining, upgrading, and toughening. The methods to disseminate an agent are only known to few people, and rarely published Let’s take Aum Shinrikyo as an example of conducting a bioterrorist attack even with money and resources, they failed to effectively weaponise the chemical. Factors which led to their failure included internal secrecy and breakdown in communication; selecting members only solely dedicated to their cause to work on the weapons, ultimately employing unskilled people to operate and maintain the project, causing accidents and leaks Aum Shinrikyo’s attempt to disseminate botulinum toxin into Tokyo using a truck with a compressor and vents, did not work because they had not acquired an infectious strain this “Ebola Bomb” has not come close to containing the right requirements needed to explode. Looking back historically, pathogens, and all kinds of toxins have been used as tools in sabotage and assassinations since the beginning of time. the likelihood of its development and use by a terrorist group is quite improbable Mentioning Aum Shinrikyo again, they are an organisation which at the time, had a war chest of more than $300 million, with six laboratories and a handful of biologists, in the end having insurmountable difficulties with the weaponisation and dissemination processes, and killing a dozen people Examining state biological weapons programmes, Soviet Russia had almost 60,000 personnel employed in their weapons development, with only about 100 people that actually knew how to take an agent through the full production process. In the United States, at Fort Detrick, there were 250 buildings with 3,000 personnel, and it took them a while to weaponise a single agent, such as botulinum the narrative has assumed a worst case scenario analysis, and subsequently narrowed down bioterrorism to a single threat prognosis There is little distinction made between what is conceivable and possible, and what is likely in terms of bioterrorism. Anything can be conceived as a terrorist threat, but what is the reality? The “Ebola Bomb” is not a danger. The likelihood of a bioterrorist attack remains highly unlikely The effectiveness of biological weapons has never been clearly shown, the numbers of casualties have been small and it is likely that hoaxes and false alarms in the future will continue to outnumber real events and create disruptive hysteria

any group wanting to weaponise a biological agent will need a biosafety level 4 scene features include decontamination pest management filters, and suits in total secrecy law enforcements and intelligence will have to be avoided there are only fifty of these worldwide Ebola through aerosol has not successfully been transferred to humans substantial money is required a group must think about resources for each stage Resources will need to be imported a group should have education in science, engineering, and tech A group may need to be integrated into knowledge flows Ebola requires synthesising proteins a task that is difficult and unlikely to succeed spoon of Risk The decision to use bio weapons is extremely risky bioterrorism could cause dissent among followers terrorists want attention If a group becomes resented they will not pursu certain methods States will be more vigilant towards groups known to seek biological capabilities It will take time to create a successful weapon It is unknown what will happen Will the weapon work ? Weather conditions are unpredictable What happens if the attack fails? it is impossible to control the agent which is released it may annihilate the terrorist group turning a biological agent into a weapon is the phase with the most hurdles Weaponising a live host has many stages which involve testing, refining, upgrading, and toughening methods are only known to few and rarely published Let’s take Aum Shinrikyo even with money they failed to weaponise the chemical employing unskilled people causing accidents and leaks Aum Shinrikyo had more than $300 million six laboratories and biologists Russia had only 100 people that knew how to take an agent through production the U S took a while to weaponise a single agent a bioterrorist attack remains highly unlikely

Many studies from a health, as well as a humanities perspective, assume that terrorists could successfully generate biological or chemical agents and weaponise them. Taking this initial premise, a lot of literature has been based around this looming threat, subsequently offering policy advice, public health recommendations, and technological investment to avoid such catastrophes. However it would be useful to deconstruct this claim entirely. So I’ll begin by offering a baking recipe, to explore at the very core, what a group would need to do to successfully create a biological weapon, in this case, utilising the Ebola virus. Ingredients Firstly, any terrorist group wanting to create and weaponise a biological or chemical agent will need to have an appropriate kitchen. In the case of the Ebola virus, a standard biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) scene will be required (Adeline M. Nyamathi et al., “Ebola Virus: Immune Mechanisms of Protection and Vaccine Development“, Biological Research For Nursing 4, No. 4, April 2003: 276-281). Some features of these laboratories include decontamination mechanisms, pest management systems, air filters, and special suits. Sometimes the kitchen will have to be in a separate building, or in an isolated area within a building to meet the safety requirements. Not only will the kitchen be under strict conditions, the baking process will need to be kept in total secrecy. The constant threat of law enforcements raiding facilities, and intelligence and secret services detecting activities will have to be avoided. Also, there are only some fifty of these laboratories successfully maintained worldwide. Before starting, make sure there is a baking dish of ‘uncertainty’ readily available to just throw all of the following ingredients into: 1 Tablespoon of Proper Agent Initially, a terrorist group must decide what kind of agent they would like to use in a bioterror attack. This is one part of the recipe which can be modified, but the other ingredients will be standard for all types of attacks. The recent spread of the deadly Ebola virus will be the agent of choice for this bomb. Ebola is a virus which is passed to humans through contact with infected animals. The spread of the virus from person-to-person is brought about through blood and bodily fluids, as well as exposure to a contaminated environment. An infected live host with Ebola would need to be maintained in a human or animal – only a few animals are able to be used as hosts, such as primates, bats, and forest antelope. Although Ebola infection of animals through aerosol particles can be effective, it has not successfully been transferred with this method to humans (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan, “Bioterrorism: Preparing for the impossible or the improbable“, Critical Care Medicine 33, No. 1, January 2005: 75-95). 1 Bucket of Resources and Money In order to develop a biological weapon, a substantial amount of material and money is required. Investment is needed from the very outset – taking into account membership size and capabilities of a terrorist group, financial assets of a group, and making sure territory and proper infrastructure is available for the biological agent. For a successful bomb to be created, a group must think about the resources they will need for each stage of the baking process, such as weapons production, potential testing phases, and logistics, such as transportation and communications technologies (Victor H. Asal, Gary A. Ackerman and R. Karl Rethemeyer, “Connections Can Be Toxic: Terrorist Organizational Factors and the Pursuit of CBRN Terrorism“, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2006). Resources needed for an “Ebola Bomb” will most likely need to be imported from the outside, and a group must determine the feasibility of acquiring the materials and technologies needed for the bomb (Jean Pascal Zanders, “Assessing the risk of chemical and biological weapons proliferation to terrorists“, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall 1999: 17-34). A surplus of money would also be a smart idea in case technical difficulties arise. 5 Cups of Expertise With all the correct resources and necessary amount of monetary support, the recipe will require the right kind of know-how. For an operation like this, a terrorist group should have members with high levels of education and training in science, engineering, and technological development, to deal with highly virulent agents, and for successful weaponisation (Zanders). A group may need to be integrated into knowledge flows and institutions, or be able to recruit members to their cause with this specific expertise (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). Knowledge and expertise is required to create the correct strain, handling the agent, growing the agent with the desired characteristics, and maintaining the agent. Taking Ebola specifically requires synthesising proteins which make it infectious, and becomes a task that is difficult and unlikely to succeed (Amanda M. Teckma, “The Bioterrorist Threat of Ebola in East Africa and Implications for Global Health and Security“, Global Policy Essay, May 2013). If Ebola is successfully created in the kitchen, it is not itself a biological weapon – an expert will be required to transform the virus into a workable mechanism for dissemination. A Teaspoon of Risk The decision MARKED to use biological weapons for an attack is in itself extremely risky. There is a risk that bioterrorism could cause dissenting views among followers, and that public approval and opinion may channel the way a group operates. After all, terrorists are political communicators, wanting to bring attention to their grievances. If a group becomes polarised or resented by their actions, they will not see the benefits of pursuing certain methods. Terrorists want to send powerful messages, gain more members, in which these members assist to bring about certain plans and demands. Therefore, public opinion and political opportunism will be risked in a quest to create a bioweapon such as an “Ebola Bomb” (Zanders). Secondly, a terrorist group may be subject to more scrutiny or attention. This is why keeping activities covert will be a key to success. States will be more vigilant towards groups that are known to be seeking and acquiring biological and chemical capabilities (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). And finally, risk will always cling on to funding requirements, and potential technical difficulties in all stages of the bioweapon making process. A Fist of Time Now this recipe is going to take a while to prepare and bake in the oven, and there is no particular moment to determine when it should be removed from the baking dish. So, whatever group wants to make this bomb, will need to realise this is a long-term and complex effort. It will not work like most conventional weapons, which produce a high number of casualties with a single explosion, and that could be a reason why bioterrorism is not the most popular means for a violent attack – demanding time, effort, and resources without guarantees of a concrete result. A fist full of time may be needed so that knowledge, both tacit and explicit, can be acquired, as well as accounting for the various mistakes and learning curves to overcome (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). It can also refer to how long it will take to cook up, maintain and prepare a virus for an attack. It will take time to create a successful weapon with prior testing, and wait for the correct environmental conditions when it comes to dissemination. Time will have to be a group investment – it is not the kind of bomb that will detonate immediately. A Pinch of Curiosity of the Unknown The teaspoon of risk coincides with uncertainty, and there will need to be a commitment to potential unknown factors. It is unknown what will happen once a virus is disseminated. Will the weapon even work in the first place? Weather conditions are unpredictable and Ebola will not have a prominent effect in certain environments. What happens to the terrorist group if the attack fails? What happens to the reputation of the group and its membership, or will the group cease to exist? If the recipe is a success, it is impossible to control the biological agent which is released – not only can it affect the targeted population, but it may annihilate the terrorist group itself. There will be an unknown into potentially losing local and international support, and donors if this causes widespread catastrophe. Method: Weaponisation and Dissemination Mix that up good in your baking dish of what is now “deep uncertainty” and pop it in the oven to bake. But as time passes, it seems as though the ingredients are not rising. The process of turning a biological agent into a weapon for attack is the phase with the most hurdles for terrorist groups. In order for a virus to inflict a lot of harm, it has to be disseminated through an effective delivery mechanism. As mentioned previously, the Ebola virus needs a live host. Weaponising a live host is more difficult than other agents which can be cultured on dishes of nutrients. The process has many stages which involve testing, refining, upgrading, and toughening. The methods to disseminate an agent are only known to few people, and rarely published – it is not a basement project (Teckman). Let’s take Aum Shinrikyo as an example of conducting a bioterrorist attack (even it was “only” a chemical attack). This apocalyptic religious organisation in Japan managed to release sarin gas inside a Tokyo subway, killing a dozen people, and injuring 50. However, even with money and resources, they failed to effectively weaponise the chemical. Factors which led to their failure included internal secrecy and breakdown in communication; selecting members only solely dedicated to their cause to work on the weapons, ultimately employing unskilled people to operate and maintain the project, causing accidents and leaks (Zanders). Aum Shinrikyo’s attempt to disseminate botulinum toxin into Tokyo using a truck with a compressor and vents, did not work because they had not acquired an infectious strain (Sharon Begley, “Unmasking Bioterror“, Newsweek, 13.03.2010; “Chronology of Aum Shinrikyo’s CBW Activities“, Monterey Institute of International Studies, 2001). Finally, a major obstacle to successfully disseminating Ebola, is because this virus requires a specific environment in order to thrive. Weather conditions can be unpredictable, and Ebola particularly needs high temperatures and humidity to remain effective. Decoration: Results and Conclusions Obviously, this “Ebola Bomb” has not come close to containing the right requirements needed to explode. Looking back historically, pathogens, and all kinds of toxins have been used as tools in sabotage and assassinations since the beginning of time. Now, it would be silly to say this recipe will never work – there will always be a possibility that Ebola or other viruses may be used as biological weapons in the future. However, the likelihood of its development and use by a terrorist group is quite improbable. Mentioning Aum Shinrikyo again, they are an organisation which at the time, had a war chest of more than $300 million, with six laboratories and a handful of biologists, in the end having insurmountable difficulties with the weaponisation and dissemination processes, and killing a dozen people (Begley). There is a greater amount of knowledge and technology available in our day and age than in 1995 with the Aum Shinrikyo attacks, but it is still unlikely that this will be the weapon of choice. Examining state biological weapons programmes, Soviet Russia had almost 60,000 personnel employed in their weapons development, with only about 100 people that actually knew how to take an agent through the full production process. In the United States, at Fort Detrick, there were 250 buildings with 3,000 personnel, and it took them a while to weaponise a single agent, such as botulinum (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan). Nowadays, the narrative has assumed a worst case scenario analysis, and subsequently narrowed down bioterrorism to a single threat prognosis. There is little distinction made between what is conceivable and possible, and what is likely in terms of bioterrorism. Anything can be conceived as a terrorist threat, but what is the reality? The “Ebola Bomb” is not a danger. The likelihood of a bioterrorist attack remains highly unlikely (Teckman). The focus should be on preventing natural pandemics of human disease, such as tuberculosis, SARS, AIDS and influenza – emphasis placed on how we can cure diseases, and how medical training could be improved to contain, and avoid viruses such as Ebola altogether. Resources are being pumped into biodefence in the security as well as the medical sector, but preparedness and investment in bioterrorism needs to be in proportion to actual threats, otherwise, funds are diverted away from much needed public health programmes: The effectiveness of biological weapons has never been clearly shown, the numbers of casualties have been small and it is likely that hoaxes and false alarms in the future will continue to outnumber real events and create disruptive hysteria (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan). Emphasis needs to be back on medical research, as well as social science investigations into the roots of why terrorist groups would even want to pursue biological weapons, and the lengths they would go to use them. Let this be an avenue for further pondering and exploring, the realities of bioterrorism.

<h4>No risk of bioterror</h4><p><u><strong>Ivanov 9/23</u></strong> (Sandra Ivanov, postgraduate student at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Otago in New Zealand, 9-23-14, “HOW TO MAKE THE ‘EBOLA BOMB': WHY YOU SHOULD STOP WORRYING ABOUT BIOTERRORISM,” http://cimsec.org/make-ebola-bomb-stop-worrying-bioterrorism/13069) gz</p><p><u>Many studies from a health, as well as a humanities perspective, assume that terrorists could successfully generate biological or chemical agents and weaponise them</u>. Taking this initial premise, a lot of literature has been based around this looming threat, subsequently offering policy advice, public health recommendations, and technological investment to avoid such catastrophes. However it would be useful to deconstruct this claim entirely. So I’ll begin by offering a baking recipe, to explore at the very core, what a group would need to do to successfully create a biological weapon, in this case, utilising the Ebola virus.</p><p>Ingredients</p><p>Firstly, <u><mark>any</mark> terrorist <mark>group wanting to</mark> create and <mark>weaponise a biological</mark> or chemical <mark>agent will need</mark> to have an appropriate kitchen</u>. In the case of the Ebola virus,<mark> <u>a </mark>standard <mark>biosafety level 4</u></mark> (BSL-4) <u><mark>scene</mark> will be required</u> (Adeline M. Nyamathi et al., “Ebola Virus: Immune Mechanisms of Protection and Vaccine Development“, Biological Research For Nursing 4, No. 4, April 2003: 276-281). <u>Some <mark>features</mark> of these laboratories <mark>include decontamination</mark> mechanisms, <mark>pest management</mark> systems, air <mark>filters, and</mark> special <mark>suits</u></mark>. Sometimes <u>the kitchen will have to be in a separate building, or in an isolated area within a building to meet the safety requirements</u>. Not only will the kitchen be under strict conditions, <u>the baking process will need to be kept <mark>in total secrecy</mark>. The constant threat of <mark>law enforcements</mark> raiding facilities, <mark>and intelligence</mark> and secret services detecting activities <mark>will have to be avoided</u></mark>. Also, <u><mark>there are only</mark> some <mark>fifty of these</mark> laboratories successfully maintained <mark>worldwide</u></mark>.</p><p>Before starting, make sure there is a baking dish of ‘uncertainty’ readily available to just throw all of the following ingredients into:</p><p>1 Tablespoon of Proper Agent</p><p>Initially, <u>a terrorist group must decide what kind of agent they would like to use in a bioterror attack</u>. This is one part of the recipe which can be modified, but the other ingredients will be standard for all types of attacks. The recent spread of the deadly Ebola virus will be the agent of choice for this bomb. Ebola is a virus which is passed to humans through contact with infected animals. The spread of the virus from person-to-person is brought about through blood and bodily fluids, as well as exposure to a contaminated environment. An infected live host with Ebola would need to be maintained in a human or animal – only a few animals are able to be used as hosts, such as primates, bats, and forest antelope. <u>Although <mark>Ebola</mark> infection of animals <mark>through aerosol</mark> particles can be effective, it <mark>has not successfully been transferred</mark> with this method <mark>to humans</u></mark> (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan, “Bioterrorism: Preparing for the impossible or the improbable“, Critical Care Medicine 33, No. 1, January 2005: 75-95).</p><p>1 Bucket of Resources and Money</p><p>In order to develop a biological weapon, <u>a <mark>substantial</mark> amount of material and <mark>money is required</mark>. Investment is needed from the very outset – taking into account membership size and capabilities of a terrorist group, financial assets of a group, and making sure territory and proper infrastructure is available for the biological agent. For a successful bomb to be created, <mark>a group must think about</mark> the <mark>resources</mark> they will need <mark>for each stage</mark> of the baking process, such as weapons production, potential testing phases, and logistics, such as transportation and communications technologies</u> (Victor H. Asal, Gary A. Ackerman and R. Karl Rethemeyer, “Connections Can Be Toxic: Terrorist Organizational Factors and the Pursuit of CBRN Terrorism“, National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, 2006). <u><mark>Resources</mark> needed for an “Ebola Bomb” <mark>will</mark> most likely <mark>need to be imported</mark> from the outside, and a group must determine the feasibility of acquiring the materials and technologies needed for the bomb</u> (Jean Pascal Zanders, “Assessing the risk of chemical and biological weapons proliferation to terrorists“, The Nonproliferation Review, Fall 1999: 17-34). <u>A surplus of money would also be a smart idea in case technical difficulties arise.</p><p>5 Cups of Expertise</p><p></u>With all the correct resources and necessary amount of monetary support, <u>the recipe will require the right kind of know-how</u>. For an operation like this,<mark> <u>a </mark>terrorist <mark>group should have</mark> members with high levels of <mark>education</mark> and training <mark>in science, engineering, and tech</mark>nological development, to deal with highly virulent agents, and for successful weaponisation</u> (Zanders). <u><mark>A group may need to be integrated into knowledge flows</mark> and institutions, or be able to recruit members to their cause with this specific expertise</u> (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). <u>Knowledge and expertise is required to create the correct strain, handling the agent, growing the agent with the desired characteristics, and maintaining the agent. Taking <mark>Ebola</mark> specifically <mark>requires synthesising proteins</mark> which make it infectious, and becomes <mark>a task that is difficult and unlikely to succeed</u></mark> (Amanda M. Teckma, “The Bioterrorist Threat of Ebola in East Africa and Implications for Global</p><p>Health and Security“, Global Policy Essay, May 2013). <u>If Ebola is successfully created in the kitchen, it is not itself a biological weapon – an expert will be required to transform the virus into a workable mechanism for dissemination</u>.</p><p>A Tea<u><mark>spoon of Risk</p><p>The decision </p><p></mark>MARKED</p><p><mark>to use bio</mark>logical <mark>weapons</mark> for an attack <mark>is</mark> in itself <mark>extremely risky</u></mark>. There is a risk that <u><mark>bioterrorism could cause dissent</mark>ing views <mark>among followers</mark>, and that public approval and opinion may channel the way a group operates</u>. After all, <u><mark>terrorists</mark> are political communicators, <mark>want</mark>ing to bring <mark>attention</mark> to their grievances. <mark>If a group becomes</mark> polarised or <mark>resented</mark> by their actions, <mark>they will not</mark> see the benefits of <mark>pursu</mark>ing <mark>certain methods</mark>. Terrorists want to send powerful messages, gain more members, in which these members assist to bring about certain plans and demands. Therefore, public opinion and political opportunism will be risked in a quest to create a bioweapon</u> such as an “Ebola Bomb” (Zanders). Secondly, <u>a terrorist group may be subject to more scrutiny or attention</u>. This is why keeping activities covert will be a key to success. <u><mark>States will be more vigilant towards groups</mark> that are <mark>known to</mark> be <mark>seek</mark>ing and acquiring <mark>biological</mark> and chemical <mark>capabilities</u></mark> (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). And finally, <u>risk will always cling on to funding requirements, and potential technical difficulties in all stages of the bioweapon making process.</p><p></u>A Fist of Time</p><p>Now this recipe is going to take a while to prepare and bake in the oven, and there is no particular moment to determine when it should be removed from the baking dish. So, whatever group wants to make this bomb, will need to realise this is a long-term and complex effort. It will not work like most conventional weapons, which produce a high number of casualties with a single explosion, and that could be a reason why bioterrorism is not the most popular means for a violent attack – demanding time, effort, and resources without guarantees of a concrete result. <u>A fist full of time may be needed so that knowledge, both tacit and explicit, can be acquired, as well as accounting for the various mistakes and learning curves to overcome</u> (Asal, Ackerman and Rethemeyer). It can also refer to how long it will take to cook up, maintain and prepare a virus for an attack. <u><mark>It will take time to create a successful weapon</mark> with prior testing, and wait for the correct environmental conditions when it comes to dissemination.</u> Time will have to be a group investment – it is not the kind of bomb that will detonate immediately.</p><p><u>A Pinch of Curiosity of the Unknown</p><p></u>The teaspoon of <u>risk coincides with uncertainty, and there will need to be a commitment to potential unknown factors. <mark>It is unknown what will happen</mark> once a virus is disseminated. <mark>Will the weapon</mark> even <mark>work</mark> in the first place<mark>? Weather conditions are unpredictable</mark> and Ebola will not have a prominent effect in certain environments. <mark>What happens</mark> to the terrorist group <mark>if the attack fails?</mark> What happens to the reputation of the group and its membership, or will the group cease to exist? If the recipe is a success, <mark>it is impossible to control the</mark> biological <mark>agent which is released</mark> – not only can it affect the targeted population, but <mark>it may annihilate the terrorist group</mark> itself. There will be an unknown into potentially losing local and international support, and donors if this causes widespread catastrophe.</p><p></u>Method: Weaponisation and Dissemination </p><p>Mix that up good in your baking dish of what is now “deep uncertainty” and pop it in the oven to bake. But as time passes, it seems as though the ingredients are not rising. <u>The process of <mark>turning a biological agent into a weapon</mark> for attack <mark>is the phase with the most hurdles</mark> for terrorist groups</u>. In order for a virus to inflict a lot of harm, <u>it has to be disseminated through an effective delivery mechanism</u>. As mentioned previously, the Ebola virus needs a live host. <u><mark>Weaponising a live host </mark>is more difficult than other agents which can be cultured on dishes of nutrients. The process <mark>has many stages which involve testing, refining, upgrading, and toughening</mark>. The <mark>methods</mark> to disseminate an agent <mark>are only known to few</mark> people, <mark>and rarely published</u></mark> – it is not a basement project (Teckman).</p><p><u><mark>Let’s take Aum Shinrikyo</mark> as an example of conducting a bioterrorist attack</u> (even it was “only” a chemical attack). This apocalyptic religious organisation in Japan managed to release sarin gas inside a Tokyo subway, killing a dozen people, and injuring 50. However, <u><mark>even with money</mark> and resources, <mark>they failed to</mark> effectively <mark>weaponise the chemical</mark>. Factors which led to their failure included internal secrecy and breakdown in communication; selecting members only solely dedicated to their cause to work on the weapons, ultimately <mark>employing unskilled people</mark> to operate and maintain the project, <mark>causing accidents and leaks</u></mark> (Zanders). <u>Aum Shinrikyo’s attempt to disseminate botulinum toxin into Tokyo using a truck with a compressor and vents, did not work because they had not acquired an infectious strain</u> (Sharon Begley, “Unmasking Bioterror“, Newsweek, 13.03.2010; “Chronology of Aum Shinrikyo’s CBW Activities“, Monterey Institute of International Studies, 2001). Finally, a major obstacle to successfully disseminating Ebola, is because this virus requires a specific environment in order to thrive. Weather conditions can be unpredictable, and Ebola particularly needs high temperatures and humidity to remain effective.</p><p>Decoration: Results and Conclusions</p><p>Obviously, <u>this “Ebola Bomb” has not come close to containing the right requirements needed to explode. Looking back historically, pathogens, and all kinds of toxins have been used as tools in sabotage and assassinations since the beginning of time.</u> Now, it would be silly to say this recipe will never work – there will always be a possibility that Ebola or other viruses may be used as biological weapons in the future. However, <u>the likelihood of its development and use by a terrorist group is quite improbable</u>.</p><p><u>Mentioning <mark>Aum Shinrikyo</mark> again, they are an organisation which at the time, <mark>had</mark> a war chest of <mark>more than $300 million</mark>, with <mark>six laboratories and</mark> a handful of <mark>biologists</mark>, in the end having insurmountable difficulties with the weaponisation and dissemination processes, and killing a dozen people</u> (Begley). There is a greater amount of knowledge and technology available in our day and age than in 1995 with the Aum Shinrikyo attacks, but it is still unlikely that this will be the weapon of choice. <u>Examining state biological weapons programmes, Soviet <mark>Russia had</mark> almost 60,000 personnel employed in their weapons development, with <mark>only</mark> about <mark>100 people that</mark> actually <mark>knew how to take an agent through</mark> the full <mark>production</mark> process. In <mark>the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates, at Fort Detrick, there were 250 buildings with 3,000 personnel, and it <mark>took</mark> them <mark>a while to weaponise a single agent</mark>, such as botulinum</u> (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan).</p><p>Nowadays, <u>the narrative has assumed a worst case scenario analysis, and subsequently narrowed down bioterrorism to a single threat prognosis</u>. <u>There is little distinction made between what is conceivable and possible, and what is likely in terms of bioterrorism. Anything can be conceived as a terrorist threat, but what is the reality? The “Ebola Bomb” is not a danger. The likelihood of <mark>a bioterrorist attack remains highly unlikely</u></mark> (Teckman). The focus should be on preventing natural pandemics of human disease, such as tuberculosis, SARS, AIDS and influenza – emphasis placed on how we can cure diseases, and how medical training could be improved to contain, and avoid viruses such as Ebola altogether. Resources are being pumped into biodefence in the security as well as the medical sector, but preparedness and investment in bioterrorism needs to be in proportion to actual threats, otherwise, funds are diverted away from much needed public health programmes:</p><p><u>The effectiveness of biological weapons has never been clearly shown, the numbers of casualties have been small and it is likely that hoaxes and false alarms in the future will continue to outnumber real events and create disruptive hysteria</u> (Manoj Karwa, Brian Currie and Vladimir Kvetan). Emphasis needs to be back on medical research, as well as social science investigations into the roots of why terrorist groups would even want to pursue biological weapons, and the lengths they would go to use them. Let this be an avenue for further pondering and exploring, the realities of bioterrorism.</p>

1NR

Cartels

Bioterror

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

N

Kentucky

5

UTD LO

Kristen Stout

1ac was marijuana with hemp and cartels 1nc was security and gop bad midterms and marijuana word pic and t legalization spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was case and security

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The illegality of PAS bars women from the transgressive act of death in the name of futurity and life preservation, allowing gendered norms to dominate end-of-life care. This regime of medicalization keeps suffering women alive to sustain patriarchal values. Diane Raymond explains

Diane, professor of Gender Studies at Simmons College, Ph.D in philosophy from NYU, “’Fatal practices’: A feminist analysis of physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia” Hypatia Spring 1999. Vol. 14:2 SJE

Wolf extends her argument against PAS by grounding the examples just discussed in a gendered context where passivity have been the normative ideal. Wolf oversimplifies and overgeneralizes that history. Many cultures equated suicide with courage and thereby framed the practice as male. Wolf's ascription of suicide as a "woman's solution" might be as inaccurate and overly monolithic a description of ancient Greek practice and ideology as it appears of the present, where statistics show that older white men kill themselves at a rate five times higher than the national average the slippage in Wolf's argument from self-sacrifice to suicide makes the argument suspect; rather than conflating the two, one might argue that, given that women's historical role has been to endure selflessly all forms of labor and abuse suicide may for women be the ultimate transgressive act. even if we agree that popular discussions of PAS and euthanasia "may be animated by gendered logic all that follows is the more modest conclusion that we must interrogate that logic before making a normative judgment about the practice. if there is any gendered difference in end-of-life treatments, it is that men are undertreated and women are overtreated the superficial inconsistency between men's end-of-life treatments and their greater access to earlier treatment options might instead reflect a pattern consistent with patriarchal ideology, namely that we hold to a higher standard of quality of life for men than for women. gender ideology, in valorizing female passivity, may actively collude with the medical profession in keeping dying, suffering women alive. one can agree wholeheartedly with Wolf's claim that "the very meaning of the patient's request for death is socially constructed" (1996, 299) while rejecting her understanding of that meaning or being willing to entertain multiple interpretations.

Wolf oversimplifies and overgeneralizes that history. Many cultures equated suicide with courage and framed the practice as male Wolf's ascription of suicide as a "woman's solution" might be inaccurate and overly monolithic the slippage in Wolf's argument from self-sacrifice to suicide makes the argument suspect; rather than conflating the two given that women's historical role has been to endure selflessly all forms of labor and abuse suicide may for women be the ultimate transgressive act. even if discussions of PAS may be animated by gendered logic all that follows is that we must interrogate that logic before making a normative judgment about the practice men are undertreated and women are overtreated. the inconsistency between men's end-of-life treatments and their greater access to earlier treatment options might reflect patriarchal ideology that we hold to a higher standard of quality of life for men than for women gender ideology may actively collude with the medical profession in keeping suffering women alive

In the section "Gender in Cases, Images, and Practices," Wolf extends her argument against PAS by grounding the examples just discussed in a gendered context where female self-sacrifice and passivity have been the normative ideal. That insight leads her to explore the historical and cultural background of suicide and its ideology, suggestively using Greek tragedy, the nineteenth-century cult of True Womanhood, and Carol Gilligan's research to confirm that self-sacrifice has traditionally been associated with women and regarded thereby as a feminine virtue. Yet, while there is no doubt as to the misogynistic history of women's constrained choices, Wolf oversimplifies and overgeneralizes that history. Many cultures--the Stoic, for example--equated suicide with courage and thereby framed the practice as male. The Greek tradition of soldiers throwing themselves on their swords rather than be taken as slaves, the Japanese ritual of hara-kiri, the examples of Hemingway, Kohlberg, and numerous others--these easily recoverable cases suggest that suicide can be seen as part of a masculinist ideology or at least not unproblematically feminine. 10 While a more in-depth analysis would probably reveal much divergence even in ancient Greek practice, Wolf's ascription of suicide as a "woman's solution" (Wolf 1996, 289) might be as inaccurate and overly monolithic a description of ancient Greek practice and ideology as it appears of the present, where statistics show that older white men kill themselves at a rate five times higher than the national average (National Center for Health Statistics Report 1987). Given patriarchal ideology's equation of masculinity with strength and power, men's heightened inability to cope with aging and illness makes sense intuitively. Further, women's lived experiences with multiple forms of dependence and interdependence--pregnancy, childrearing, and so forth--may mitigate some of the anxiety associated with aging, dependence on others, and decreasing physical autonomy.¶ Further, the slippage in Wolf's argument from self-sacrifice (a "feminine not masculine virtue" [1996, 289]) to suicide makes the argument suspect; rather than conflating the two, one might argue that, given that women's historical role has been to endure selflessly all forms of labor and abuse, particularly in the domestic sphere, suicide may for women be the ultimate transgressive act. One need not, however, go that far or make men's behavior normative to challenge Wolf's argument. For even if we agree that popular discussions of PAS and euthanasia "may be animated by unacknowledged images that give the practices a certain gendered logic and felt correctness" (Wolf 1996, 289), all that follows is the more modest conclusion that we must interrogate that logic before making a normative judgment about the practice. The gender ideology fleshed out in Wolf's analysis may lead, as suggested earlier, to great reluctance, not eagerness, to allow PAS or euthanasia for women. Indeed, some evidence suggests that if there is any gendered difference in end-of-life treatments, it is that men are undertreated and women are overtreated. Steven Miles and Allison August, for example, have examined a number of judicial decisions relating to withdrawal of treatment at end-of-life and find a pattern of acceding to male patients' wishes over females'. They note that women are held to higher evidentiary standards when requests to die are examined, and they remark on the ways in which gendered language in judicial treatments of these cases tends to rob women of their agency. Women and not men, for example, are routinely infantilized by referring to them by their first names ("Debbie" and "Diane" fit this pattern); and men's statements about end-of-life treatment are held to reflect "mature, rational choice" while women's are seen as "unreflective, emotional, or immature" (Miles and August 1990, 87). Karen Quinlan's comments to her mother were thereby dismissed as a "wish" or personal "distaste" and not a genuine expression of her values. In another case, a woman's repeated comments regarding her desire not to be kept on life support were trivialized as no "more than immediate reaction to the unsettling experience of seeing or hearing of another unnecessarily prolonged death" (in Miles and August 1990, 88). Courts seem even to discount women's advance directives, preferring instead to appoint family members as decision-makers for the incompetent woman; in one case, the Court empowered a woman's husband/guardian to make the decision "for" her, despite the fact that she had been an active member of the state's "Euthanasia Council." Women's "overtreatment" at end-of-life may seem odd considering men's greater access to earlier interventions, including more standard diagnostic procedures like angiograms and more "exotic" treatments like organ transplants. But the superficial inconsistency between men's end-of-life treatments and their greater access to earlier treatment options might instead reflect a pattern consistent with patriarchal ideology, namely that we hold to a higher standard of quality of life for men than for women. If such is the case, then gender ideology, in valorizing female passivity, may actively collude with the medical profession in keeping dying, suffering women alive. Likewise, ideological constructions of masculinity as inextricably aligned with agency, activity, and transcendence might lead to respect for men's medical directives--formal and informal--as well as to gendered distinctions on quality-of-life issues. Those unfamiliar with the ravages of persistent vegetative state (PVS) may picture the comatose or PVS patient as a comfortable "sleeping beauty" waiting for her miraculous awakening; such gendered imagery may help to account for the resistance to withdrawal of life support in the classic Quinlan and Cruzan cases, and the willingness of the Georgia Supreme Court to grant the physicians of Larry McAfee, a C-2 quadriplegic (a non-terminal condition), permission to provide him with the drugs necessary for him to be free of pain when his respirator was disconnected. Wolf's analysis of cultural ideology, while extremely suggestive, needs elaboration and nuance. Further, in the course of that extended analysis we should not be surprised by gaps and inconsistencies, for culture is never monolithic or fixed, and cultural practices do not follow consistently or irresistibly even the most hegemonic ideology. Thus, one can agree wholeheartedly with Wolf's claim that "the very meaning of the patient's request for death is socially constructed" (1996, 299) while rejecting her understanding of that meaning or being willing to entertain multiple interpretations.

<h4>The illegality of PAS bars women from the transgressive act of death in the name of futurity and life preservation, allowing gendered norms to dominate end-of-life care. This regime of medicalization keeps suffering women alive to sustain patriarchal values. Diane Raymond explains </h4><p>Diane, professor of Gender Studies at Simmons College, Ph.D in philosophy from NYU, “’Fatal practices’: A feminist analysis of physician-assisted suicide and Euthanasia” Hypatia Spring 1999. Vol. 14:2 SJE</p><p>In the section "Gender in Cases, Images, and Practices," <u><strong>Wolf extends her argument against PAS by grounding the examples just discussed in a gendered context where</u></strong> female self-sacrifice and<u><strong> passivity have been the normative ideal.</u></strong> That insight leads her to explore the historical and cultural background of suicide and its ideology, suggestively using Greek tragedy, the nineteenth-century cult of True Womanhood, and Carol Gilligan's research to confirm that self-sacrifice has traditionally been associated with women and regarded thereby as a feminine virtue. Yet, while there is no doubt as to the misogynistic history of women's constrained choices, <u><strong><mark>Wolf oversimplifies and overgeneralizes that history.</mark> <mark>Many cultures</u></strong></mark>--the Stoic, for example--<u><strong><mark>equated suicide with courage</mark> <mark>and</mark> thereby <mark>framed the practice as male</mark>.</u></strong> The Greek tradition of soldiers throwing themselves on their swords rather than be taken as slaves, the Japanese ritual of hara-kiri, the examples of Hemingway, Kohlberg, and numerous others--these easily recoverable cases suggest that suicide can be seen as part of a masculinist ideology or at least not unproblematically feminine. 10 While a more in-depth analysis would probably reveal much divergence even in ancient Greek practice, <u><strong><mark>Wolf's ascription of suicide as a "woman's solution"</u></strong></mark> (Wolf 1996, 289) <u><strong><mark>might</mark> <mark>be</mark> as <mark>inaccurate and overly monolithic</mark> a description of ancient Greek practice and ideology as it appears of the present, where statistics show that older white men kill themselves at a rate five times higher than the national average</u></strong> (National Center for Health Statistics Report 1987). Given patriarchal ideology's equation of masculinity with strength and power, men's heightened inability to cope with aging and illness makes sense intuitively. Further, women's lived experiences with multiple forms of dependence and interdependence--pregnancy, childrearing, and so forth--may mitigate some of the anxiety associated with aging, dependence on others, and decreasing physical autonomy.¶ Further, <u><strong><mark>the slippage in Wolf's argument from self-sacrifice</u></strong></mark> (a "feminine not masculine virtue" [1996, 289]) <u><strong><mark>to suicide makes the argument suspect; rather than conflating the two</mark>, one might argue that, <mark>given that women's historical role has been to endure selflessly all forms of labor and abuse</u></strong></mark>, particularly in the domestic sphere, <u><strong><mark>suicide may for women be the ultimate transgressive act.</u></strong></mark> One need not, however, go that far or make men's behavior normative to challenge Wolf's argument. For <u><strong><mark>even if</mark> we agree that popular <mark>discussions of PAS</mark> and euthanasia "<mark>may be animated by</u></strong></mark> unacknowledged images that give the practices a certain <u><strong><mark>gendered logic</u></strong></mark> and felt correctness" (Wolf 1996, 289), <u><strong><mark>all that follows is </mark>the more modest conclusion <mark>that we must interrogate that logic before making a normative judgment about the practice</mark>. </u></strong>The gender ideology fleshed out in Wolf's analysis may lead, as suggested earlier, to great reluctance, not eagerness, to allow PAS or euthanasia for women. Indeed, some evidence suggests that <u><strong>if there is any gendered difference in end-of-life treatments, it is that <mark>men are undertreated and women are overtreated</u></strong>.</mark> Steven Miles and Allison August, for example, have examined a number of judicial decisions relating to withdrawal of treatment at end-of-life and find a pattern of acceding to male patients' wishes over females'. They note that women are held to higher evidentiary standards when requests to die are examined, and they remark on the ways in which gendered language in judicial treatments of these cases tends to rob women of their agency. Women and not men, for example, are routinely infantilized by referring to them by their first names ("Debbie" and "Diane" fit this pattern); and men's statements about end-of-life treatment are held to reflect "mature, rational choice" while women's are seen as "unreflective, emotional, or immature" (Miles and August 1990, 87). Karen Quinlan's comments to her mother were thereby dismissed as a "wish" or personal "distaste" and not a genuine expression of her values. In another case, a woman's repeated comments regarding her desire not to be kept on life support were trivialized as no "more than immediate reaction to the unsettling experience of seeing or hearing of another unnecessarily prolonged death" (in Miles and August 1990, 88). Courts seem even to discount women's advance directives, preferring instead to appoint family members as decision-makers for the incompetent woman; in one case, the Court empowered a woman's husband/guardian to make the decision "for" her, despite the fact that she had been an active member of the state's "Euthanasia Council." Women's "overtreatment" at end-of-life may seem odd considering men's greater access to earlier interventions, including more standard diagnostic procedures like angiograms and more "exotic" treatments like organ transplants. But <u><strong><mark>the</mark> superficial <mark>inconsistency between men's end-of-life treatments and their greater access to earlier treatment options might</mark> instead <mark>reflect</mark> a pattern consistent with <mark>patriarchal ideology</mark>, namely <mark>that we hold to a higher standard of quality of life for men than for women</mark>.</u></strong> If such is the case, then <u><strong><mark>gender ideology</mark>, in valorizing female passivity, <mark>may actively collude with the medical profession in keeping</mark> dying, <mark>suffering women alive</mark>.</u></strong> Likewise, ideological constructions of masculinity as inextricably aligned with agency, activity, and transcendence might lead to respect for men's medical directives--formal and informal--as well as to gendered distinctions on quality-of-life issues. Those unfamiliar with the ravages of persistent vegetative state (PVS) may picture the comatose or PVS patient as a comfortable "sleeping beauty" waiting for her miraculous awakening; such gendered imagery may help to account for the resistance to withdrawal of life support in the classic Quinlan and Cruzan cases, and the willingness of the Georgia Supreme Court to grant the physicians of Larry McAfee, a C-2 quadriplegic (a non-terminal condition), permission to provide him with the drugs necessary for him to be free of pain when his respirator was disconnected. Wolf's analysis of cultural ideology, while extremely suggestive, needs elaboration and nuance. Further, in the course of that extended analysis we should not be surprised by gaps and inconsistencies, for culture is never monolithic or fixed, and cultural practices do not follow consistently or irresistibly even the most hegemonic ideology. Thus, <u><strong>one can agree wholeheartedly with Wolf's claim that "the very meaning of the patient's request for death is socially constructed" (1996, 299) while rejecting her understanding of that meaning or being willing to entertain multiple interpretations.</p></u></strong>

1ac

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

A

NDT

3

UTD LO

Heidt, Shook, Lundberg

1AC PAS genealogy- same assimilar to USC PAS 1AC 1NC T- Framework K- Szaz Medicalization of death 2NR T

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Dems can sweep the midterms, but only by using marijuana as a wedge issue – plan robs them of it

Applebaum 14

Applebaum 14 <Josh, B.A. from University of Vermont and Boston-area columnist, “LET’S WEED OUT REPUBLICANS IN 2014,” March 4, 2014, http://suffolkresolves.com/2014/03/04/lets-weed-out-republicans-in-2014/>#SPS

By running on pot legalization, Democrats can spur voter turnout and sweep the 2014 Midterms. the Democrats must win back the House and defend the Senate in the 2014 Midterm Elections. If they fail to do so, Obama’s final two years will be spent as a lame duck whose only remaining power lies in his veto pen. So how can Democrats win big in 2014? It’s simple: run on pot. A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular: over 66% support full legalization. This is great news for the Democratic Party, which has struggled in recent years to turn out voters during Midterm Elections In 2014, much of the debate will be centered on Obamacare. Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn’t a motivating factor for young people Marijuana is different. It’s beloved by young people: a symbol of equal parts independence and rebellion. marijuana is a tangible issue that young people can relate to. By pushing legalized marijuana nationally, Democrats can provide much-needed motivation for young people to turn out and vote for them. Three of the most likely states to have recreational pot on the ballot just so happen to have incumbent Democrat Senators up for re-election. This includes Alaska (Begich), Oregon (Merkley) and New Mexico (Udall). Udall will be running on the backdrop of his state’s wildly successful legal marijuana launch. the medical marijuana push may be more important to Democrats because many of the states that could have ballot initiatives are traditionally Republican This presents a golden opportunity to flip seats 4 When engaging in a fiscal debate, our two political parties get hung up on pledges Legalizing marijuana is the perfect bipartisan solution: it doesn’t raise taxes or cut Social Security. It allows us to bring in much-needed revenue that we can use to invest in education and infrastructure without violating either party’s economic pledge. It’s time for the Democrats to step up and make pot legalization a central issue in the Midterm Elections. They can look to Colorado and tout its success, and in doing so they’ll motivate young people to reject apathy and turn out at the polls for them. As crazy as it sounds, pot legalization just might be the issue that propels the Democrats to victory in 2014

By running on legalization, Democrats can spur turnout and sweep the Midterms a majority of Americans support legalizing among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular By pushing legalized marijuana Democrats can provide motivation for young people to turn out and vote for them. Three of the most likely states to have recreational pot on the ballot have incumbent Democrat Senators up for re-election This presents a golden opportunity to flip seats Legalizing is the perfect solution pot legalization might be the issue that propels the Democrats to victory

By running on pot legalization, Democrats can spur voter turnout and sweep the 2014 Midterms. In many ways, the legacy of Barack Obama will be determined by how the final two years of his presidency play out. He will either be remembered as a transformational president who achieved great legislative victories despite unprecedented obstruction, or a president who underestimated the partisanship of the political landscape and failed to deliver on his grandiose message of hope and change. At the moment, you could make the case for either. His accomplishments are impressive: digging us out of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, passing the Affordable Care Act, getting us out of Iraq and (by the end of this year) Afghanistan, forty-six straight months of job growth, killing Osama Bin Laden. But his first five years in office have also been marred by dysfunction and disappointment, stagnation and inaction. Nothing can get passed in Congress because the Republicans refuse to work with him. No jobs bills. No background checks on gun sales. No extension of unemployment insurance. No Immigration Reform or minimum wage increase. If Obama is to be remembered as one of the great Presidents in history, the rest of his term must be marked by action, not gridlock. He needs a congress that will work with him to pass big, legislative initiatives that improve our country. To accomplish this goal, the Democrats must win back the House and defend the Senate in the 2014 Midterm Elections. If they fail to do so, Obama’s final two years will be spent as a lame duck whose only remaining power lies in his veto pen. So how can Democrats win big in 2014? It’s simple: run on pot. IT’S ALL ABOUT TURNOUT A recent CNN poll showed that a majority of Americans (55%) support legalizing marijuana, which is a staggering number when you consider that just 34% supported it in 2002. However, when you look deeper into the numbers, it tells a different story. Just 39% of people age 65+ support legalization, and among people age 50-64 the approval rises only slightly to 50%. However, among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular: over 66% support full legalization. This is great news for the Democratic Party, which has struggled in recent years to turn out voters during Midterm Elections, and continued this trend in 2010. In 2008, voters age 18-29 made up 18% of the electorate. In the 2010 midterms, young people accounted for a paltry 11% of the vote. In 2014, much of the debate will be centered on Obamacare. Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn’t a motivating factor for young people to head to the polls. It doesn’t excite them. They feel invincible and don’t think they need health insurance. It’s too abstract. Marijuana is different. It’s beloved by young people: a symbol of equal parts independence and rebellion. Unlike health care, which can feel overwhelming and complicated, marijuana is a tangible issue that young people can relate to. It’s simple and straightforward. By pushing legalized marijuana nationally, Democrats can provide much-needed motivation for young people to turn out and vote for them. Simply put, paying $100 per month for Health Care that you may not even need doesn’t excite young voters, but being able to walk down the street to a pot shop and pay $40 for an 8th of legal marijuana does. Best of all, this isn’t just a theory — the numbers back it up. Election data from the pro-marijuana group Just Say Now showed that in 2008 the youth vote (18-29) stood at 14% in the state of Colorado. In 2012, when a marijuana initiative was on the ballot, that number rose to 20%. In the state of Washington the increase was even more pronounced. In 2008, the youth vote was 10%. With pot on the ballot in 2012 it soared to 22%. If you put it on the ballot, young people will vote for it. THE PATH TO VICTORY Heading into the 2014 Midterm Elections, Democrats control the Senate 55-45. There are 36 open seats, 21 of which are held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans. Democrats can afford to lose up to four seats and still remain in control. It’s a different story in the House, where Democrats are in the minority 201-234. With every seat open — since Representatives are elected every two years — Democrats must flip 17 seats in order to regain the majority. According to a recent Reason.com article, thirteen states could be voting to legalize marijuana in 2014, while sixteen others could be voting to allow medical marijuana. Three of the most likely states to have recreational pot on the ballot just so happen to have incumbent Democrat Senators up for re-election. This includes Alaska (Begich), Oregon (Merkley) and New Mexico (Udall). A fourth Senator up for re-election, Mark Udall of Colorado, will be running on the backdrop of his state’s wildly successful legal marijuana launch. A recent report from the state’s Joint Budget Committee showed that in the first 18 months Colorado expects to generate $610 million in marijuana retail sales and take in $184 million in tax revenue. Aside from full out legalization, the medical marijuana push may be more important to Democrats because many of the states that could have ballot initiatives are traditionally Republican. This presents a golden opportunity to flip House seats in states like Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas and Wyoming, all of whom may have medical marijuana on the ballot in 2014. THE TIME IS NOW When engaging in a fiscal debate, our two political parties get hung up on pledges. Republicans refuse to increase taxes while Democrats refuse to make cuts to entitlements. As a result, methods of addressing our debt and improving our economy are almost impossible to find in Washington. Legalizing marijuana is the perfect bipartisan solution: it doesn’t raise taxes or cut Social Security. It allows us to bring in much-needed revenue that we can use to invest in education and infrastructure without violating either party’s economic pledge. It’s time for the Democrats to step up and make pot legalization a central issue in the Midterm Elections. They can look to Colorado and tout its success, and in doing so they’ll motivate young people to reject apathy and turn out at the polls for them. As crazy as it sounds, pot legalization just might be the issue that propels the Democrats to victory in 2014, ensuring that the final two years of Obama’s presidency will be marked by action and achievements, not gridlock. All the Democrats need to do is find the courage to inhale.

<h4>Dems can sweep the midterms, but only by using marijuana as a wedge issue – plan robs them of it</h4><p><u><strong>Applebaum 14</u></strong> <Josh, B.A. from University of Vermont and Boston-area columnist, “LET’S WEED OUT REPUBLICANS IN 2014,” March 4, 2014, http://suffolkresolves.com/2014/03/04/lets-weed-out-republicans-in-2014/>#SPS</p><p><u><mark>By running on </mark>pot <mark>legalization, Democrats can spur </mark>voter <mark>turnout and sweep the </mark>2014 <mark>Midterms</mark>. </u>In many ways, the legacy of Barack Obama will be determined by how the final two years of his presidency play out. He will either be remembered as a transformational president who achieved great legislative victories despite unprecedented obstruction, or a president who underestimated the partisanship of the political landscape and failed to deliver on his grandiose message of hope and change. At the moment, you could make the case for either. His accomplishments are impressive: digging us out of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression, passing the Affordable Care Act, getting us out of Iraq and (by the end of this year) Afghanistan, forty-six straight months of job growth, killing Osama Bin Laden. But his first five years in office have also been marred by dysfunction and disappointment, stagnation and inaction. Nothing can get passed in Congress because the Republicans refuse to work with him. No jobs bills. No background checks on gun sales. No extension of unemployment insurance. No Immigration Reform or minimum wage increase. If Obama is to be remembered as one of the great Presidents in history, the rest of his term must be marked by action, not gridlock. He needs a congress that will work with him to pass big, legislative initiatives that improve our country. To accomplish this goal, <u>the Democrats must win back the House and defend the Senate in the 2014 Midterm Elections.</u> <u>If they fail to do so, Obama’s final two years will be spent as a lame duck whose only remaining power lies in his veto pen. So how can Democrats win big in 2014? It’s simple: run on pot. </u>IT’S ALL ABOUT TURNOUT <u>A recent CNN poll showed that <mark>a majority of Americans</u></mark> (55%) <u><mark>support legalizing</mark> marijuana</u>, which is a staggering number when you consider that just 34% supported it in 2002. However, when you look deeper into the numbers, it tells a different story. Just 39% of people age 65+ support legalization, and among people age 50-64 the approval rises only slightly to 50%. However, <u><mark>among 18-34 year olds, it’s wildly popular</mark>: over 66% support full legalization. This is great news for the Democratic Party, which has struggled in recent years to turn out voters during Midterm Elections</u>, and continued this trend in 2010. In 2008, voters age 18-29 made up 18% of the electorate. In the 2010 midterms, young people accounted for a paltry 11% of the vote. <u>In 2014, much of the debate will be centered on Obamacare. Unfortunately for Democrats, this isn’t a motivating factor for young people</u> to head to the polls. It doesn’t excite them. They feel invincible and don’t think they need health insurance. It’s too abstract. <u>Marijuana is different.</u> <u>It’s beloved by young people: a symbol of equal parts independence and rebellion.</u> Unlike health care, which can feel overwhelming and complicated, <u>marijuana is a tangible issue that young people can relate to.</u> It’s simple and straightforward. <u><strong><mark>By pushing legalized marijuana </mark>nationally, <mark>Democrats can provide </mark>much-needed <mark>motivation for young people to turn out and vote for them.</u></strong></mark> Simply put, paying $100 per month for Health Care that you may not even need doesn’t excite young voters, but being able to walk down the street to a pot shop and pay $40 for an 8th of legal marijuana does. Best of all, this isn’t just a theory — the numbers back it up. Election data from the pro-marijuana group Just Say Now showed that in 2008 the youth vote (18-29) stood at 14% in the state of Colorado. In 2012, when a marijuana initiative was on the ballot, that number rose to 20%. In the state of Washington the increase was even more pronounced. In 2008, the youth vote was 10%. With pot on the ballot in 2012 it soared to 22%. If you put it on the ballot, young people will vote for it. THE PATH TO VICTORY Heading into the 2014 Midterm Elections, Democrats control the Senate 55-45. There are 36 open seats, 21 of which are held by Democrats, 15 by Republicans. Democrats can afford to lose up to four seats and still remain in control. It’s a different story in the House, where Democrats are in the minority 201-234. With every seat open — since Representatives are elected every two years — Democrats must flip 17 seats in order to regain the majority. According to a recent Reason.com article, thirteen states could be voting to legalize marijuana in 2014, while sixteen others could be voting to allow medical marijuana. <u><mark>Three of the most likely states to have recreational pot on the ballot </mark>just so happen to <mark>have incumbent Democrat Senators up for re-election</mark>.</u> <u>This includes Alaska (Begich), Oregon (Merkley) and New Mexico (Udall).</u> A fourth Senator up for re-election, Mark <u>Udall</u> of Colorado, <u>will be running on the backdrop of his state’s wildly successful legal marijuana launch.</u> A recent report from the state’s Joint Budget Committee showed that in the first 18 months Colorado expects to generate $610 million in marijuana retail sales and take in $184 million in tax revenue. Aside from full out legalization, <u>the medical marijuana push may be more important to Democrats because many of the states that could have ballot initiatives are traditionally Republican</u>. <u><mark>This presents a golden opportunity to flip</u></mark> House <u><mark>seats</u></mark> in states like Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas and Wyoming, all of whom may have medical marijuana on the ballot in 201<u>4</u>. THE TIME IS NOW <u>When engaging in a fiscal debate, our two political parties get hung up on pledges</u>. Republicans refuse to increase taxes while Democrats refuse to make cuts to entitlements. As a result, methods of addressing our debt and improving our economy are almost impossible to find in Washington. <u><mark>Legalizing </mark>marijuana <mark>is the perfect</mark> bipartisan <mark>solution</mark>: it doesn’t raise taxes or cut Social Security.</u> <u>It allows us to bring in much-needed revenue that we can use to invest in education and infrastructure without violating either party’s economic pledge. It’s time for the Democrats to step up and make pot legalization a central issue in the Midterm Elections. They can look to Colorado and tout its success, and in doing so they’ll motivate young people to reject apathy and turn out at the polls for them. As crazy as it sounds, <mark>pot legalization</mark> just <mark>might be the issue that propels the Democrats to victory </mark>in 2014</u>, ensuring that the final two years of Obama’s presidency will be marked by action and achievements, not gridlock. All the Democrats need to do is find the courage to inhale.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Simony can mean any sacred thing

Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simony simony the making of profit out of sacred things buying or selling ecclesiastical preferments, benefices, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simony simony¶ [sahy-muh-nee, sim-uh-] noun¶ 1.¶ the making of profit out of sacred things.¶ 2.¶ the sin of buying or selling ecclesiastical preferments, benefices, etc.

<h4><u><strong>Simony can mean any sacred thing</h4><p>Dictionary.com</p><p></strong>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simony</p><p>simony</u>¶ [sahy-muh-nee, sim-uh-] noun¶ 1.¶ <u>the making of profit out of sacred things</u>.¶ 2.¶ the sin of <u>buying or selling ecclesiastical preferments, benefices, etc.</p></u>

1NR

T

Interp

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

N

UMKC

5

Iowa HS

Brian Lain

1AC was organ simony 1NC was the university k topicality and case 2NC was the university k 1nr was topicality and case 2nr was the university k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

China has a strong track record of compliance --- they prioritize reputational costs and are committed to building institutions for a peaceful rise.

Zhang and Li 2014

Xiaowen Zhang and Xiaoling Li, 2014. Assistant professor of political science at Augustana College, PhD in International Relations @ University of Southern California; and associated professor of law at the China Youth University for Political Sciences in Beijing, China,Ph.D. in Law from the East China University of Political Science and Law. “The Politics of Compliance with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in China,” Journal of Contemporary China, 23:85, 143-160.

little systemic attention has been paid to compliance with WTO dispute settlement rulings Consistent with the political economy of compliance in general, compliance in WTO disputes is an act generating uneven political and economic payoffs for various special interests in a respondent state the prospect of successful implementation is subjected to the political influence of the affected producer group in the respondent state Theoretically, decision makers in authoritarian countries face less domestic constraints when it comes to complying with international commitments than democracies The choice of compliance is largely shaped by the perception of a small group of individuals of the material and reputational costs of noncompliance, which in turn is influenced by the relative power of the state and its degree of reliance on the good will of the international community Nonetheless, China's record of compliance in WTO disputes indicates that there must be more going on concerning the politics of compliance in authoritarian China Of the disputes against China that went through WTO litigation, the United States was either the sole complainant or the leading co-complainant, indicating a similar level of material costs if China chose noncompliance and sanctions were authorized policy making in China is characterized by a ‘fragmented authoritarian’ model China's legislature puts few constraints on the ability of the executives to comply with international commitments. There is no special procedural law regarding the implementation of WTO panel/Appellate Body recommendations According to Liyu Han and Henry Gao, under most circumstances, top leaders in China are under no or little pressure from individual industries or businesses when it comes to compliance with adverse WTO dispute settlement rulings Their top concern is the material and reputational costs of noncompliance to the country as a whole. Although as China's economy grows, the material costs of noncompliance decline relatively, China still has great concern about the reputational costs of noncompliance, which explains its largely satisfactory performance as a respondent in the WTO DSS As a rising economic power that takes continuous economic growth as its top priority, China is very concerned about the reputational costs of noncompliance in the WTO DSS. Noncompliance will hurt China's image as a credible power in the international community, upset China's trading partners and undermine the legitimacy of the WTO, all of which are indispensible to China's economic development The concern over the reputational costs of noncompliance is well aligned with China's national objective of ‘peaceful rising’ China's rise has been driven by ‘capital, technology, and resources acquired through peaceful means’ The key to rising in a peaceful manner is to embrace economic globalization According to China's current strategic plan, it will take another 40 years—until 2050—before China can be called a modernized, medium-level developed country To rise peacefully, China needs an open and orderly world market so that China can continue to take advantage of globalization noncompliance can mean two types of reputational costs to China. Firstly, noncompliance will hurt China's reputation as a credible rule player in the international community, which in turn will alienate its trading partners Secondly, noncompliance will hurt China's reputation as a system builder. Because the WTO DSS is the central pillar of the WTO, its effectiveness is crucial to the legitimacy of the WTO as a whole As the second largest member in the WTO and the largest developing country in the WTO, China's performance in the WTO DSS attracts wide attention, especially among developing countries Noncompliance will not only undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the WTO DSS and, in turn, the WTO as a whole, but will also hurt the image of China as a system builder, affecting its future ability to lead China's relatively good performance as a respondent in the DSS has well demonstrated its high concern over reputational costs For the cases that China settled through mutually agreed solutions, China could have waited until the adoption of panel reports and then further extended the litigation process by filing an appeal before the Appellate Body. Since there are no retroactive remedies in the current DSS, the material costs of noncompliance will only be lower in this case, as the affected producer will benefit from the status quo for longer. In fact, many respondent states have chosen to take advantage of this loophole, escalating the disputes all the way to the end of the litigation process despite almost 90% of the adopted panel and/or the Appellate Body reports finding WTO violations In contrast, China has settled nine of the 19 resolved cases out of court, showing great caution over the risk of reputational damage as a result of adverse panel/Appellate Body rulings When the chance of winning is perceived to be small, China has chosen to settle in order to avoid the reputational costs, despite the material benefits of escalation The unusual rush during the implementation stage of China—Intellectual Property Rights provides another good example the State Council waited until 10 February 2010 to pass and submit the proposed amendments, leaving the NPC Standing Committee only 16 days before its next, also the last, session prior to the implementation deadline Despite that, the Standing Committee rushed to pass the amendments on 26 February 2010, skipping steps such as releasing the proposed revisions to the public for opinions before the vote Such unusual practice showed that it had become a consensus in China that compliance with WTO dispute settlement was extremely important

compliance in WTO disputes is an act generating uneven political and economic payoffs China's record of compliance in WTO disputes indicates that there must be more going on concerning the politics of compliance in authoritarian China Of the disputes against China the U S was the sole complainant policy making in China is characterized by a ‘fragmented authoritarian’ China's legislature puts few constraints on the ability of the executives to comply with international commitments There is no special procedural law regarding the implementation of WTO panel under most circumstances top leaders in China are under no pressure when it comes to compliance with WTO dispute settlement rulings Their top concern is the material and reputational costs of noncompliance to the country as a whole As a rising economic power China is very concerned about the reputational costs of noncompliance Noncompliance will hurt China's image China's rise has been driven by ‘capital, technology, and resources rise peacefully, China needs an open and orderly world market so that China can continue to take advantage of globalization noncompliance will hurt China's reputation Because the DSS is the central pillar of the WTO, its effectiveness is crucial to the legitimacy of the WTO as a whole China's performance attracts wide attention China's relatively good performance has well demonstrated its high concern over reputational costs

Although much has been written about the factors affecting compliance with international commitments in general, little systemic attention has been paid to compliance with WTO dispute settlement rulings. A few observers have examined the record of compliance in WTO disputes and identified some features of the pattern of compliance. For instance, Bruce Wilson finds that compliance has been more rapid where the WTO violations can be corrected through administrative action as opposed to legislative action, indicating that the procedural arrangement of implementation in respondent states influences the prospect of compliance.24 Regrettably, these studies are mainly descriptive, without offering in-depth explanations for why respondent states sometimes fail to implement the panel/Appellate Body recommendations in due time.25 Consistent with the political economy of compliance in general, compliance in WTO disputes is an act generating uneven political and economic payoffs for various special interests in a respondent state. Anticipating increasing competition as a result of compliance, the producer group that has been benefiting from the status quo has strong incentives to block the implementation of panel/Appellate Body recommendations. Under this circumstance, the prospect of successful implementation is subjected to the political influence of the affected producer group in the respondent state. However, there is no systematic study yet examining how special interests within a respondent state may influence the prospect of compliance in WTO disputes. Even less is known about how domestic politics in authoritarian countries like China may influence the prospect of compliance in WTO disputes, as the vast majority of respondent states that have been found violating WTO obligations are democracies.26 Theoretically, decision makers in authoritarian countries face less domestic constraints when it comes to complying with international commitments than democracies. While in democracies, re-election-minded governments may drag their feet as long as possible before they change WTO-inconsistent trade policies just to please politically influential special interests, decision makers in authoritarian regimes are largely autonomous, facing fewer constraints from special interests. The choice of compliance is largely shaped by the perception of a small group of individuals of the material and reputational costs of noncompliance, which in turn is influenced by the relative power of the state and its degree of reliance on the good will of the international community. Nonetheless, China's record of compliance in WTO disputes indicates that there must be more going on concerning the politics of compliance in authoritarian China. Of the disputes against China that went through WTO litigation, the United States was either the sole complainant or the leading co-complainant, indicating a similar level of material costs if China chose noncompliance and sanctions were authorized. Besides, these disputes were initiated when the same group of Chinese leaders was in power (between 2006 and 2009). Despite these similarities, China made a different policy choice in China—Publications and Audiovisual Productsthan for others. To explain this puzzle, an in-depth analysis of the compliance decision-making process in China is needed. WTO compliance decision making in China Generally speaking, policy making in China is characterized by a ‘fragmented authoritarian’ model.27 Compared with democracies, policies in China are made by a much more concentrated group of individuals in a top-down manner. Although it is fragmented in the sense that various actors at different levels of the power hierarchy are charged with the enforcement of policies, the framework places emphasis on achieving consensus and narrowing the divergent policy goals of different ministries and agencies. At the central government level, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) is the primary bureaucratic unit responsible for matters related to foreign economic relations. Within MOFCOM, there is a WTO Division in the Department of Treaty and Law that handles WTO disputes. However, according to the mandate of MOFCOM, the Minister of MOFCOM officially decides whether to bring a complaint to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Meanwhile, input from the Premier or the Vice Premier in charge of foreign trade has a decisive influence on any final decisions. Since the measures at dispute are often issued by various bureaucracies, the amendment of which often requires coordination, when facing coordination difficulties as a result of conflicting bureaucratic interests, the Vice Premier in charge of MOFCOM will usually intervene.28 Unlike democracies, China's legislature, the National People's Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee, puts few constraints on the ability of the executives to comply with international commitments. There is no special procedural law regarding the implementation of WTO panel/Appellate Body recommendations. If the measures at dispute are administrative regulations enacted by the State Council, the State Council is entitled to revise or abolish them. Likewise, ministries or commissions under the State Council, the People's Bank of China, the State Audit Administration, or other organs endowed with administrative functions, are responsible for the revision of departmental rules they enact respectively. If the measure at dispute is a national statute, normal legislative procedures apply. Panel/Appellate Body rulings are first studied by relevant government agencies, which then send their comments to the State Council. The State Council drafts the legislative proposals to be submitted to the NPC or its Standing Committee for deliberations and vote. Theoretically, NPC and its Standing Committee can block or delay implementation by voting down the proposals. In practice, however, once a proposed legislation is submitted to be voted on at the NPC or its Standing Committee, it almost always gets approved, especially when the bill is introduced by the State Council. For example, in the ten-year period of the 8th and 9th NPC between 1993 and 2003, all 44 legislative proposals introduced by the State Council were passed with high affirmative votes.29 The fact that the Premier or the Vice Premier in charge of foreign trade makes the ultimate decisions regarding WTO dispute settlement indicates the broad, complex and sometimes sensitive ramifications of panel/Appellate Boding rulings. Although respondent states are expected to implement panel/Appellate Body recommendations, a tactical matter in theory, they do choose noncompliance or incomplete compliance for a variety of strategic reasons. Not only does the decision of compliance impact the interests of affected industries, but also it often affects a country's long-term development objectives and its relationship with key trading partners. For vital decisions like this, a high degree of centralization is often observed during the policy-making process in China.30 According to Liyu Han and Henry Gao, under most circumstances, top leaders in China are under no or little pressure from individual industries or businesses when it comes to compliance with adverse WTO dispute settlement rulings.31 Their top concern is the material and reputational costs of noncompliance to the country as a whole. Although as China's economy grows, the material costs of noncompliance decline relatively, China still has great concern about the reputational costs of noncompliance, which explains its largely satisfactory performance as a respondent in the WTO DSS. A peacefully rising China As a rising economic power that takes continuous economic growth as its top priority, China is very concerned about the reputational costs of noncompliance in the WTO DSS. Noncompliance will hurt China's image as a credible power in the international community, upset China's trading partners and undermine the legitimacy of the WTO, all of which are indispensible to China's economic development. The concern over the reputational costs of noncompliance is well aligned with China's national objective of ‘peaceful rising’. Since early 2003, China's leaders have started to talk about the concept of ‘peaceful rising’ in various international settings.32 As explained by Bijian Zheng, a key advisor to the top Chinese leaders, ‘peaceful rising’ is a unique development strategy that China chose, different than that of any other emerging powers in modern history. Instead of rising through ‘invasion, colonization, expansion or even large-scale wars of aggression’, China's rise has been driven by ‘capital, technology, and resources acquired through peaceful means’. The key to rising in a peaceful manner is to embrace economic globalization. According to China's current strategic plan, it will take another 40 years—until 2050—before China can be called a modernized, medium-level developed country. To rise peacefully, China needs an open and orderly world market so that China can continue to take advantage of globalization.33 Being the central driving force behind economic globalization, the wellbeing of WTO is therefore imperative to China's long-term objective. Acknowledging that, China strived for WTO membership. After becoming a member, upholding the legitimacy of the WTO and maintaining amicable relations with trading partners became imperative. However, both could be compromised by noncompliance in the WTO DSS. In particular, noncompliance can mean two types of reputational costs to China. Firstly, noncompliance will hurt China's reputation as a credible rule player in the international community, which in turn will alienate its trading partners. Since joining the WTO, China has grown to be the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world. On the one hand, China has gained considerably from WTO membership, as the rapid growth of the Chinese economy is, to a large extent, driven by international trade. On the other hand, China's huge trade surpluses have brought considerable pressure to its trading partners. Their import-competing industries have been harmed by the inflow of Chinese products and they keep a close eye on China and would take every opportunity to lobby the governments to take protectionist measures against China. It has been argued that one of the purposes of China joining the WTO is to send a reassuring signal to the world that China is a credible player in the international economic system.34 Noncompliance, openly reneging on China's commitments to the international free trade community, will no doubt hurt China's reputation as a trustworthy rule player and provide those who are already upset by a rising China with support when they lobby their governments. Since the future goodwill and cooperation of others are essential to China's continuous growth, such reputational costs are serious. Secondly, noncompliance will hurt China's reputation as a system builder. Because the WTO DSS is the central pillar of the WTO, its effectiveness is crucial to the legitimacy of the WTO as a whole. As the second largest member in the WTO and the largest developing country in the WTO, China's performance in the WTO DSS attracts wide attention, especially among developing countries, who look up to China and expect China to be a leader in the WTO. Noncompliance will not only undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the WTO DSS and, in turn, the WTO as a whole, but will also hurt the image of China as a system builder, affecting its future ability to lead. China's relatively good performance as a respondent in the DSS has well demonstrated its high concern over reputational costs. For the cases that China settled through mutually agreed solutions, China could have waited until the adoption of panel reports and then further extended the litigation process by filing an appeal before the Appellate Body. Since there are no retroactive remedies in the current DSS, the material costs of noncompliance will only be lower in this case, as the affected producer will benefit from the status quo for longer. In fact, many respondent states have chosen to take advantage of this loophole, escalating the disputes all the way to the end of the litigation process despite almost 90% of the adopted panel and/or the Appellate Body reports finding WTO violations.35 In contrast, China has settled nine of the 19 resolved cases out of court, showing great caution over the risk of reputational damage as a result of adverse panel/Appellate Body rulings. When the chance of winning is perceived to be small, China has chosen to settle in order to avoid the reputational costs, despite the material benefits of escalation. The unusual rush during the implementation stage of China—Intellectual Property Rights provides another good example. On 10 April 2007, the United States filed a dispute before the WTO targeting three specific sets of Chinese measures related to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. The panel reported mixed findings in March 2009 and neither party appealed before the Appellate Body. The two parties then agreed to set the deadline of the reasonable period of time for China to implement the rulings as 20 March 2010, a year after the adoption of the panel report. As the panel upheld US claims against Article 4 of the Chinese Copyright Law, legislative action was taken on the part of China. That is, the State Council needed to propose amendments to the disputed measure and submit the amendments to the NPC or its Standing Committee for approval. Interestingly, the State Council waited until 10 February 2010 to pass and submit the proposed amendments, leaving the NPC Standing Committee only 16 days before its next, also the last, session prior to the implementation deadline. Despite that, the Standing Committee rushed to pass the amendments on 26 February 2010, skipping steps such as releasing the proposed revisions to the public for opinions before the vote. Such unusual practice revealed the limited power of the legislature. Nevertheless, it also showed that it had become a consensus in China that compliance with WTO dispute settlement was extremely important.

<h4>China has a strong track record of compliance --- they prioritize reputational costs and are committed to building institutions for a peaceful rise.</h4><p>Xiaowen <strong>Zhang and</strong> Xiaoling <strong>Li</strong>, <strong>2014</strong>. Assistant professor of political science at Augustana College, PhD in International Relations @ University of Southern California; and associated professor of law at the China Youth University for Political Sciences in Beijing, China,Ph.D. in Law from the East China University of Political Science and Law. “The Politics of Compliance with Adverse WTO Dispute Settlement Rulings in China,” Journal of Contemporary China, 23:85, 143-160.</p><p>Although much has been written about the factors affecting compliance with international commitments in general, <u>little systemic attention has been paid to compliance with WTO dispute settlement rulings</u>. A few observers have examined the record of compliance in WTO disputes and identified some features of the pattern of compliance. For instance, Bruce Wilson finds that compliance has been more rapid where the WTO violations can be corrected through administrative action as opposed to legislative action, indicating that the procedural arrangement of implementation in respondent states influences the prospect of compliance.24 Regrettably, these studies are mainly descriptive, without offering in-depth explanations for why respondent states sometimes fail to implement the panel/Appellate Body recommendations in due time.25 <u>Consistent with the political economy of compliance in general, <mark>compliance in WTO disputes is an act generating <strong>uneven political and economic payoffs</strong></mark> for various special interests in a respondent state</u>. Anticipating increasing competition as a result of compliance, the producer group that has been benefiting from the status quo has strong incentives to block the implementation of panel/Appellate Body recommendations. Under this circumstance, <u>the prospect of successful implementation is <strong>subjected to the political influence of the affected producer group in the respondent state</u></strong>. However, there is no systematic study yet examining how special interests within a respondent state may influence the prospect of compliance in WTO disputes. Even less is known about how domestic politics in authoritarian countries like China may influence the prospect of compliance in WTO disputes, as the vast majority of respondent states that have been found violating WTO obligations are democracies.26 <u>Theoretically, decision makers in authoritarian countries face less domestic constraints when it comes to complying with international commitments than democracies</u>. While in democracies, re-election-minded governments may drag their feet as long as possible before they change WTO-inconsistent trade policies just to please politically influential special interests, decision makers in authoritarian regimes are largely autonomous, facing fewer constraints from special interests. <u>The choice of compliance is largely shaped by the perception of a small group of individuals of the material and reputational costs of noncompliance, which in turn is influenced by the relative power of the state and its degree of reliance on the good will of the international community</u>. <u>Nonetheless, <mark>China's record of compliance in WTO disputes indicates that there must be <strong>more going on concerning the politics of compliance in authoritarian China</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>Of the disputes against China</mark> that went through WTO litigation, <mark>the</mark> <strong><mark>U</strong></mark>nited <strong><mark>S</strong></mark>tates <mark>was</mark> either <mark>the sole complainant</mark> or the leading co-complainant, indicating a similar level of material costs if China chose noncompliance and sanctions were authorized</u>. Besides, these disputes were initiated when the same group of Chinese leaders was in power (between 2006 and 2009). Despite these similarities, China made a different policy choice in China—Publications and Audiovisual Productsthan for others. To explain this puzzle, an in-depth analysis of the compliance decision-making process in China is needed. WTO compliance decision making in China Generally speaking, <u><mark>policy making in China is characterized by a ‘fragmented authoritarian’</mark> model</u>.27 Compared with democracies, policies in China are made by a much more concentrated group of individuals in a top-down manner. Although it is fragmented in the sense that various actors at different levels of the power hierarchy are charged with the enforcement of policies, the framework places emphasis on achieving consensus and narrowing the divergent policy goals of different ministries and agencies. At the central government level, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) is the primary bureaucratic unit responsible for matters related to foreign economic relations. Within MOFCOM, there is a WTO Division in the Department of Treaty and Law that handles WTO disputes. However, according to the mandate of MOFCOM, the Minister of MOFCOM officially decides whether to bring a complaint to the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). Meanwhile, input from the Premier or the Vice Premier in charge of foreign trade has a decisive influence on any final decisions. Since the measures at dispute are often issued by various bureaucracies, the amendment of which often requires coordination, when facing coordination difficulties as a result of conflicting bureaucratic interests, the Vice Premier in charge of MOFCOM will usually intervene.28 Unlike democracies, <u><mark>China's legislature</u></mark>, the National People's Congress (NPC) and its Standing Committee, <u><mark>puts few constraints on the ability of the executives to comply with international commitments</mark>. <mark>There is no special procedural law regarding the implementation of WTO panel</mark>/Appellate Body recommendations</u>. If the measures at dispute are administrative regulations enacted by the State Council, the State Council is entitled to revise or abolish them. Likewise, ministries or commissions under the State Council, the People's Bank of China, the State Audit Administration, or other organs endowed with administrative functions, are responsible for the revision of departmental rules they enact respectively. If the measure at dispute is a national statute, normal legislative procedures apply. Panel/Appellate Body rulings are first studied by relevant government agencies, which then send their comments to the State Council. The State Council drafts the legislative proposals to be submitted to the NPC or its Standing Committee for deliberations and vote. Theoretically, NPC and its Standing Committee can block or delay implementation by voting down the proposals. In practice, however, once a proposed legislation is submitted to be voted on at the NPC or its Standing Committee, it almost always gets approved, especially when the bill is introduced by the State Council. For example, in the ten-year period of the 8th and 9th NPC between 1993 and 2003, all 44 legislative proposals introduced by the State Council were passed with high affirmative votes.29 The fact that the Premier or the Vice Premier in charge of foreign trade makes the ultimate decisions regarding WTO dispute settlement indicates the broad, complex and sometimes sensitive ramifications of panel/Appellate Boding rulings. Although respondent states are expected to implement panel/Appellate Body recommendations, a tactical matter in theory, they do choose noncompliance or incomplete compliance for a variety of strategic reasons. Not only does the decision of compliance impact the interests of affected industries, but also it often affects a country's long-term development objectives and its relationship with key trading partners. For vital decisions like this, a high degree of centralization is often observed during the policy-making process in China.30 <u>According to Liyu Han and Henry Gao, <mark>under most circumstances</mark>, <mark>top leaders in China are under no</mark> or little <mark>pressure</mark> from individual industries or businesses <mark>when it comes to compliance with </mark>adverse <mark>WTO dispute settlement rulings</u></mark>.31 <u><mark>Their top concern is the material and reputational costs of <strong>noncompliance to the country as a whole</strong></mark>. Although as China's economy grows, the material costs of noncompliance decline relatively, China still has great concern about the reputational costs of noncompliance, which explains its largely satisfactory performance as a respondent in the WTO DSS</u>. A peacefully rising China <u><mark>As a rising economic power</mark> that takes continuous economic growth as its top priority, <mark>China is very concerned about the reputational costs of</mark> <mark>noncompliance</mark> in the WTO DSS. <mark>Noncompliance will hurt China's image</mark> as a credible power in the international community, upset China's trading partners and undermine the legitimacy of the WTO, all of which are indispensible to China's economic development</u>. <u>The concern over the reputational costs of noncompliance is well aligned with China's national objective of ‘peaceful rising’</u>. Since early 2003, China's leaders have started to talk about the concept of ‘peaceful rising’ in various international settings.32 As explained by Bijian Zheng, a key advisor to the top Chinese leaders, ‘peaceful rising’ is a unique development strategy that China chose, different than that of any other emerging powers in modern history. Instead of rising through ‘invasion, colonization, expansion or even large-scale wars of aggression’, <u><mark>China's rise has been driven by ‘capital, technology, and resources </mark>acquired through peaceful means’</u>. <u>The key to rising in a peaceful manner is to embrace economic globalization</u>. <u>According to China's current strategic plan, it will take another 40 years—until 2050—before China can be called a modernized, medium-level developed country</u>. <u>To <mark>rise peacefully, China needs an open and orderly world <strong>market so that China can continue to take advantage of globalization</u></strong></mark>.33 Being the central driving force behind economic globalization, the wellbeing of WTO is therefore imperative to China's long-term objective. Acknowledging that, China strived for WTO membership. After becoming a member, upholding the legitimacy of the WTO and maintaining amicable relations with trading partners became imperative. However, both could be compromised by noncompliance in the WTO DSS. In particular, <u>noncompliance can mean two types of reputational costs to China. Firstly, noncompliance will hurt China's reputation as a credible rule player in the international community, which in turn will alienate its trading partners</u>. Since joining the WTO, China has grown to be the largest exporter of manufactured goods in the world. On the one hand, China has gained considerably from WTO membership, as the rapid growth of the Chinese economy is, to a large extent, driven by international trade. On the other hand, China's huge trade surpluses have brought considerable pressure to its trading partners. Their import-competing industries have been harmed by the inflow of Chinese products and they keep a close eye on China and would take every opportunity to lobby the governments to take protectionist measures against China. It has been argued that one of the purposes of China joining the WTO is to send a reassuring signal to the world that China is a credible player in the international economic system.34 Noncompliance, openly reneging on China's commitments to the international free trade community, will no doubt hurt China's reputation as a trustworthy rule player and provide those who are already upset by a rising China with support when they lobby their governments. Since the future goodwill and cooperation of others are essential to China's continuous growth, such reputational costs are serious. <u>Secondly, <mark>noncompliance will hurt China's reputation</mark> as a system builder. <mark>Because the </mark>WTO <mark>DSS is the central pillar of the WTO, its effectiveness is <strong>crucial to the legitimacy of the WTO as a whole</u></strong></mark>. <u>As the second largest member in the WTO and the largest developing country in the WTO, <mark>China's performance</mark> in the WTO DSS <mark>attracts wide attention</mark>, especially among developing countries</u>, who look up to China and expect China to be a leader in the WTO. <u>Noncompliance will not only undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the WTO DSS and, in turn, the WTO as a whole, but will also hurt the image of China as a system builder, affecting its future ability to lead</u>. <u><mark>China's relatively good performance</mark> as a respondent in the DSS <mark>has well demonstrated its high concern over reputational costs</u></mark>. <u>For the cases that China settled through mutually agreed solutions, China could have waited until the adoption of panel reports and then further extended the litigation process by filing an appeal before the Appellate Body. Since there are no retroactive remedies in the current DSS, the material costs of noncompliance will only be lower in this case, as the affected producer will benefit from the status quo for longer. In fact, many respondent states have chosen to take advantage of this loophole, escalating the disputes all the way to the end of the litigation process despite almost 90% of the adopted panel and/or the Appellate Body reports finding WTO violations</u>.35 <u>In contrast, China has settled nine of the 19 resolved cases out of court, showing great caution over the risk of reputational damage as a result of adverse panel/Appellate Body rulings</u>. <u>When the chance of winning is perceived to be small, China has chosen to settle in order to avoid the reputational costs, despite the material benefits of escalation</u>. <u>The unusual rush during the implementation stage of China—Intellectual Property Rights provides another good example</u>. On 10 April 2007, the United States filed a dispute before the WTO targeting three specific sets of Chinese measures related to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. The panel reported mixed findings in March 2009 and neither party appealed before the Appellate Body. The two parties then agreed to set the deadline of the reasonable period of time for China to implement the rulings as 20 March 2010, a year after the adoption of the panel report. As the panel upheld US claims against Article 4 of the Chinese Copyright Law, legislative action was taken on the part of China. That is, the State Council needed to propose amendments to the disputed measure and submit the amendments to the NPC or its Standing Committee for approval. Interestingly, <u>the State Council waited until 10 February 2010 to pass and submit the proposed amendments, leaving the NPC Standing Committee only 16 days before its next, also the last, session prior to the implementation deadline</u>. <u>Despite that, the Standing Committee rushed to pass the amendments on 26 February 2010, skipping steps such as releasing the proposed revisions to the public for opinions before the vote</u>. <u>Such unusual practice</u> revealed the limited power of the legislature. Nevertheless, it also <u>showed that it had become a consensus in China that compliance with WTO dispute settlement was extremely important</u>.</p>

1NC

China

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

N

NDT

1

Harvard DH

Eric Short, Chris Thiele, Dan Stout

1ac was online gambling with econ and china advantages 1nc was security edelman and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Hegemony is impossible – attempts to preserve it only guarantee global sovereign violence

Gulli 13

Gulli 13 Bruno Gulli, professor of history, philosophy, and political science at Kingsborough College in New York, “For the critique of sovereignty and violence,” http://academia.edu/2527260/For_the_Critique_of_Sovereignty_and_Violence, pg. 5

we have now an understanding of what the situation is: The sovereign everywhere, be it the political or financial elite, fakes the legitimacy on which its power and authority supposedly rest In truth, they rest on violence and terror, or the threat thereof This is an obvious and essential aspect of the singularity of the present crisis the singularity of the crisis lies in the fact that the struggle for dominance is at one and the same time impaired and made more brutal by the lack of hegemony it is perhaps particularly true with respect to the greatest power on earth, the United States, whose hegemony has diminished or vanished. It is a fortiori true of whatever is called ‘the West,’ of which the US has for about a century represented the vanguard Lacking hegemony, the sheer drive for domination has to show its true face, its raw violence The usual, traditional ideological justifications for dominance (such as bringing democracy and freedom here and there) have now become very weak because the contempt that the dominant nations (the US and its most powerful allies) regularly show toward legality, morality, and humanity the so-called rogue states, thriving on corruption, do not fare any better in this sense, but for them, when they act autonomously and against the dictates of ‘the West,’ the specter of punishment, in the form of retaliatory war or even indictment from the International Criminal Court, remains a limit, a possibility. Not so for the dominant nations who will stop the United States from striking anywhere at will, or Israel from regularly massacring people in Gaza or France from once again trying its luck in Africa though still dominant, these nations are painfully aware of their structural, ontological and historical, weakness All attempts at concealing that weakness (and the uncomfortable awareness of it) only heighten the brutality in the exertion of what remains of their dominance Although they rely on a highly sophisticated military machine (the technology of drones is a clear instance of this) and on an equally sophisticated diplomacy, which has traditionally been and increasingly is an outpost for military operations and global policing (now excellently incarnated by Africom), they know that they have lost their hegemony Domination without hegemony’ is a phrase that Giovanni Arrighi uses in his study of the long twentieth century and his lineages of the twenty-first century (1994/2010 and 2007 the phrase captures the singularity of the global crisis, the terminal stage of sovereignty, in Arrighi’s “historical investigation of the present and of the future It acquires particular meaning in the light of Arrighi’s notion of the bifurcation of financial and military power. early in the twenty-first century, and certainly with the ill-advised and catastrophic war against Iraq, “the US belle époque came to an end and US world hegemony entered what in all likelihood is its terminal crisis.” Although the United States remains by far the world’s most powerful state, its relationship to the rest of the world is now best described as one of ‘domination without hegemony’ What can the US do next? Not much, short of brutal dominance MARKED we have seen president Obama praising himself for the killing of Osama bin Laden. While that action was most likely unlawful, too bin Laden was a suspect, not someone charged with or found guilty of a crime it is certain that you can kill all the bin Ladens of the world without gaining back a bit of hegemony this killing, just like Bush’s war against Iraq, makes one think of a Mafia-style regolamento di conti more than any other thing Obama is less forthcoming about the killing of 16-year-old al-Awlaki, whose fate many have correctly compared to that of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin but it is precisely in cases like this one that the weakness at the heart of empire, the ill-concealed and uncontrolled fury for the loss of hegemony, becomes visible The frenzy denies the possibility of power as care, which is what should replace hegemony, let alone domination the possible rise of a new hegemonic center of power in East Asia and China: probably that would only be a shift in the axis of uncaring power, unable to affect, let alone exit, the paradigm of sovereignty and violence What is needed is rather a radical alternative in which power as domination, with or without hegemony, is replaced by power as care – in other words, a poetic rather than military and financial shift.

sovereign power and authority rest on violence and terror struggle for dominance is impaired and made brutal by lack of heg U S heg has vanished drive for domination has to show raw violence traditional justifications democracy and freedom have now become weak because the contempt the (the US show toward morality punishment remains a limit Not so for dominant nations: who will stop the U S from striking anywhere these nations are aware of their structural, ontological historical, weakness they rely on a military machine drones and diplomacy, is an outpost for military operations and global policing incarnated by Africom Domination without hegemony’ captures the global crisis, the terminal stage of sovereignty in the light of the bifurcation of financial and military power with the catastrophic war against Iraq US hegemony entered terminal crisis.” the U S relationship to the world is best described ‘domination without heg ’ What can the US do ? Not much, short of brutal dominance you can kill the bin Ladens without gaining heg Obama is less forthcoming about the killing of al-Awlaki, who many have compared to Trayvon Martin the ill-concealed fury for loss of heg becomes visible power as care is what should replace hegemony

I think that we have now an understanding of what the situation is: The sovereign everywhere, be it the political or financial elite, fakes the legitimacy on which its power and authority supposedly rest. In truth, they rest on violence and terror, or the threat thereof. This is an obvious and essential aspect of the singularity of the present crisis. In this sense, the singularity of the crisis lies in the fact that the struggle for dominance is at one and the same time impaired and made more brutal by the lack of hegemony. This is true in general, but it is perhaps particularly true with respect to the greatest power on earth, the United States, whose hegemony has diminished or vanished. It is a fortiori true of whatever is called ‘the West,’ of which the US has for about a century represented the vanguard. Lacking hegemony, the sheer drive for domination has to show its true face, its raw violence. The usual, traditional ideological justifications for dominance (such as bringing democracy and freedom here and there) have now become very weak because of the contempt that the dominant nations (the US and its most powerful allies) regularly show toward legality, morality, and humanity. Of course, the so-called rogue states, thriving on corruption, do not fare any better in this sense, but for them, when they act autonomously and against the dictates of ‘the West,’ the specter of punishment, in the form of retaliatory war or even indictment from the International Criminal Court, remains a clear limit, a possibility. Not so for the dominant nations: who will stop the United States from striking anywhere at will, or Israel from regularly massacring people in the Gaza Strip, or envious France from once again trying its luck in Africa? Yet, though still dominant, these nations are painfully aware of their structural, ontological and historical, weakness. All attempts at concealing that weakness (and the uncomfortable awareness of it) only heighten the brutality in the exertion of what remains of their dominance. Although they rely on a highly sophisticated military machine (the technology of drones is a clear instance of this) and on an equally sophisticated diplomacy, which has traditionally been and increasingly is an outpost for military operations and global policing (now excellently incarnated by Africom), they know that they have lost their hegemony.¶ ‘Domination without hegemony’ is a phrase that Giovanni Arrighi uses in his study of the long twentieth century and his lineages of the twenty-first century (1994/2010 and 2007). Originating with Ranajit Guha (1992), the phrase captures the singularity of the global crisis, the terminal stage of sovereignty, in Arrighi’s “historical investigation of the present and of the future” (1994/2010: 221). It acquires particular meaning in the light of Arrighi’s notion of the bifurcation of financial and military power. Without getting into the question, treated by Arrighi, of the rise of China and East Asia, what I want to note is that for Arrighi, early in the twenty-first century, and certainly with the ill-advised and catastrophic war against Iraq, “the US belle époque came to an end and US world hegemony entered what in all likelihood is its terminal crisis.” He continues:¶ Although the United States remains by far the world’s most powerful state, its relationship to the rest of the world is now best described as one of ‘domination without hegemony’ (1994/2010: 384). What can the US do next? Not much, short of brutal dominance. MARKED In the last few years, we have seen president Obama praising himself for the killing of Osama bin Laden. While that action was most likely unlawful, too (Noam Chomsky has often noted that bin Laden was a suspect, not someone charged with or found guilty of a crime), it is certain that you can kill all the bin Ladens of the world without gaining back a bit of hegemony. In fact, this killing, just like G. W. Bush’s war against Iraq, makes one think of a Mafia-style regolamento di conti more than any other thing. Barack Obama is less forthcoming about the killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, whose fate many have correctly compared to that of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin (killed in Florida by a self-appointed security watchman), but it is precisely in cases like this one that the weakness at the heart of empire, the ill-concealed and uncontrolled fury for the loss of hegemony, becomes visible. The frenzy denies the possibility of power as care, which is what should replace hegemony, let alone domination. Nor am I sure I share Arrighi’s optimistic view about the possible rise of a new hegemonic center of power in East Asia and China: probably that would only be a shift in the axis of uncaring power, unable to affect, let alone exit, the paradigm of sovereignty and violence. What is needed is rather a radical alternative in which power as domination, with or without hegemony, is replaced by power as care – in other words, a poetic rather than military and financial shift.

<h4>Hegemony is impossible – attempts to preserve it only guarantee global sovereign violence</h4><p><u><strong>Gulli 13</u></strong> Bruno Gulli, professor of history, philosophy, and political science at Kingsborough College in New York, “For the critique of sovereignty and violence,” http://academia.edu/2527260/For_the_Critique_of_Sovereignty_and_Violence, pg. 5</p><p>I think that <u>we have now an understanding of what the situation is: <strong>The <mark>sovereign </mark>everywhere</strong>, be it the political or financial elite, <strong>fakes the legitimacy</strong> on which its <mark>power and authority </mark>supposedly rest</u>. <u>In truth, they <strong><mark>rest on violence and terror</strong></mark>, or the threat thereof</u>. <u>This is an <strong>obvious and essential aspect</strong> of the singularity of the present crisis</u>. In this sense, <u>the singularity of the crisis lies in the fact that the <mark>struggle for dominance is </mark>at one and the same time <mark>impaired and made </mark>more <mark>brutal by <strong></mark>the <mark>lack of heg</mark>emony</u></strong>. This is true in general, but <u>it is perhaps particularly true with respect to the greatest power on earth, <strong>the <mark>U</mark>nited<mark> S</mark>tates</strong>, whose <mark>heg</mark>emony <mark>has</mark> <strong>diminished or <mark>vanished</strong></mark>.</u> <u>It is a fortiori true of whatever is called ‘the West,’ of which the US has for about a century represented the vanguard</u>. <u>Lacking hegemony, the <strong>sheer <mark>drive for domination</strong> has to show</mark> <strong>its true face</strong>, its <strong><mark>raw violence</u></strong></mark>. <u>The usual, <mark>traditional <strong></mark>ideological <mark>justifications </mark>for dominance</strong> (such as bringing <mark>democracy and freedom</mark> here and there) <mark>have now become <strong></mark>very <mark>weak</strong> because </u></mark>of <u><strong><mark>the contempt</strong> </mark>that <mark>the </mark>dominant nations <mark>(the US </mark>and its most powerful allies) <strong>regularly <mark>show</strong> toward </mark>legality, <mark>morality</mark>, and humanity</u>. Of course, <u>the so-called rogue states, thriving on corruption, do not fare any better in this sense, but for them, when they act autonomously and against the dictates of ‘the West,’ the specter of <mark>punishment</mark>, in the form of retaliatory war or even indictment from the <strong>I</strong>nternational <strong>C</strong>riminal <strong>C</strong>ourt, <mark>remains a </u></mark>clear<u><mark> limit</mark>, a possibility.</u> <u><strong><mark>Not so for </mark>the <mark>dominant nations</u></strong>: <u>who will stop the U</mark>nited<mark> S</mark>tates<mark> from striking anywhere </mark>at will, or Israel from regularly massacring people in</u> the <u>Gaza</u> Strip, <u>or</u> envious <u>France from once again trying its luck in Africa</u>? Yet, <u>though still dominant, <mark>these nations are </mark>painfully <mark>aware of their <strong>structural, ontological </mark>and <mark>historical, weakness</u></strong></mark>. <u>All attempts at concealing that weakness (and the uncomfortable awareness of it) <strong>only heighten the brutality</strong> in the exertion of <strong>what remains of their dominance</u></strong>. <u>Although <mark>they rely on a <strong></mark>highly sophisticated <mark>military machine</strong></mark> (the technology of <mark>drones</mark> is a clear instance of this) <mark>and </mark>on an equally sophisticated <mark>diplomacy, </mark>which has <strong>traditionally</strong> been and <strong>increasingly</strong> <mark>is an outpost for <strong>military operations and global policing</strong></mark> (now excellently <strong><mark>incarnated by Africom</strong></mark>), <strong>they know that they have lost their hegemony</u></strong>.¶ ‘<u><strong><mark>Domination without hegemony’</u></strong></mark> <u>is a phrase that Giovanni Arrighi uses in his study of the long twentieth century and his lineages of the twenty-first century (1994/2010 and 2007</u>). Originating with Ranajit Guha (1992), <u>the phrase <mark>captures the </mark>singularity of the <mark>global crisis, the terminal stage of sovereignty</mark>, in Arrighi’s “historical investigation of the present and of the future</u>” (1994/2010: 221). <u>It acquires particular meaning <mark>in the light of</mark> Arrighi’s notion of <strong><mark>the bifurcation of financial and military power</mark>.</u></strong> Without getting into the question, treated by Arrighi, of the rise of China and East Asia, what I want to note is that for Arrighi, <u>early in the twenty-first century, and certainly <mark>with the </mark>ill-advised and <mark>catastrophic war against Iraq</mark>, “the US belle époque came to an end and <mark>US </mark>world <mark>hegemony entered <strong></mark>what in all likelihood is its <mark>terminal crisis.”</u></strong></mark> He continues:¶ <u>Although <mark>the U</mark>nited<mark> S</mark>tates remains by far the world’s most powerful state, its <mark>relationship to </mark>the rest of <mark>the world is </mark>now <mark>best described </mark>as one of <strong><mark>‘domination without heg</mark>emony<mark>’</u></strong></mark> (1994/2010: 384). <u><mark>What can the US do </mark>next<mark>? <strong>Not much, short of brutal dominance</u></strong></mark>.</p><p><u><strong>MARKED</p><p></u></strong> In the last few years, <u>we have seen president Obama praising himself for the killing of Osama bin Laden. While that action was most likely unlawful, too</u> (Noam Chomsky has often noted that <u>bin Laden was a suspect, not someone charged with or found guilty of a crime</u>), <u>it is certain that <mark>you can kill <strong></mark>all <mark>the bin Ladens </mark>of the world <mark>without gaining </mark>back a bit of <mark>heg</mark>emony</u></strong>. In fact, <u>this killing, just like</u> G. W. <u>Bush’s war against Iraq, makes one think of a <strong>Mafia-style</strong> regolamento di conti more than any other thing</u>. Barack <u><mark>Obama is less forthcoming about the killing of</mark> 16-year-old</u> Abdulrahman <u><mark>al-Awlaki, who</mark>se fate <mark>many have <strong></mark>correctly <mark>compared</strong> to <strong></mark>that of</strong> 17-year-old <mark>Trayvon Martin</u></mark> (killed in Florida by a self-appointed security watchman), <u>but it is precisely in cases like this one that <strong>the weakness at the heart of empire</strong>, <mark>the ill-concealed</mark> and uncontrolled <strong><mark>fury for</mark> the <mark>loss of heg</mark>emony</strong>, <mark>becomes visible</u></mark>. <u>The frenzy denies the possibility of <strong><mark>power as care</strong></mark>, which <mark>is <strong>what should replace hegemony</strong></mark>, let alone domination</u>. Nor am I sure I share Arrighi’s optimistic view about <u>the possible rise of a new hegemonic center of power in East Asia and China: probably that would only be a shift in the axis of uncaring power, unable to affect, let alone exit, the paradigm of sovereignty and violence</u>. <u>What is needed is rather <strong>a radical alternative</strong> in which power as domination, with or without hegemony, is replaced by power as care – in other words, <strong>a poetic rather than military and financial shift.</p></u></strong>

1NC

Econ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

N

Kentucky

2

Mary Washington SY

Rebecca Steiner

1ac was marihuana legalization with advantages of cartels and econ 1nc was t legalization security kritik gop bad midterms da the marijuana word pic and case 2nc was security 1nr was t and case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Taliban are giving up AND political solutions solve

Ahbrimkhil 13

Ahbrimkhil 13 (hakeela Ahbrimkhil, Afghanistan news staff writer, http://www.tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/11143-political-solution-in-afghanistan-inevitable-but-caution-is-key-gen-dempsey, “Political Solution in Afghanistan Inevitable, But Caution is Key: Gen. Dempsey”, AB)

Dempsey argued for a cautious approach to peace negotiations claiming that all wars come to end through political solutions. at some point we would find reconciliation with the Taliban military efforts should be continued against the Taliban Taliban leaders told Karzai they don't want war in Afghanistan anymore and were ready to talk with the Afghan High Peace Council we will get the Afghan security forces to the point where they will be able to provide security across the country Much confidence has been expressed in the ability of the ANSF to continue the fight against the insurgency

wars come to end through political solutions. at some point we would find reconciliation with the Taliban military efforts should be continued Taliban leaders told Karzai they don't want war in Afghanistan anymore and were ready to talk Afghan security forces will be able to provide security confidence has been expressed

General Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued in an interview with CNN for a cautious approach to peace negotiations with the Taliban, claiming that all wars come to end through political solutions. "It is always difficult to think about the losses that we've suffered and the idea that at some point we would find reconciliation with the Taliban," said Den. Dempsey. His comments suggest sympathy with those in the US who have regarded peace talks with the Taliban as sign of defeat in the war that has lasted over a decade. However, Gen. Dempsey emphasized that military efforts should be continued against the elements of the Taliban that are not ready for negotiations. "I think there's several flavours of the Taliban. I think there are some who are reconcilable and undoubtedly some that are not," he said. His comments reinforce an increasingly common line of thought within US and Afghan government ranks that suggests reconciliation may be possible with some Taliban leaders while not with others. In a statement on Saturday, Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for President Karzai, said that some Taliban leaders had been in contact with the government and spoken about their dissatisfaction with the Qatar office opening, and unlike other Taliban leaders, did in fact wish to meet with the High Peace Council (HPC). "After the opening of the Qatar office, a number of Taliban leaders told President Karzai that they don't want war in Afghanistan anymore and were ready to talk with the Afghan High Peace Council. They added that they did not support talks after the Qatar office opening," said Mr. Faizi. Gen. Dempsey also spoke about the security transition at length, sounding reservedly hopeful. "I mean we are working and have another year-and-a-half to fundamentally get the Afghan security forces where we think they need to be in order to maintain a stable security platform in Afghanistan. I think we will achieve that, meaning, I think that we will get the Afghan security forces to the point where they will be able to provide security generally across the country, but there will still be pockets of resistance..." The interview with Gen. Dempsey comes after a turbulent few weeks for the security transition and peace negotiations. Much confidence has been expressed in the ability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) and other security branches to continue the fight against the insurgency since the beginning of the final stage in the transition between foreign and Afghan forces last month in Kabul. However, Taliban attacks have seemed to only increase in frequency and scale, with high-profile incidents at the Supreme Court, the international airport and the Presidential Palace in Kabul claiming scores of security personnel and civilian lives.

<h4>Taliban are giving up AND political solutions solve </h4><p><u><strong><mark>Ahbrimkhil 13</u></strong></mark> (hakeela Ahbrimkhil, Afghanistan news staff writer, http://www.tolonews.com/en/afghanistan/11143-political-solution-in-afghanistan-inevitable-but-caution-is-key-gen-dempsey, “Political Solution in Afghanistan Inevitable, But Caution is Key: Gen. Dempsey”, AB)</p><p>General Martin <u>Dempsey</u>, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, <u>argued</u> in an interview with CNN <u>for a cautious approach to peace negotiations </u>with the Taliban, <u>claiming that all <mark>wars come to end through political solutions.</mark> </u>"It is always difficult to think about the losses that we've suffered and the idea that <u><mark>at some point we</mark> <mark>would find reconciliation</mark> <mark>with the Taliban</u></mark>," said Den. Dempsey. His comments suggest sympathy with those in the US who have regarded peace talks with the Taliban as sign of defeat in the war that has lasted over a decade. However, Gen. Dempsey emphasized that <u><mark>military efforts should be continued</mark> against the</u> elements of the <u>Taliban</u> that are not ready for negotiations. "I think there's several flavours of the Taliban. I think there are some who are reconcilable and undoubtedly some that are not," he said. His comments reinforce an increasingly common line of thought within US and Afghan government ranks that suggests reconciliation may be possible with some Taliban leaders while not with others. In a statement on Saturday, Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for President Karzai, said that some Taliban leaders had been in contact with the government and spoken about their dissatisfaction with the Qatar office opening, and unlike other Taliban leaders, did in fact wish to meet with the High Peace Council (HPC). "After the opening of the Qatar office, a number of <u><mark>Taliban leaders told</u></mark> President <u><mark>Karzai</u></mark> that <u><strong><mark>they don't want war in Afghanistan anymore</mark> </strong><mark>and were</u> <u><strong>ready to talk</u></strong></mark> <u>with the Afghan High Peace Council</u>. They added that they did not support talks after the Qatar office opening," said Mr. Faizi. Gen. Dempsey also spoke about the security transition at length, sounding reservedly hopeful. "I mean we are working and have another year-and-a-half to fundamentally get the Afghan security forces where we think they need to be in order to maintain a stable security platform in Afghanistan. I think we will achieve that, meaning, I think that <u>we will get the <mark>Afghan</mark> <mark>security</mark> <mark>forces</mark> to the point where they <mark>will be able to provide security</u></mark> generally <u>across the country</u>, but there will still be pockets of resistance..." The interview with Gen. Dempsey comes after a turbulent few weeks for the security transition and peace negotiations. <u>Much <mark>confidence has been expressed</mark> in the ability of the</u> Afghan National Security Forces (<u>ANSF</u>) and other security branches <u>to continue the fight against the insurgency</u> since the beginning of the final stage in the transition between foreign and Afghan forces last month in Kabul. However, Taliban attacks have seemed to only increase in frequency and scale, with high-profile incidents at the Supreme Court, the international airport and the Presidential Palace in Kabul claiming scores of security personnel and civilian lives.</p>

1NR

War on Drugs

Afghan Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

N

Fullerton

3

Michigan AP

Jared Anderson

1ac was marijuana with a war on drugs advantage 1nc was ontological security k neolib k afropessimism k nearly all spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The spread of biopolitics based on securing a vital community forms and categorizes discursive identities based on sexuality as a means of social control – Marc Spindelman describes how one such identity trope is manifested in PAS discourses through the figure of the gay man with AIDS whose sexuality damned him into seeking death – only rejecting sex as truth overcomes this form of biopower – Thomas Roach explains

Thomas J., Ph.D, professor at Professor of English and Cultural Studies at Bryant University’s Center for Cultural Studies, “Sense and Sexuality: Foucault, Wojnarowicz, and Biopower.” Nebula, Vol. 6:3, Fall 2009 SJE

biopower encourages an art of living: thou shalt live a good life as devised by state informed¶ expert knowledge The family, medicine, psychiatry, education, and employers¶ cooperate with state apparatuses to ensure a uniform standard of living, to produce subjectivities that secure a “vital population.” secularized,¶ techniques of pastoral power function under biopower to ensure a worldly salvation of health, security,¶ sufficient wealth, and citizenship sexuality is the central dispositif deployed by the modern state and capital¶ to manage life directly, the site at which biopower’s individuating and totalizing techniques converge sexuality is mobilized as a hermeneutic of desire to reveal the truth of the subject and fasten¶ it to an identity. The¶ discursive link between sexual desire and self-identity—that is, "sexuality"—is thus implemented as a means of social control, deterring movements of collective revolt and imprisoning bodies and pleasures In order to resist the biopolitical administration of life the link between sex and¶ truth must be broken.

biopower encourages an art of living a good life as devised by state knowledge medicine education cooperate with state apparatuses to ensure a uniform standard of living, to produce subjectivities that secure a “vital population.” secularized,¶ techniques function under biopower to ensure a worldly salvation of health, security wealth, and citizenship sexuality is the central dispositif deployed by the state and capital¶ to manage life directly, the site at which biopower’s individuating and totalizing techniques converge. sexuality is mobilized to reveal the truth of the subject and fasten¶ it to an identity. The¶ discursive link between sexual desire and self-identity sexuality is implemented as a means of social control, In order to resist the biopolitical administration of life the link between sex and¶ truth must be broken.

At the risk of rehearsing the familiar story of biopower's conceptual life, I begin by doing so for¶ two reasons: first, to emphasize the centrality of sexuality in Foucault's rendering of the concept; and¶ second, to show precisely how Hardt and Negri desexualize it. Foucault begins his account in the¶ seventeenth century when a "power over life" emerges as a tendency alongside an earlier, overtly repressive, penal form of power that disciplined subjects through juridical systems. In contrast to a¶ negative form of freedom predicated upon "thou shalt not," which found its logical conclusion in public¶ spectacles of death, biopower encourages an art of living: thou shalt live a good life as devised by state informed¶ expert knowledge; thou shalt do what is best for you, which conveniently coincides with what¶ is best for biopolitical administration. The family, medicine, psychiatry, education, and employers¶ cooperate with state apparatuses to ensure a uniform standard of living, to produce subjectivities and¶ forms of life that secure a “vital population.” A docile subject is produced when procedures of¶ totalization combine with techniques of individualization, or, in Foucault’s vocabulary, when the¶ anatomo-politics of the body and the biopolitics of the population become two poles in the art of¶ governance. These poles correspond chronologically to different historical moments: the anatomopolitics¶ of the body, “the first to be formed it seems […] centered on the body as a machine: its¶ disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces," while the biopolitics of the¶ population, “formed somewhat later, focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics¶ of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes.”6¶ The anatomo-politics of the body and the¶ biopolitics of the population play two roles in the operation of biopower: the former, analytical,¶ concerning the individual, the latter, quantitative, concerning the population. In an essay entitled "The¶ Subject and Power" we learn that biopower derives from a form of power implemented in archaic¶ Christian institutions—what Foucault designates pastoral power.7¶ Christian pastoral power promised¶ individuals salvation in the afterlife while anchoring one’s earthly life in a community of believers. Its¶ efficacy lay in its ability to govern a population both as individuals and as a mass. Now secularized,¶ techniques of pastoral power function under biopower to ensure a worldly salvation of health, security,¶ sufficient wealth, and citizenship (334-5). On Foucault's view, sexuality is the central dispositif deployed by the modern state and capital¶ to manage life directly, the site at which biopower’s individuating and totalizing techniques converge.¶ In the psychiatrization and medicalization of sexuality the individual becomes legible, recordable,¶ disciplined: sexuality is mobilized as a hermeneutic of desire to reveal the truth of the subject and fasten¶ it to an identity. At the same time this marker of individuality becomes useful in administering a social¶ totality. Techniques of the state such as the population census, fertility rates, and statistics of life¶ expectancy appeal to this hermeneutic to organize individual subjects into a manageable whole. The¶ discursive link between sexual desire and self-identity—that is, "sexuality"—is thus implemented as a means of social control, deterring movements of collective revolt and imprisoning bodies and pleasures.¶ In order to resist the biopolitical administration of life, according to Foucault, the link between sex and¶ truth must be broken.

<h4>The spread of biopolitics based on securing a vital community forms and categorizes discursive identities based on sexuality as a means of social control – Marc Spindelman describes how one such identity trope is manifested in PAS discourses through the figure of the gay man with AIDS whose sexuality damned him into seeking death – only rejecting sex as truth overcomes this form of biopower – Thomas Roach explains</h4><p>Thomas J., Ph.D, professor at Professor of English and Cultural Studies at Bryant University’s Center for Cultural Studies, “Sense and Sexuality: Foucault, Wojnarowicz, and Biopower.” Nebula, Vol. 6:3, Fall 2009 SJE </p><p><u><strong> </p><p></u></strong>At the risk of rehearsing the familiar story of biopower's conceptual life, I begin by doing so for¶ two reasons: first, to emphasize the centrality of sexuality in Foucault's rendering of the concept; and¶ second, to show precisely how Hardt and Negri desexualize it. Foucault begins his account in the¶ seventeenth century when a "power over life" emerges as a tendency alongside an earlier, overtly repressive, penal form of power that disciplined subjects through juridical systems. In contrast to a¶ negative form of freedom predicated upon "thou shalt not," which found its logical conclusion in public¶ spectacles of death, <u><strong><mark>biopower encourages an art of living</mark>: thou shalt live <mark>a good life as devised by state</mark> informed¶ expert <mark>knowledge</u></strong></mark>; thou shalt do what is best for you, which conveniently coincides with what¶ is best for biopolitical administration. <u><strong>The family, <mark>medicine</mark>, psychiatry, <mark>education</mark>, and employers¶ <mark>cooperate with state apparatuses to ensure a uniform standard of living, to produce subjectivities </u></strong></mark>and¶ forms of life <u><strong><mark>that secure a “vital population.”</u></strong></mark> A docile subject is produced when procedures of¶ totalization combine with techniques of individualization, or, in Foucault’s vocabulary, when the¶ anatomo-politics of the body and the biopolitics of the population become two poles in the art of¶ governance. These poles correspond chronologically to different historical moments: the anatomopolitics¶ of the body, “the first to be formed it seems […] centered on the body as a machine: its¶ disciplining, the optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces," while the biopolitics of the¶ population, “formed somewhat later, focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics¶ of life and serving as the basis of the biological processes.”6¶ The anatomo-politics of the body and the¶ biopolitics of the population play two roles in the operation of biopower: the former, analytical,¶ concerning the individual, the latter, quantitative, concerning the population. In an essay entitled "The¶ Subject and Power" we learn that biopower derives from a form of power implemented in archaic¶ Christian institutions—what Foucault designates pastoral power.7¶ Christian pastoral power promised¶ individuals salvation in the afterlife while anchoring one’s earthly life in a community of believers. Its¶ efficacy lay in its ability to govern a population both as individuals and as a mass. Now <u><strong><mark>secularized,¶ techniques </mark>of pastoral power <mark>function under biopower to ensure a worldly salvation of health, security</mark>,¶ sufficient <mark>wealth, and citizenship</u></strong></mark> (334-5). On Foucault's view, <u><strong><mark>sexuality is the central dispositif deployed by the </mark>modern <mark>state and capital¶ to manage life directly, the site at which biopower’s individuating and totalizing techniques converge</u></strong>.</mark>¶ In the psychiatrization and medicalization of sexuality the individual becomes legible, recordable,¶ disciplined: <u><strong><mark>sexuality is mobilized</mark> as a hermeneutic of desire <mark>to reveal the truth of the subject and fasten¶ it to an identity.</u></strong></mark> At the same time this marker of individuality becomes useful in administering a social¶ totality. Techniques of the state such as the population census, fertility rates, and statistics of life¶ expectancy appeal to this hermeneutic to organize individual subjects into a manageable whole. <u><strong><mark>The¶ discursive link between sexual desire and self-identity</mark>—that is, "<mark>sexuality</mark>"—<mark>is</mark> thus <mark>implemented as a means of social control,</mark> deterring movements of collective revolt and imprisoning bodies and pleasures</u></strong>.¶ <u><strong><mark>In order to resist the biopolitical administration of life</u></strong></mark>, according to Foucault,<u><strong> <mark>the link between sex and¶ truth must be broken.</p></u></strong></mark>

1ac

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

A

NDT

3

UTD LO

Heidt, Shook, Lundberg

1AC PAS genealogy- same assimilar to USC PAS 1AC 1NC T- Framework K- Szaz Medicalization of death 2NR T

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

GOP Senate control kills Obama’s climate agenda

Stevenson 5/21

Stevenson 5/21 [Aiko Stevenson is a freelance writer from Hong Kong who used to work for BBC World News, Bloomberg, CNBC Europe, CNN and Time magazine. She went to the University of Edinburgh in the UK and recently completed a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing from the University of Hong Kong. “Battle of the Billionaires Shapes This Year's Midterm Elections,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/midterm-elections-climate-change_b_5362388.html | prs]

the Republicans control both the House and the Senate would mark doom for Barack Obama's final two years in office, and potentially scupper any of the president's second-term green agenda. The Koch's congressional campaign comes as they try to torpedo Obama's upcoming restrictions for power plant emissions by entangling them with several lawsuits misinformation campaigns are designed to keep the debate about global warming alive so that legislation on the matter does not pass In the end, the battle may just boil down to a handful of crucial seats that the Democrats must hold onto if they want to maintain control of the Senate most Republicans with political aspirations are forced to deny the science behind climate change otherwise they will not receive enough money to run without such a change, legislation will not pass in Congress.

the Republicans control the Senate would mark doom for Obama's office and scupper any of the president's second-term green agenda.¶ The Koch's campaign try to torpedo Obama's restrictions for power plant emissions the battle may just boil down to the Senate without such a change, legislation will not pass in Congress

To ensure that the Republicans control both the House and the Senate this November, the Koch brothers have spent at least $30 million over the past nine months to try and topple vulnerable House and Senate Democrats.¶ If they succeed, it would mark doom for Barack Obama's final two years in office, and potentially scupper any of the president's second-term green agenda.¶ The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity advocacy group has not indicated how much it will spend this year. But, according to the Financial Times, money into such groups is currently running at about three times the rate of the 2012 presidential elections, and 17 times that of the 2010 midterms.¶ And, the Center of Responsive Politics says that these groups might spend more than $1 billion this year.¶ The Koch's congressional campaign comes as they try to torpedo Obama's upcoming restrictions for power plant emissions by entangling them with several lawsuits.¶ Scheduled for release next month, the new rules mark's the president's signature piece of climate legislation: power plants account for most of the country's carbon pollution.¶ The news comes one year after the Kochs spent millions of dollars on setting up quasi think tanks to deny the science behind climate change.¶ In a bid to confuse the public, such misinformation campaigns are designed to keep the debate about global warming alive so that legislation on the matter does not pass. It's the same tactic that Big Tobacco used in the eighties to deny the link between smoking and cancer.¶ "The Kochs' bid for a hostile takeover of the American democracy is calculated to make themselves even richer," says Senate majority leader Harry Reid. His comments came after he endorsed amending the constitution to restrict "unlimited campaign spending."¶ In a bid to fight back, Steyer has set up his own super PAC to run a series of attack ads revealing the Koch brothers' shady ties to such obstructive campaigns. Unlike the Koch's who are gunning for a Republican Senate win, Steyer is only backing politicians with climate aspirations.¶ But, the $100 million that he has pledged to spend is but a fraction of what the Koch brothers have in their vast war chest.¶ In the end, the battle may just boil down to a handful of crucial seats that the Democrats must hold onto if they want to maintain control of the Senate.¶ Although Steyer may have less money to play with, Mother Nature may step in to lend a helping hand: El Niño is expected to arrive this summer.¶ The weather phenomenon ushers in unusually warm water temperatures across the Pacific, ultimately warming up the atmosphere. Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research describes it as a "mini" global warming event.¶ The opposite happens during el Nina, it's colder sister.¶ According to recent models, there is a 75 percent chance of El Niño arriving before the midterms, and Trenberth says that this could make 2015 the hottest year on record.¶ This could have a radical impact on public attitudes towards global warming.¶ According to Jon Krosnick from Stanford University, one third of Americans do not trust climate scientists. They base their opinion on the actual weather: In warmer than usual years, their belief in climate change thus rises.¶ As El Niño unleashes a string of extreme weather that accompanies hotter weather, it could reenergize Steyer's campaign against the Kochs who may not be able to account for events which may include torrential downpours and floods across the southern part of America.¶ It could also push climate change onto the center stage for the 2016 presidential elections: El Niño tends to be accompanied by a sustained period of warming.¶ This could leave Republicans with a public relations disaster if Senator Marco Rubio ends up being their frontrunner. He recently denied the link between human activity and the warming of our planet.¶ According to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, most Republicans with political aspirations are forced to deny the science behind climate change otherwise they will not receive enough money to run:¶ They will face primary opponents financed by the Koch Brothers, and others who are part of their group, if they even breathe the slightest breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science. It's not that complicated.¶ Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist, says catastrophic events will eventually soften the GOP's position on climate change. And, without such a change, legislation will not pass in Congress.¶ Challenging the Koch brothers to a climate duel last month, Steyer said:¶ Democracy isn't served by underhanded attacks and the voice of the American people shouldn't be drowned out by anonymous voices with expensive megaphones. Which is why today I am issuing a formal invitation to Charles and David Koch to come out of the shadows and join me in exactly what they've requested: a free and open debate. Interestingly, they never replied.

<h4>GOP Senate control kills Obama’s climate agenda</h4><p><u><strong>Stevenson 5/21</u></strong> [Aiko Stevenson is a freelance writer from Hong Kong who used to work for BBC World News, Bloomberg, CNBC Europe, CNN and Time magazine. She went to the University of Edinburgh in the UK and recently completed a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing from the University of Hong Kong. “Battle of the Billionaires Shapes This Year's Midterm Elections,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aiko-stevenson/midterm-elections-climate-change_b_5362388.html | prs]</p><p>To ensure that <u><mark>the Republicans control</mark> both <mark>the</mark> House and the <mark>Senate</u></mark> this November, the Koch brothers have spent at least $30 million over the past nine months to try and topple vulnerable House and Senate Democrats.¶ If they succeed, it <u><mark>would mark doom for</mark> Barack <mark>Obama's</mark> final two years in <mark>office</mark>, <mark>and</mark> potentially <mark>scupper <strong>any of the president's second-term green agenda</strong>.</u>¶</mark> The Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity advocacy group has not indicated how much it will spend this year. But, according to the Financial Times, money into such groups is currently running at about three times the rate of the 2012 presidential elections, and 17 times that of the 2010 midterms.¶ And, the Center of Responsive Politics says that these groups might spend more than $1 billion this year.¶ <u><mark>The</mark> <mark>Koch's</mark> congressional <mark>campaign</mark> comes as they <mark>try to torpedo Obama's</mark> upcoming <mark>restrictions for power plant emissions</mark> by entangling them with several lawsuits</u>.¶ Scheduled for release next month, the new rules mark's the president's signature piece of climate legislation: power plants account for most of the country's carbon pollution.¶ The news comes one year after the Kochs spent millions of dollars on setting up quasi think tanks to deny the science behind climate change.¶ In a bid to confuse the public, such <u>misinformation campaigns are designed to keep the debate about global warming alive so that legislation on the matter <strong>does not pass</u></strong>. It's the same tactic that Big Tobacco used in the eighties to deny the link between smoking and cancer.¶ "The Kochs' bid for a hostile takeover of the American democracy is calculated to make themselves even richer," says Senate majority leader Harry Reid. His comments came after he endorsed amending the constitution to restrict "unlimited campaign spending."¶ In a bid to fight back, Steyer has set up his own super PAC to run a series of attack ads revealing the Koch brothers' shady ties to such obstructive campaigns. Unlike the Koch's who are gunning for a Republican Senate win, Steyer is only backing politicians with climate aspirations.¶ But, the $100 million that he has pledged to spend is but a fraction of what the Koch brothers have in their vast war chest.¶ <u>In the end, <mark>the battle</mark> <mark>may just boil down to </mark>a handful of crucial seats that the Democrats must hold onto if they want to maintain control of <mark>the Senate</u></mark>.¶ Although Steyer may have less money to play with, Mother Nature may step in to lend a helping hand: El Niño is expected to arrive this summer.¶ The weather phenomenon ushers in unusually warm water temperatures across the Pacific, ultimately warming up the atmosphere. Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research describes it as a "mini" global warming event.¶ The opposite happens during el Nina, it's colder sister.¶ According to recent models, there is a 75 percent chance of El Niño arriving before the midterms, and Trenberth says that this could make 2015 the hottest year on record.¶ This could have a radical impact on public attitudes towards global warming.¶ According to Jon Krosnick from Stanford University, one third of Americans do not trust climate scientists. They base their opinion on the actual weather: In warmer than usual years, their belief in climate change thus rises.¶ As El Niño unleashes a string of extreme weather that accompanies hotter weather, it could reenergize Steyer's campaign against the Kochs who may not be able to account for events which may include torrential downpours and floods across the southern part of America.¶ It could also push climate change onto the center stage for the 2016 presidential elections: El Niño tends to be accompanied by a sustained period of warming.¶ This could leave Republicans with a public relations disaster if Senator Marco Rubio ends up being their frontrunner. He recently denied the link between human activity and the warming of our planet.¶ According to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, <u>most Republicans with political aspirations are forced to deny the science behind climate change otherwise they will not receive enough money to run</u>:¶ They will face primary opponents financed by the Koch Brothers, and others who are part of their group, if they even breathe the slightest breath of sympathy for the truth about climate science. It's not that complicated.¶ Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist, says catastrophic events will eventually soften the GOP's position on climate change. And, <u><mark>without such a change, legislation <strong>will not pass in Congress</mark>.</u></strong>¶ Challenging the Koch brothers to a climate duel last month, Steyer said:¶ Democracy isn't served by underhanded attacks and the voice of the American people shouldn't be drowned out by anonymous voices with expensive megaphones. Which is why today I am issuing a formal invitation to Charles and David Koch to come out of the shadows and join me in exactly what they've requested: a free and open debate. Interestingly, they never replied.</p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

It’s also the buying and selling of offices

Merriam Webster

Merriam Webster

simony Buying or selling of church offices or powers promotions to the priesthood or episcopate were bestowed by monarchs and nobles, in exchange for oaths of loyalty.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simony simony noun (Concise Encyclopedia)¶ Buying or selling of church offices or powers. The name is taken from Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), who tried to buy the power of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Simony was said to have become widespread in Europe in the 10th–11th century, as promotions to the priesthood or episcopate were bestowed by monarchs and nobles, often in exchange for oaths of loyalty. Changes in the understanding of the nature of simony and the relationship between lay and religious orders contributed to the perception of the growth of simony, even though corrupt practices did exist. Rigorously attacked by Pope Gregory VII and the reform movement associated with him, the practice recurred in the 15th century, but after the 16th century its more flagrant forms disappeared.

<h4><u><strong>It’s also the buying and selling of offices</h4><p>Merriam Webster</p><p></u></strong>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simony</p><p><u>simony</u> noun (Concise Encyclopedia)¶ <u>Buying or selling of church offices or powers</u>. The name is taken from Simon Magus (Acts 8:18), who tried to buy the power of conferring the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Simony was said to have become widespread in Europe in the 10th–11th century, as <u>promotions to the priesthood or episcopate were bestowed by monarchs and nobles,</u> often <u>in exchange for oaths of loyalty. </u>Changes in the understanding of the nature of simony and the relationship between lay and religious orders contributed to the perception of the growth of simony, even though corrupt practices did exist. Rigorously attacked by Pope Gregory VII and the reform movement associated with him, the practice recurred in the 15th century, but after the 16th century its more flagrant forms disappeared.</p>

1NR

T

Interp

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

N

UMKC

5

Iowa HS

Brian Lain

1AC was organ simony 1NC was the university k topicality and case 2NC was the university k 1nr was topicality and case 2nr was the university k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

US China conflict would never escalate - empirics

Allison & Blackwill 3/5

Allison & Blackwill 3/5 -- *director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Douglas Dillon Professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government AND **Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Graham and Robert D., 2013, "Interview: Lee Kuan Yew on the Future of U.S.- China Relations," http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/03/interview-lee-kuan-yew-on-the-future-of-us-china-relations/273657/)

committee Competition between the U S and China is inevitable, but conflict is not This is not the Cold War China is acting purely in its own national interests It is not interested in changing the world struggle for influence will be subdued because the Chinese need the United States markets technology students If you quarrel with the U S and become enemies all that information will be cut off. The struggle will be maintained that allows them to tap the U S Unlike during the Cold War there is no irreconcilable ideological conflict between the U S and China that has enthusiastically embraced the market the die has not been cast A stabilizing factor in their relationship is that each nation requires cooperation from and healthy competition with the other The danger of a military conflict is low Chinese leaders know that U.S. military superiority is overwhelming They will modernize their forces not to challenge America but pressure Taiwan the Chinese do not want to clash with anyone

Competition is inevitable, but conflict is not. This is not the Cold War China is acting in its own interests. It is not interested in changing the world struggle will be subdued because the Chinese need the U S markets technology students If you quarrel and become enemies, all that will be cut off there is no irreconcilable ideological conflict A stabilizing factor that each nation requires cooperation and healthy competition with the other. The danger of a military conflict is low. Chinese leaders know U.S. military is overwhelming They will modernize to pressure Taiwan the Chinese do not want to clash

Interview with Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister of Singapore, one of Asia's most prominent public intellectuals, a member of the Fondation Chirac's honour committee Competition between the United States and China is inevitable, but conflict is not. This is not the Cold War. The Soviet Union was contesting with the United States for global supremacy. China is acting purely in its own national interests. It is not interested in changing the world. There will be a struggle for influence. I think it will be subdued because the Chinese need the United States, need U.S. markets, U.S. technology, need to have students going to the United States to study the ways and means of doing business so they can improve their lot. It will take them 10, 20, 30 years. If you quarrel with the United States and become bitter enemies, all that information and those technological capabilities will be cut off. The struggle between the two countries will be maintained at the level that allows them to still tap the United States. Unlike U.S.-Soviet relations during the Cold War, there is no irreconcilable ideological conflict between the United States and a China that has enthusiastically embraced the market. Sino-American relations are both cooperative and competitive. Competition between them is inevitable, but conflict is not. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and China are more likely to view each other as competitors if not adversaries. But the die has not been cast. The best possible outcome is a new understanding that when they cannot cooperate, they will coexist and allow all countries in the Pacific to grow and thrive. A stabilizing factor in their relationship is that each nation requires cooperation from and healthy competition with the other. The danger of a military conflict between China and the United States is low. Chinese leaders know that U.S. military superiority is overwhelming and will remain so for the next few decades. They will modernize their forces not to challenge America but to be able, if necessary, to pressure Taiwan by a blockade or otherwise to destabilize the economy. China's military buildup delivers a strong message to the United States that China is serious about Taiwan. However, the Chinese do not want to clash with anyone -- at least not for the next 15 to 20 years. The Chinese are confident that in 30 years their military will essentially match in sophistication the U.S. military. In the long term, they do not see themselves as disadvantaged in this fight.

<h4>US China conflict would never escalate - empirics</h4><p><u><strong>Allison & Blackwill 3/5</u></strong> -- *director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and Douglas Dillon Professor at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government AND **Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (Graham and Robert D., 2013, "Interview: Lee Kuan Yew on the Future of U.S.- China Relations," http://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/03/interview-lee-kuan-yew-on-the-future-of-us-china-relations/273657/)</p><p>Interview with Lee Kuan Yew, the founding prime minister of Singapore, one of Asia's most prominent public intellectuals, a member of the Fondation Chirac's honour<u><strong> committee</p><p></strong><mark>Competition</mark> between the U</u>nited <u>S</u>tates <u>and China <mark>is inevitable, but <strong>conflict is not</u></strong>. <u>This is not the Cold War</u></mark>. The Soviet Union was contesting with the United States for global supremacy. <u><mark>China is acting</mark> purely <mark>in its own</mark> national <mark>interests</u>. <u><strong>It is not interested in changing the world</u></strong></mark>. There will be a <u><mark>struggle</mark> for influence</u>. I think it <u><mark>will be subdued because <strong>the Chinese need the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong>, need U.S. <u><strong><mark>markets</u></strong></mark>, U.S. <u><strong><mark>technology</u></strong></mark>, need to have <u><strong><mark>students</u></strong></mark> going to the United States to study the ways and means of doing business so they can improve their lot. It will take them 10, 20, 30 years. <u><mark>If you quarrel</mark> with the U</u>nited <u>S</u>tates <u><mark>and become</u></mark> bitter <u><mark>enemies</u>, <u>all that</mark> information</u> and those technological capabilities <u><mark>will be cut off</mark>.</u> <u>The struggle</u> between the two countries <u>will be maintained</u> at the level <u>that allows them to</u> still <u>tap the</u> <u>U</u>nited <u>S</u>tates. <u>Unlike</u> U.S.-Soviet relations <u>during the Cold War</u>, <u><mark>there is <strong>no irreconcilable ideological conflict</strong></mark> between the</u> <u>U</u>nited <u>S</u>tates <u>and</u> a <u>China that has enthusiastically embraced the market</u>. Sino-American relations are both cooperative and competitive. Competition between them is inevitable, but conflict is not. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and China are more likely to view each other as competitors if not adversaries. But <u>the die has not been cast</u>. The best possible outcome is a new understanding that when they cannot cooperate, they will coexist and allow all countries in the Pacific to grow and thrive. <u><mark>A stabilizing factor</mark> in their relationship is <mark>that <strong>each nation requires cooperation</mark> from <mark>and healthy competition with the other</u></strong>. <u>The danger of a military conflict</u></mark> between China and the United States <u><mark>is <strong>low</u></strong>. <u>Chinese leaders know</mark> that <mark>U.S. military</mark> superiority <mark>is <strong>overwhelming</u></strong></mark> and will remain so for the next few decades. <u><mark>They will modernize</mark> their forces not <mark>to</mark> challenge America but</u> to be able, if necessary, to <u><mark>pressure Taiwan</u></mark> by a blockade or otherwise to destabilize the economy. China's military buildup delivers a strong message to the United States that China is serious about Taiwan. However, <u><strong><mark>the Chinese do not want to clash</mark> with anyone</u></strong> -- at least not for the next 15 to 20 years. The Chinese are confident that in 30 years their military will essentially match in sophistication the U.S. military. In the long term, they do not see themselves as disadvantaged in this fight. </p>

1NC

China

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

N

NDT

1

Harvard DH

Eric Short, Chris Thiele, Dan Stout

1ac was online gambling with econ and china advantages 1nc was security edelman and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

be skeptical of their truth claims because high magnitude impacts have colonized the minds of the debate community – it crowds out systemic violence because we only consider what affects us in our privileged position – in this debate, you should flip that calculus

Mignolo ‘7

Mignolo ‘7 (Walter, argentinian semiotician and prof at Duke, “The De-Colonial Option and the Meaning of Identity in Politics” online)

The rhetoric of modernity (from the Christian mission since the sixteenth century, to the secular Civilizing mission, to development and modernization after WWII) occluded—under its triumphant rhetoric of salvation and the good life for all—the perpetuation of the logic of coloniality, that is, of massive appropriation of land (and today of natural resources), massive exploitation of labor (from open slavery from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, to disguised slavery, up to the twenty first century), and the dispensability of human lives from the massive killing of people in the Inca and Aztec domains to the twenty million plus people from Saint Petersburg to the Ukraine during WWII killed in the so called Eastern Front.4 Unfortunately, not all the massive killings have been recorded with the same value and the same visibility. The unspoken criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign (from a de-colonial interpretation) of the hidden imperial identity politics: that is, the value of human lives to which the life of the enunciator belongs becomes the measuring stick to evaluate other human lives who do not have the intellectual option and institutional power to tell the story and to classify events according to a ranking of human lives; that is, according to a racist classification.5

rhetoric of modernity occluded—under its rhetoric of salvation and the good life the dispensability of human lives not all massive killings have been recorded with the same value and visibility. The criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign of imperial politics the enunciator becomes the measuring stick to evaluate other human lives who do not have institutional power to rank according to a racist classification

The rhetoric of modernity (from the Christian mission since the sixteenth century, to the secular Civilizing mission, to development and modernization after WWII) occluded—under its triumphant rhetoric of salvation and the good life for all—the perpetuation of the logic of coloniality, that is, of massive appropriation of land (and today of natural resources), massive exploitation of labor (from open slavery from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, to disguised slavery, up to the twenty first century), and the dispensability of human lives from the massive killing of people in the Inca and Aztec domains to the twenty million plus people from Saint Petersburg to the Ukraine during WWII killed in the so called Eastern Front.4 Unfortunately, not all the massive killings have been recorded with the same value and the same visibility. The unspoken criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign (from a de-colonial interpretation) of the hidden imperial identity politics: that is, the value of human lives to which the life of the enunciator belongs becomes the measuring stick to evaluate other human lives who do not have the intellectual option and institutional power to tell the story and to classify events according to a ranking of human lives; that is, according to a racist classification.5

<h4>be<u> skeptical of their truth claims because high magnitude impacts have colonized the minds of the debate community – it crowds out systemic violence because we only consider what affects us in our privileged position – in this debate, you should flip that calculus</h4><p><strong>Mignolo ‘7</strong> (Walter, argentinian semiotician and prof at Duke, “The De-Colonial Option and the Meaning of Identity in Politics” online)</p><p>The <mark>rhetoric of modernity</mark> (from the Christian mission since the sixteenth century, to the secular Civilizing mission, to development and modernization after WWII) <mark>occluded—under its </mark>triumphant <mark>rhetoric of salvation and the good life</mark> for all—the perpetuation of the logic of coloniality, that is, of massive appropriation of land (and today of natural resources), massive exploitation of labor (from open slavery from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, to disguised slavery, up to the twenty first century), and <mark>the <strong>dispensability of human lives</mark> </strong>from the massive killing of people in the Inca and Aztec domains to the twenty million plus people from Saint Petersburg to the Ukraine during WWII killed in the so called Eastern Front.4 Unfortunately, <mark>not all </mark>the <mark>massive killings have been recorded with the same value and</mark> the same <mark>visibility. The </mark>unspoken <mark>criteria for the value of human lives is an obvious sign</mark> (from a de-colonial interpretation) <mark>of </mark>the hidden <mark>imperial </mark>identity <mark>politics</mark>: that is, <mark>the </mark>value of human lives to which the life of the <mark>enunciator </mark>belongs <mark>becomes the <strong>measuring stick</strong> to evaluate other human lives who do not have </mark>the intellectual option and <mark>institutional power to</mark> tell the story and to classify events according to a <mark>rank</mark>ing of human lives; that is, <mark>according to a racist classification</mark>.5</p></u>

2NC

K

OV

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

N

Kentucky

2

Mary Washington SY

Rebecca Steiner

1ac was marihuana legalization with advantages of cartels and econ 1nc was t legalization security kritik gop bad midterms da the marijuana word pic and case 2nc was security 1nr was t and case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Cooperation solves stability

Hadar 11

Hadar 11—former prof of IR at American U and Mount Vernon-College. PhD in IR from American U (1 July 2011, Leon, Saving U.S. Mideast Policy, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/saving-us-policy-the-mideast-5556)

the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan would not lead to more chaos Russia, India and Iran—which supported the Northern Alliance that helped Washington topple the Taliban—and Pakistan all have close ties to various groups and now have a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing the rivalries.

withdrawal would not lead to chaos Russia, India and Iran and Pakistan all have ties to groups and a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing rivalries.

Indeed, contrary to the warning proponents of U.S. military intervention typically express, the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan would not necessarily lead to more chaos and bloodshed in those countries. Russia, India and Iran—which supported the Northern Alliance that helped Washington topple the Taliban—and Pakistan (which once backed the Taliban) all have close ties to various ethnic and tribal groups in that country and now have a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing the rivalries.

<h4>Cooperation solves stability</h4><p><strong>Hadar 11<u></strong>—former prof of IR at American U and Mount Vernon-College. PhD in IR from American U (1 July 2011, Leon, Saving U.S. Mideast Policy, http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/saving-us-policy-the-mideast-5556)</p><p></u>Indeed, contrary to the warning proponents of U.S. military intervention typically express, <u>the <mark>withdrawal</mark> of </u>American <u>troops from</u> Iraq and <u>Afghanistan <mark>would not</mark> </u>necessarily <u><mark>lead to</mark> more <mark>chaos</u></mark> and bloodshed in those countries. <u><strong><mark>Russia, India and Iran</mark>—which supported the Northern Alliance that helped Washington topple the Taliban—<mark>and Pakistan</u></strong></mark> (which once backed the Taliban) <u><mark>all have</mark> close <mark>ties to</mark> various</u> ethnic and tribal <u><mark>groups</u></mark> in that country <u><mark>and</mark> now have <mark>a common interest in stabilizing Afghanistan and containing </mark>the <mark>rivalries.</p></u></mark>

1NR

War on Drugs

Afghan Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

N

Fullerton

3

Michigan AP

Jared Anderson

1ac was marijuana with a war on drugs advantage 1nc was ontological security k neolib k afropessimism k nearly all spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Status quo justifications for PAS are based on a notion of autonomy which upholds a neoliberal notion of rights and individuation – our project consists of a disruption of those illusory forms of subjectivity – Scott Shershow, when discussing the right to die, posits two important questions: first, “can the political and legal concepts of “rights” or “freedom” apply to something that, so to speak, marks the very limit of all rights and all freedom?” and second “can one really conceive of a right to that which comes inescapably to all whether they like it or not?”

<h4>Status quo justifications for PAS are based on a notion of autonomy which upholds a neoliberal notion of rights and individuation – our project consists of a disruption of those illusory forms of subjectivity – Scott Shershow, when discussing the right to die, posits two important questions: first, “can the political and legal concepts of “rights” or “freedom” apply to something that, so to speak, marks the very limit of all rights and all freedom?” and second “can one really conceive of a right to that which comes inescapably to all whether they like it or not?”<strong> </h4></strong>

1ac

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

A

NDT

3

UTD LO

Heidt, Shook, Lundberg

1AC PAS genealogy- same assimilar to USC PAS 1AC 1NC T- Framework K- Szaz Medicalization of death 2NR T

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Aff-NDT-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Key to protect water supplies

Goad 2/8/

Goad 2/8/13 [Ben Goad, “EPA moves forward with climate change protection plan, asks for comments,” The Hill, 02/08/13 10:55 AM ET, pg. http://tinyurl.com/aaz8ual

It is essential that EPA adapt to anticipate and plan for future changes in climate Rising sea levels and drought linked to climate change will likely require the agency to take steps to protect watersheds, wetlands and water supplies Increasing temperatures will demand measures to protect public safety and adapt emergency response plans The agency would account for future global warming in its grant and loan programs and contract decisions This type of planning can be used to inspire states, regions, localities and individuals to follow suit."¶ The plan stems from Obama’s 2009 executive order requiring Sustainability Performance Plans For the first time this year, those plans include the climate change adaptation plans

It is essential that EPA plan for changes in climate Rising sea levels will require the agency to take steps to protect water supplies Increasing temperatures will demand measures to protect public safety and adapt emergency response plans This can be used to inspire states to follow suit. those plans include the climate change adaptation plans

It is essential that EPA adapt to anticipate and plan for future changes in climate,” according to the 55-page plan, which carries a 2012 date but was put forth now for public consideration. “It must integrate, or mainstream, considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions.” Rising sea levels, loss of snowpack and drought linked to climate change will likely require the agency to take additional steps to protect watersheds, wetlands and water supplies, the report argues. Increasing temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events, meanwhile, will demand measures to protect public safety and adapt emergency response plans, it says. The report does not propose specific rules but rather sets a framework to support and prioritize future actions. By 2015, the report says, EPA will have integrated “climate change science trend and scenario information” into its rule-making processes. ¶ The agency would also account for future global warming in its grant and loan programs and contract decisions by that year, according to the report.¶ Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, lauded the plan. ¶ “We are pleased the EPA is getting its house in order to respond to climate change impacts on its personnel, facilities and programs, said Sarah Saylor, senior legislative representative for the group. "This type of planning can be used to inspire states, regions, localities and individuals to follow suit."¶ The plan stems from Obama’s 2009 executive order requiring federal agencies to issue annual Strategic Sustainability Performance Plans, which set targets for reducing waste and pollution. For the first time this year, those plans include the climate change adaptation plans, which can be viewed here.

<h4>Key to protect water supplies </h4><p><strong>Goad 2/8/</strong>13 [Ben Goad, “EPA moves forward with climate change protection plan, asks for comments,” <u>The Hill</u>, 02/08/13 10:55 AM ET, pg. http://tinyurl.com/aaz8ual</p><p><u><mark>It is essential that EPA </mark>adapt to anticipate and <mark>plan for</mark> future <mark>changes in climate</u></mark>,” according to the 55-page plan, which carries a 2012 date but was put forth now for public consideration. “It must integrate, or mainstream, considerations of climate change into its programs, policies, rules and operations to ensure they are effective under future climatic conditions.” <u><mark>Rising sea levels</u></mark>, loss of snowpack <u>and drought linked to climate change <mark>will</mark> likely <mark>require the agency to take</u></mark> additional <u><mark>steps to protect </mark>watersheds, wetlands and <strong><mark>water supplies</u></strong></mark>, the report argues. <u><mark>Increasing temperatures</u></mark> and more frequent extreme weather events, meanwhile, <u><mark>will demand measures to protect public safety and <strong>adapt emergency response plans</u></strong></mark>, it says. The report does not propose specific rules but rather sets a framework to support and prioritize future actions. By 2015, the report says, EPA will have integrated “climate change science trend and scenario information” into its rule-making processes. ¶ <u>The agency would</u> also <u>account for future global warming in its grant and loan programs and contract decisions</u> by that year, according to the report.¶ Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, lauded the plan. ¶ “We are pleased the EPA is getting its house in order to respond to climate change impacts on its personnel, facilities and programs, said Sarah Saylor, senior legislative representative for the group. "<u><mark>This </mark>type of planning <mark>can be used to <strong>inspire states</mark>, regions, localities and individuals <mark>to follow suit</strong>.</mark>"¶ The plan stems from Obama’s 2009 executive order</u> <u>requiring</u> federal agencies to issue annual Strategic <u>Sustainability Performance Plans</u>, which set targets for reducing waste and pollution. <u>For the first time this year, <mark>those plans include the climate change adaptation plans</u></mark>, which can be viewed here. </p>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

That logic perpetuates global war rather than fixing it

Neocleous 08

Neocleous, Prof of Gov, 08 [Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, Critique of Security, p95-]

the new international order moved very quickly to reassert the connection between economic and national security the major player on the international stage would aim to use perhaps its most important power of all – its ¶ economic strength – in order to re-order the world. And this re-ordering was conducted through the idea of ‘economic security’.9 The reshaping of global capital, international order and the exercise of state power could thus look decidedly liberal and ‘humanitarian’. This appearance helped co-opt the liberal Left into the process this ability to ‘batter down all Chinese walls’ would still rest heavily on the logic of capital, but would also come about in part under the guise of security. The whole worldbecame a garden to be cultivated – to be recast according to the logic of security economic security’ moved to being used for the constant reshaping of world order and resulting in a comprehensive level of intervention and policing all over the globe Security politics thereby became the basis of a distinctly liberal philosophy of global ‘intervention’, fusing global issues of economic management with domestic policy formations in an ambitious and frequently violent strategy. the ‘liberal moment’ becomes the moment of violence there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries’ every covert operation has been rationalized in terms of U.S. national security’. The methods used have varied: most popular has been the favoured technique of liberal security – ‘making the economy scream’ via controls, interventions and the imposition of neo-liberal regulations. But a wide range of other techniques have ¶ been used: terror bombing; subversion; rigging elections; the use of the CIA’s ‘Health Alteration Committee’ whose mandate was to ‘incapacitate’ foreign officials; drug-trafficking;107 and the sponsorship of terror groups, counterinsurgency agencies, death squads. Unsurprisingly, some plain old fascist groups and parties have been co-¶ opted into the project, from the attempt at reviving the remnants of the Nazi collaborationist Vlasov Army for use against the USSR to the use of fascist forces to undermine democratically elected governments, such as in Chile fascism flowed into Latin America because of the ideology of national security Either way, the whole world was to be included in the new‘secure’ global liberal order The result has been the slaughter of untold numbers we come up with a figure of six million people killed – and this is a minimum figure Note that the six million is a minimum figure, that he omits to mention rather a lot of other interventions, and that he was writing in 1991. This is security as the slaughter bench of history Bush reiterated that the US has a unilateral right to overthrow any government in the world, and launched a new round of slaughtering to prove it. The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction In other words, the security policy of the world’s only superpower in its current ‘war on terror’ is still underpinned by a notion of liberal order-building based on a certain vision of ‘economic order’

the new order moved to reassert economic and national security the major player would aim to re-order the world The reshaping of global capital could look ‘humanitarian’ This helped co-opt the liberal Left into the process economic security’ moved to being used for intervention all over the globe Security became the basis of intervention’, fusing economic management with domestic policy in an ambitious and violent strategy the ‘liberal moment’ becomes violence there have 10,000 operations to modify the activities of other countries’ rationalized in U.S. security’ The methods varied terror bombing the use of the CIA to ‘incapacitate’ foreign officials the sponsorship of terror groups death squads and reviving the Nazi collaborationist Vlasov Army ¶ The result has been the slaughter of untold numbers we come up with six million – and this is a minimum Bush launched a round of slaughtering its current ‘war on terror’ is still underpinned by a notion of liberal order-building based on economic order’

In other words, the new international order moved very quickly to reassert the connection between economic and national security: the commitment to the former was simultaneously a commitment to the latter, and vice versa. As the doctrine of national security was being born, the major player on the international stage would aim to use perhaps its most important power of all – its ¶ economic strength – in order to re-order the world. And this re-ordering was conducted through the idea of ‘economic security’.99 Despite the fact that ‘econ omic security’ would never be formally defined beyond ‘economic order’ or ‘economic well-being’,100 the significant conceptual con sistency between economic security and liberal order-building also had a strategic ideological role. By playing on notions of ‘economic well-being’, economic security seemed to emphasise economic and thus‘human’ needs over military ones. The reshaping of global capital, international order and the exercise of state power could thus look decidedly liberal and ‘humanitarian’. This appearance helped co-opt the liberal Left into the process and, of course, played on individual desire for personal security by using notions such as ‘personal freedom’ and‘social equality’.101 ¶ Marx and Engels once highlighted the historical role of the bour geoisie in shaping the world according to its own interests. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere . . . It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them . . . to become bourgeois in themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.102 ¶ In the second half of the twentieth century this ability to ‘batter down all Chinese walls’ would still rest heavily on the logic of capital, but would also come about in part under the guise of security. The whole worldbecame a garden to be cultivated – to be recast according to the logic of security. In the space of fifteen years the concept ‘economic security’ had moved from connoting insurance policies for working people to the desire to shape the world in a capitalist fashion – and back again. In fact, it has constantly shifted between these registers ever since, being used for the constant reshaping of world order and resulting in a comprehensive level of intervention and policing all over the globe. Global order has come to be fabricated and administered according to a security doctrine underpinned by the logic of capitalaccumulation and a bourgeois conception of order. By incorporating within it a particular vision of economic order, the concept of national security implies the interrelatedness of so many different social, econ omic, political and military factors that more or less any development anywhere can be said to impact on liberal order in general and America’s core interests in particular. Not only could bourgeois Europe be recast around the regime of capital, but so too could the whole international order as capital not only nestled, settled and established connections, but also‘secured’ everywhere. ¶ Security politics thereby became the basis of a distinctly liberal philosophy of global ‘intervention’, fusing global issues of economic management with domestic policy formations in an ambitious and frequently violent strategy. Here lies the Janus-faced character of American foreign policy.103 One face is the ‘good liberal cop’: friendly, prosperous and democratic, sending money and help around the globe when problems emerge, so that the world’s nations are shown how they can alleviate their misery and perhaps even enjoy some prosperity. The other face is the ‘bad liberal cop’: should one of these nations decide, either through parliamentary procedure, demands for self-determination or violent revolution to address its own social problems in ways that conflict with the interests of capital and the bourgeois concept of liberty, then the authoritarian dimension of liberalism shows its face; the ‘liberal moment’ becomes the moment of violence. This Janus-faced character has meant that through the mandate of security the US, as the national security state par excellence, has seen fit to either overtly or covertly re-order the affairs of myriads of nations – those ‘rogue’ or ‘outlaw’ states on the ‘wrong side of history’.104 ¶ ‘Extrapolating the figures as best we can’, one CIA agent commented in 1991,‘there have been about 3,000 major covert operations and over 10,000 minor operations – all illegal, and all designed to disrupt, destabilize, or modify the activities of other countries’, adding that ‘every covert operation has been rationalized in terms of U.S. national security’.105 These would include ‘interventions’ in Greece, Italy, France, Turkey, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Indonesia, China, Korea, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Bolivia, Grenada, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Philippines, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, Panama, Angola, Ghana, Congo, South Africa, Albania, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and many more, and many of these more than once. Next up are the ‘60 or more’ countries identified as the bases of ‘terror cells’ by Bush in a speech on 1 June 2002.106 The methods used have varied: most popular has been the favoured technique of liberal security – ‘making the economy scream’ via controls, interventions and the imposition of neo-liberal regulations. But a wide range of other techniques have ¶ been used: terror bombing; subversion; rigging elections; the use of the CIA’s ‘Health Alteration Committee’ whose mandate was to ‘incapacitate’ foreign officials; drug-trafficking;107 and the sponsorship of terror groups, counterinsurgency agencies, death squads. Unsurprisingly, some plain old fascist groups and parties have been co-¶ opted into the project, from the attempt at reviving the remnants of the Nazi collaborationist Vlasov Army for use against the USSR to the use of fascist forces to undermine democratically elected governments, such as in Chile; indeed, one of the ¶ reasons fascism flowed into Latin America was because of the ideology of national security.108 ¶ Concomitantly, ‘national security’ has meant a policy of non-intervention where satisfactory ‘security partnerships’ could be established with certain authoritarian and military regimes: Spain under Franco, the Greek junta, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Indonesia, Cambodia, Taiwan, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Turkey, the five Central Asian republics that emerged with the break-up of the USSR, and China. Either way, the whole world was to be included in the new‘secure’ global liberal order. ¶ The result has been the slaughter of untold numbers. John Stock well, who was part of a CIA project in Angola which led to the deaths of over 20,000 people, puts it like this: ¶ Coming to grips with these U.S./CIA activities in broad numbers and figuring out how many people have been killed in the jungles of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua is very difficult. But, adding them up as best we can, we come up with a figure of six million people killed – and this is a minimum figure. Included are: one million killed in the Korean War, two million killed in the Vietnam War, 800,000 killed in Indonesia, one million in Cambodia, 20,000 killed in Angola – the operation I was part of – and 22,000 killed in Nicaragua.109 ¶ Note that the six million is a minimum figure, that he omits to mention rather a lot of other interventions, and that he was writing in 1991. This is security as the slaughter bench of history. All of this has been more than confirmed by events in the twentyfirst century: in a speech on 1 June 2002, which became the basis of the official National Security Strategy of the United Statesin September of that year, President Bush reiterated that the US has a unilateral right to overthrow any government in the world, and launched a new round of slaughtering to prove it. ¶ While much has been made about the supposedly ‘new’ doctrine of preemption in the early twenty-first century, the policy of preemption has a long history as part of national security doctrine. The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves . . . To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adver saries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre emptively.110 ¶ In other words, the security policy of the world’s only superpower in its current ‘war on terror’ is still underpinned by a notion of liberal order-building based on a certain vision of ‘economic order’. The National Security Strategy concerns itself with a ‘single sustainable model for national success’ based on ‘political and economic liberty’, with whole sections devoted to the security benefits of ‘economic liberty’, and the benefits to liberty of the security strategy proposed.111

<h4>That logic perpetuates global war rather than fixing it</h4><p><u><strong>Neocleous</u></strong>, Prof of Gov, <u><strong>08</u> </strong>[Mark Neocleous, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, Critique of Security, p95-]</p><p>In other words, <u><mark>the new </mark>international <mark>order moved </mark>very quickly <mark>to reassert </mark>the connection between<mark> economic and national security</u></mark>: the commitment to the former was simultaneously a commitment to the latter, and vice versa. As the doctrine of national security was being born, <u><mark>the major player </mark>on the international stage <mark>would aim to </mark>use perhaps its most important power of all – its ¶ economic strength – in order to <mark>re-order the world</mark>. And this re-ordering was conducted through the idea of ‘economic security’.9</u>9 Despite the fact that ‘econ omic security’ would never be formally defined beyond ‘economic order’ or ‘economic well-being’,100 the significant conceptual con sistency between economic security and liberal order-building also had a strategic ideological role. By playing on notions of ‘economic well-being’, economic security seemed to emphasise economic and thus‘human’ needs over military ones. <u><mark>The reshaping of global capital</mark>, international order and the exercise of state power <mark>could </mark>thus <mark>look </mark>decidedly liberal and <mark>‘humanitarian’</mark>. <mark>This </mark>appearance <mark>helped <strong>co-opt the liberal Left into the process</strong></mark> </u>and, of course, played on individual desire for personal security by using notions such as ‘personal freedom’ and‘social equality’.101 ¶ Marx and Engels once highlighted the historical role of the bour geoisie in shaping the world according to its own interests. The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere . . . It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them . . . to become bourgeois in themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.102 ¶ In the second half of the twentieth century<u> this ability to ‘batter down all Chinese walls’ would still rest heavily on the logic of capital, but would also come about in part under the guise of security. The whole worldbecame a garden to be cultivated – to be recast according to the logic of security</u>. In the space of fifteen years the concept ‘<u><mark>economic security’</u> </mark>had <u><mark>moved</u> </mark>from connoting insurance policies for working people <u><mark>to</u> </mark>the desire to shape the world in a capitalist fashion – and back again. In fact, it has constantly shifted between these registers ever since, <u><mark>being used for</mark> the constant reshaping of world order and resulting in a comprehensive level of <strong><mark>intervention </mark>and policing <mark>all over the globe</u></strong></mark>. Global order has come to be fabricated and administered according to a security doctrine underpinned by the logic of capitalaccumulation and a bourgeois conception of order. By incorporating within it a particular vision of economic order, the concept of national security implies the interrelatedness of so many different social, econ omic, political and military factors that more or less any development anywhere can be said to impact on liberal order in general and America’s core interests in particular. Not only could bourgeois Europe be recast around the regime of capital, but so too could the whole international order as capital not only nestled, settled and established connections, but also‘secured’ everywhere. ¶ <u><mark>Security </mark>politics thereby <mark>became the basis of </mark>a distinctly liberal philosophy of global ‘<mark>intervention’, fusing </mark>global issues of <mark>economic management with domestic policy </mark>formations <mark>in an <strong>ambitious and </mark>frequently <mark>violent strategy</mark>.</u></strong> Here lies the Janus-faced character of American foreign policy.103 One face is the ‘good liberal cop’: friendly, prosperous and democratic, sending money and help around the globe when problems emerge, so that the world’s nations are shown how they can alleviate their misery and perhaps even enjoy some prosperity. The other face is the ‘bad liberal cop’: should one of these nations decide, either through parliamentary procedure, demands for self-determination or violent revolution to address its own social problems in ways that conflict with the interests of capital and the bourgeois concept of liberty, then the authoritarian dimension of liberalism shows its face;<u> <mark>the <strong>‘liberal moment’ becomes </mark>the moment of <mark>violence</u></strong></mark>. This Janus-faced character has meant that through the mandate of security the US, as the national security state par excellence, has seen fit to either overtly or covertly re-order the affairs of myriads of nations – those ‘rogue’ or ‘outlaw’ states on the ‘wrong side of history’.104 ¶ ‘Extrapolating the figures as best we can’, one CIA agent commented in 1991,‘<u><mark>there have </mark>been about 3,000 major covert operations and over <mark>10,000 </mark>minor <mark>operations</u> </mark>– all illegal, and all <u>designed <mark>to </mark>disrupt, destabilize, or <mark>modify the activities of other countries’</u></mark>, adding that ‘<u>every covert operation has been <mark>rationalized in </mark>terms of <mark>U.S. </mark>national <mark>security’</mark>.</u>105 These would include ‘interventions’ in Greece, Italy, France, Turkey, Macedonia, the Ukraine, Cambodia, Indonesia, China, Korea, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Uruguay, Bolivia, Grenada, Paraguay, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Philippines, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, Panama, Angola, Ghana, Congo, South Africa, Albania, Lebanon, Grenada, Libya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and many more, and many of these more than once. Next up are the ‘60 or more’ countries identified as the bases of ‘terror cells’ by Bush in a speech on 1 June 2002.106 <u><mark>The methods </mark>used have <mark>varied</mark>: most popular has been the favoured technique of liberal security – ‘making the economy scream’ via controls, interventions and the imposition of neo-liberal regulations. But a wide range of other techniques have ¶ been used: <mark>terror bombing</mark>; subversion; rigging elections; <mark>the use of the CIA</mark>’s ‘Health Alteration Committee’ whose mandate was <mark>to ‘incapacitate’ foreign officials</mark>; drug-trafficking;107 and <mark>the sponsorship of terror groups</mark>, counterinsurgency agencies, <mark>death squads</mark>. Unsurprisingly, some plain old fascist groups <mark>and </mark>parties have been co-¶ opted into the project, from the attempt at <mark>reviving</mark> the remnants of <mark>the Nazi collaborationist Vlasov Army </mark>for use against the USSR to the use of fascist forces to undermine democratically elected governments, such as in Chile</u>; indeed, one of the ¶ reasons <u>fascism flowed into Latin America </u>was <u>because of the ideology of national security</u>.108 ¶ Concomitantly, ‘national security’ has meant a policy of non-intervention where satisfactory ‘security partnerships’ could be established with certain authoritarian and military regimes: Spain under Franco, the Greek junta, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Korea, Indonesia, Cambodia, Taiwan, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Turkey, the five Central Asian republics that emerged with the break-up of the USSR, and China. <u>Either way, the whole world was to be included in the new‘secure’ global liberal order</u>. <mark>¶ <u>The result has been the <strong>slaughter of untold numbers</u></strong></mark>. John Stock well, who was part of a CIA project in Angola which led to the deaths of over 20,000 people, puts it like this: ¶ Coming to grips with these U.S./CIA activities in broad numbers and figuring out how many people have been killed in the jungles of Laos or the hills of Nicaragua is very difficult. But, adding them up as best we can, <u><mark>we come up with</mark> a figure of <strong><mark>six million </mark>people killed <mark>– and this is a minimum</strong> </mark>figure</u>. Included are: one million killed in the Korean War, two million killed in the Vietnam War, 800,000 killed in Indonesia, one million in Cambodia, 20,000 killed in Angola – the operation I was part of – and 22,000 killed in Nicaragua.109 ¶ <u>Note that the six million is a minimum figure, that he omits to mention rather a lot of other interventions, and that he was writing in 1991. This is security as the slaughter bench of history</u>. All of this has been more than confirmed by events in the twentyfirst century: in a speech on 1 June 2002, which became the basis of the official National Security Strategy of the United Statesin September of that year, President <u><mark>Bush </mark>reiterated that the US has a unilateral right to overthrow any government in the world, and <mark>launched a </mark>new <mark>round of slaughtering </mark>to prove it.</u> ¶ While much has been made about the supposedly ‘new’ doctrine of preemption in the early twenty-first century, the policy of preemption has a long history as part of national security doctrine. <u>The United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction</u> – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves . . . To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adver saries, the United States will, if necessary, act pre emptively.110 ¶ <u>In other words, the security policy of the world’s only superpower in <mark>its current ‘war on terror’ is still underpinned by a notion of liberal order-building based on </mark>a certain vision of ‘<mark>economic order’</u></mark>. The National Security Strategy concerns itself with a ‘single sustainable model for national success’ based on ‘political and economic liberty’, with whole sections devoted to the security benefits of ‘economic liberty’, and the benefits to liberty of the security strategy proposed.111 </p>

2NC

Security

Link – Econ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

N

NDT

1

Harvard DH

Eric Short, Chris Thiele, Dan Stout

1ac was online gambling with econ and china advantages 1nc was security edelman and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-NDT-Round1.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Broader topics require increased processing of new information- that directly trades off with information retention- means we don’t get anything out of the activity

Bukatko and Daehler 12 (Danuta Bukatko, Marvin W. Daehler, workers at Gengage learning center in Canada citing work done by Robbie Case- professor emeritus of education and a highly respected researcher in the field of child cognitive development director of the University of Toronto's Institute of Child Study, “Child Development:A Thematic Approach”, pg. 286)//JM

Bukatko and Daehler 12 (Danuta Bukatko, Marvin W. Daehler, workers at Gengage learning center in Canada citing work done by Robbie Case- professor emeritus of education and a highly respected researcher in the field of child cognitive development director of the University of Toronto's Institute of Child Study, “Child Development:A Thematic Approach”, pg. 286)//JM

Other theorist in this field have advanced a limited-resource model of the cognitive system that emphasizes a finite amount of available genitive energy that can be deployed in numerous ways, but only with certain trade-offs. Limited-resource models emphasize the allocation of energy for various cognitive activities rather than the mental structures themselve Robbie Case proposes an inverse relationship between the amount of space available for operating on information and that available for storage Operations include processes such as identifying the stimuli and recognizing relations among them; storage refers to the retention of information for use at a later time. If a substantial amount of mental effort is expended on operations, less space is available for storage or retention If these tasks cost us substantial effort, however, our resources will be taxed and little will be left for the task of remembering.

Other theorist in this field have advanced a limited-resource model of the cognitive system that emphasizes a finite amount of available genitive energy that can be deployed in numerous ways, but only with certain trade-offs. Limited-resource models emphasize the allocation of energy for various cognitive activities rather than the mental structures themselves. The basic assumption is that the pool of resources available for processing, retaining, and reporting information is finite (Bjorklund & Harnishfeger 1990). In one such model, Robbie Case proposes an inverse relationship between the amount of space available for operating on information and that available for storage (Case, 1985; Case, Kurland & Goldberg, 1982). Operations include processes such as identifying the stimuli and recognizing relations among them; storage refers to the retention of information for use at a later time. If a substantial amount of mental effort is expended on operations, less space is available for storage or retention. In the simple memory experiment we just examined, the effort used to identify the words and notice the categorical relationships among them will determine the space left over for storing those words. If we are proficient at recognizing words and their relationships, storage space will be available. If these tasks cost us substantial effort, however, our resources will be taxed and little will be left for the task of remembering. As children grow older, they can mentally

<h4><u>Broader topics require increased processing of new information- that directly trades off with information retention- means we don’t get anything out of the activity</h4><p><strong>Bukatko and Daehler 12 (Danuta Bukatko, Marvin W. Daehler, workers at Gengage learning center in Canada citing work done by Robbie Case- professor emeritus of education and a highly respected researcher in the field of child cognitive development director of the University of Toronto's Institute of Child Study, “Child Development:A Thematic Approach”, pg. 286)//JM</p><p>Other theorist in this field have advanced a limited-resource model of the cognitive system that emphasizes a finite amount of available genitive energy that can be deployed in numerous ways, but only with certain trade-offs. Limited-resource models emphasize the allocation of energy for various cognitive activities rather than the mental structures themselve</u></strong>s. The basic assumption is that the pool of resources available for processing, retaining, and reporting information is finite (Bjorklund & Harnishfeger 1990). In one such model, <u><strong>Robbie Case proposes an inverse relationship between the amount of space available for operating on information and that available for storage</u></strong> (Case, 1985; Case, Kurland & Goldberg, 1982). <u><strong>Operations include processes such as identifying the stimuli and recognizing relations among them; storage refers to the retention of information for use at a later time. If a substantial amount of mental effort is expended on operations, less space is available for storage or retention</u></strong>. In the simple memory experiment we just examined, the effort used to identify the words and notice the categorical relationships among them will determine the space left over for storing those words. If we are proficient at recognizing words and their relationships, storage space will be available.<u><strong> If these tasks cost us substantial effort, however, our resources will be taxed and little will be left for the task of remembering.</u> </strong>As children grow older, they can mentally</p>

1NR

T

Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

N

UMKC

5

Iowa HS

Brian Lain

1AC was organ simony 1NC was the university k topicality and case 2NC was the university k 1nr was topicality and case 2nr was the university k and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-UMKC-Round5.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

they cede their imagination to the state which effaces agency and unlocks atrocity – independent reason to vote neg to confront your role in violence

Kappeler 95

Kappeler 95 (Susanne, The Will to Violence, pgs 9-11)

'We are the war, I do not know what war is but I see it everywhere . I am afraid that we cannot hold anyone else responsible. We make this war possible , we permit it to happen We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords or upholding the notion of 'collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective 'assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the illusion of our 'powerlessness' and its accompanying phenomenon political disillusionment. our insight that indeed we are not responsible tends to mislead us in to thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions we participate in 'organized irresponsibility' we tend to think that we cannot 'do ' anything about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'What would I do if I were the general, the president, the minister of defence?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of war and violence.

I do not know what war is but I see it everywhere we cannot hold anyone else responsible. We make war possible universal responsibility becomes universal acquittal Decisions to unleash war are taken at particular levels of power focusing on the stage where major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our own competence leading to 'powerlessness' and disillusionment. it seems to absolve us from having to see any relation between our actions and events we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why those not yet disillusioned with politics engage in mental deputy politics, 'What would I do if I were the president we regard mega spheres as the only worthwhile ones we shape 'our values' according war and violence.

War does not suddenly break out in a peaceful society; sexual violence is not the disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations. Racist attacks do not shoot like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual exploitation of children is no solitary problem in a world otherwise just to children. The violence of our most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal will to violence, constitute the conceptual preparation , the ideological armament and the intellectual mobilization which make the 'outbreak' of war, of sexual violence , of racist attacks, of murder and destruction possible at all. 'We are the war,' writes Slavenka Drakulic at the end of her existential analysis of the question, 'what is war?': I do not know what war is, I want to tell my friend, but I see it everywhere . It is in the blood-soaked street in Sarajevo, after 20 people have been killed while they queued for bread. But it is also in your non-comprehension, in my unconscious cruelty towards you. in the fact that you have a yellow form [for refugees] and I don't, in the way in which it grows inside ourselves and changes our feelings, relationships, values - in short: us. We are the war. , , And I am afraid that we cannot hold anyone else responsible. We make this war possible , we permit it to happen. 'We are the war' - and we also are' the sexual violence , the racist violence , the exploitation and the will to violence in all its manifestations in a society in so-called 'peacetime", for we make them possible and we permit them to happen. 'We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of 'collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal. 6 On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective 'assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of focusing on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the well- known illusion of our apparent 'powerlessness' and its accompanying phenomenon - our so-called political disillusionment. Single citizens even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina or Somalia _ since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us in to thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action. In particular, it seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls 'organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers. For we tend to think that we cannot 'do ' anything , say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of 'What would I do if I were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like ‘I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention ', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. '? 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our 'non- comprehension' : our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don 't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others'. We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way we shape 'our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to the structures and the values of war and violence.

<h4>they cede their imagination to the state which effaces agency and unlocks atrocity – independent reason to vote neg to confront your role in violence</h4><p><u><strong>Kappeler 95</u></strong> (Susanne, The Will to Violence, pgs<u> 9-11)</p><p></u>War does not suddenly break out in a peaceful society; sexual violence is not the disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations. Racist attacks do not shoot like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual exploitation of children is no solitary problem in a world otherwise just to children. The violence of our most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal will to violence, constitute the conceptual preparation , the ideological armament and the intellectual mobilization which make the 'outbreak' of war, of sexual violence , of racist attacks, of murder and destruction possible at all.<u> 'We are the war,</u>' writes Slavenka Drakulic at the end of her existential analysis of the question, 'what is war?': <u><mark>I do not know what war is</u></mark>, I want to tell my friend, <u><mark>but I see it everywhere</mark> . </u>It is in the blood-soaked street in Sarajevo, after 20 people have been killed while they queued for bread. But it is also in your non-comprehension, in my unconscious cruelty towards you. in the fact that you have a yellow form [for refugees] and I don't, in the way in which it grows inside ourselves and changes our feelings, relationships, values - in short: us. We are the war. , , And <u>I am afraid that <mark>we cannot hold anyone else responsible. We make</mark> this <mark>war possible</mark> , we permit it to happen</u>. 'We are the war' - and we also are' the sexual violence , the racist violence , the exploitation and the will to violence in all its manifestations in a society in so-called 'peacetime", for we make them possible and we permit them to happen. '<u>We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords </u>and politicians and profiteers<u> or</u>, as Ulrich Beck says, <u>upholding the notion of 'collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and</u> where the conception of<u> <mark>universal responsibility becomes</mark> the equivalent of a <mark>universal acquittal</u></mark>. 6 On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations.<u> <mark>Decisions to unleash</mark> a <mark>war are</mark> indeed <mark>taken at particular levels of power</mark> by those in a position to make them </u>and to command such collective action. <u>We need to hold them clearly responsible for their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective 'assumption' of responsibility. Yet our habit of <mark>focusing on the stage where</mark> the <mark>major dramas of power take place</mark> <mark>tends to obscure our</mark> sight in relation to our <mark>own</mark> sphere of <mark>competence</mark>, our own power and our own responsibility - <mark>leading to</mark> the </u>well- known<u> illusion of our </u>apparent<u> <mark>'powerlessness' and</mark> its accompanying phenomenon </u>- our so-called<u> political <mark>disillusionment.</mark> </u>Single citizens even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina or Somalia _ since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet<u> our insight that indeed we are not responsible</u> for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president <u>tends to mislead us in to thinking that therefore we have no responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgment, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our own sphere of action</u>. In particular, <u><mark>it seems to absolve us from having to</mark> try to <mark>see any relation between our</mark> own <mark>actions and</mark> those <mark>events</mark>, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own personal decisions</u>. It not only shows that <u>we participate in</u> what Beck calls <u>'organized irresponsibility'</u>, upholding the apparent lack of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major power mongers. For<u> we tend to think that we cannot 'do ' anything</u> , say, <u>about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because <mark>we are not where the major decisions are made. Which is why</mark> many of <mark>those not yet</mark> entirely <mark>disillusioned with politics</mark> tend to <mark>engage in</mark> a form of <mark>mental deputy politics,</mark> in the style of <mark>'What would I do if I were the</mark> general, </u>the prime minister,<u> the <mark>president</mark>, </u>the foreign minister or<u> the minister of defence?' Since <mark>we</mark> seem to <mark>regard</mark> their <mark>mega spheres</mark> of action <mark>as the only worthwhile</mark> and truly effective <mark>ones</mark>, </u>and since our political analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as 'virtually no possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like ‘I want to stop this war', 'I want military intervention ', 'I want to stop this backlash', or 'I want a moral revolution. '? 'We are this war', however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our 'non- comprehension' : our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the advantages these offer. And we 'are' the war in our 'unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the 'fact that you have a yellow form for refugees and I don 't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of our own and one for the 'others'. <u>We share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let them grow inside us, that is, in the way <mark>we shape 'our</mark> feelings, our relationships, our <mark>values' according</mark> to the structures and the values of <mark>war and violence.</p></u></mark>

2NC

K

Framework

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

N

Kentucky

2

Mary Washington SY

Rebecca Steiner

1ac was marihuana legalization with advantages of cartels and econ 1nc was t legalization security kritik gop bad midterms da the marijuana word pic and case 2nc was security 1nr was t and case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Round2.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Afghan security forces solve

LaFranchi 13

Howard LaFranchi 13, Staff writer for CS Monitor, June 25th, “Is Afghanistan ready to defend itself”, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0625/Is-Afghanistan-ready-to-defend-itself, AB

the United States, NATO, and the Afghan government are gambling that the country's security forces are ready or ready enough to take the lead in defending the entire nation from Taliban forces and Islamist insurgents There's been progress Most of the Afghan Army brigades are capable of working on their own the Afghan people are becoming more confident in the A N S F The people are getting more confident If talks proceed apace fighting and violence on the ground in Afghanistan may diminish, easing the demands on the Afghan government's forces and perhaps smoothing the path to a US-NATO exit

Afghan security forces are ready to take the lead in defending the nation There's been progress brigades are capable of working on their own the people are becoming more confident in the A N S F people are getting more confident fighting in Afghanistan may diminish

Now, the United States, NATO, and the Afghan government itself are gambling that the rest of the country's 344,000 security forces are also ready – or ready enough – to take the lead in defending the entire nation from Taliban forces and Islamist insurgents. As of June 18, NATO turned over to the Afghans the security lead for 100 percent of the country, and US and NATO troops officially shifted to an advise-and-assist role throughout Afghanistan – a role set to draw to a close with the end of NATO's combat mission in December 2014. Evidence is mixed as to the readiness of Afghanistan's Army soldiers and National Police to assume the lead in planning and fighting the war – with the summer combat season likely to be the first big test. There's been progress, to be sure. Most of the Afghan Army brigades – as many as 20 of 26, NATO officials claim – are capable of working on their own, up from one a year ago. And the Afghan people are becoming more confident in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), polls show. "The people are getting more confident, and part of that is what they have seen from the ANSF" in the initial weeks of the summer fighting season, says Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, chairman of the Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program. How ready the Afghan forces actually need to be may depend in part on reconciliation talks expected to begin soon between the government of President Hamid Karzai and representatives of the Taliban. Qatar has agreed to host the negotiations, which Mr. Karzai announced June 18 and which US officials described as an "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned initiative." If talks proceed apace – Karzai was already expressing misgivings about the talks the day after announcing them – fighting and violence on the ground in Afghanistan may diminish, easing the demands on the Afghan government's forces and perhaps smoothing the path to a US-NATO exit, some American officials have suggested.

<h4>Afghan security forces solve </h4><p>Howard <strong>LaFranchi 13</strong>, Staff writer for CS Monitor, June 25th, “Is Afghanistan ready to defend itself”, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2013/0625/Is-Afghanistan-ready-to-defend-itself, AB</p><p>Now, <u>the United States, NATO, and the <mark>Afghan</mark> government</u> itself <u>are gambling that the</u> rest of the <u>country's</u> 344,000 <u><mark>security</mark> <mark>forces are</u></mark> also <u><strong><mark>ready</u></strong></mark> – <u>or ready enough</u> – <u><mark>to take the lead in defending</mark> <mark>the</mark> entire <mark>nation</mark> from Taliban forces and Islamist insurgents</u>. As of June 18, NATO turned over to the Afghans the security lead for 100 percent of the country, and US and NATO troops officially shifted to an advise-and-assist role throughout Afghanistan – a role set to draw to a close with the end of NATO's combat mission in December 2014. Evidence is mixed as to the readiness of Afghanistan's Army soldiers and National Police to assume the lead in planning and fighting the war – with the summer combat season likely to be the first big test. <u><mark>There's</mark> <mark>been progress</u></mark>, to be sure. <u>Most of the Afghan Army <mark>brigades</u></mark> – as many as 20 of 26, NATO officials claim – <u><mark>are capable of <strong>working on their own</u></strong></mark>, up from one a year ago. And <u><mark>the</mark> Afghan <mark>people are becoming <strong>more confident</strong></mark> <mark>in</mark> <mark>the A</u></mark>fghan<mark> <u>N</u></mark>ational <u><mark>S</u></mark>ecurity <u><mark>F</u></mark>orces (ANSF), polls show. "<u>The <mark>people are getting more confident</u></mark>, and part of that is what they have seen from the ANSF" in the initial weeks of the summer fighting season, says Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, chairman of the Afghanistan Peace and Reintegration Program. How ready the Afghan forces actually need to be may depend in part on reconciliation talks expected to begin soon between the government of President Hamid Karzai and representatives of the Taliban. Qatar has agreed to host the negotiations, which Mr. Karzai announced June 18 and which US officials described as an "Afghan-led, Afghan-owned initiative."<u> If talks proceed apace</u> – Karzai was already expressing misgivings about the talks the day after announcing them – <u><mark>fighting</mark> and violence on the ground <mark>in Afghanistan<strong> may diminish</strong></mark>, easing the demands on the Afghan government's forces and perhaps smoothing the path to a US-NATO exit</u>, some American officials have suggested.</p>

1NR

War on Drugs

Afghan Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

N

Fullerton

3

Michigan AP

Jared Anderson

1ac was marijuana with a war on drugs advantage 1nc was ontological security k neolib k afropessimism k nearly all spec and case 2nc was security 1nr was case 2nr was security and case

ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Fullerton-Round3.docx

EvZo

Baylor EvZo

Sa.....

Ev.....

Gr.....

Zo.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The impact is US colonial intervention in the name of resources

Hodges 12 December 11, 2012, pg. http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/12/11/the-coming-water-wars/

Hodges 12 [Dave Hodges, “The Coming Water Wars,” The Common Sense Show.com, December 11, 2012, pg. http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/12/11/the-coming-water-wars/

America will be forced into water wars in order to secure water for our people. This will force our people into more wars of occupation in a search for water , if America wants water Americans will have to go to war to obtain water.¶ Bolivia is being exploited to this end and is serving as the canary in the mine with regard to what lies ahead for the U S and the coming water wars.¶ Soon, very soon, our water supplies will become the most expensive in the world. Obtaining water for many Americans will soon be a life and death struggle.

America will be forced into water wars wars of occupation Bolivia is being exploited to this end and is serving as the canary in the mine with regard to what lies ahead for the U S and the coming water wars. Obtaining water will be a life and death struggle

Very soon, America will be forced into water wars in order to secure the precious asset of water for our people. This will force our people into more wars of occupation in a search for water. Meanwhile, every nation that America conquers, is one less country that the bankers have to worry about taking over. At the end of the day, if America wants water, someday, Americans will have to go to war to obtain water.¶ As any aware person knows, Agenda 21 is being used as a front for the purpose of increasing the bottom of line of select global corporations. Bolivia is being exploited to this end and is serving as the canary in the mine with regard to what lies ahead for the United States and the coming water wars.¶ The United States sits upon a fiscal cliff. Economic devastation is in the cards for the US. Many wonder what will happen when the country defaults and cannot pay its bills. The answer is simple, our country will enter receivership. Once receivership is thrust upon our country, the bankers will begin to take control of our assets. Among the prize assets coveted by the globalist bankers will be our water supply. Soon, very soon, our water supplies will become the most expensive in the world. Obtaining water for many Americans will soon be a life and death struggle.

<h4>The impact is US colonial intervention in the name of resources</h4><p><strong>Hodges 12</strong> [Dave Hodges, “The Coming Water Wars,” <u>The Common Sense Show.com, <strong>December 11, 2012, pg. http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2012/12/11/the-coming-water-wars/</p><p></u></strong>Very soon, <u><mark>America will be forced into water wars</mark> in order to secure </u>the precious asset of <u>water for our people. This will force our people into more <strong><mark>wars of occupation</mark> in a search for water</u></strong>. Meanwhile, every nation that America conquers, is one less country that the bankers have to worry about taking over. At the end of the day<u>, if America wants water</u>, someday, <u>Americans will have to go to war to obtain water.¶ </u>As any aware person knows, Agenda 21 is being used as a front for the purpose of increasing the bottom of line of select global corporations. <u><mark>Bolivia is being exploited to this end and is serving as the canary in the mine with regard to what lies ahead for the U</u></mark>nited <u><mark>S</u></mark>tates <u><mark>and the coming <strong>water wars</strong>.</mark>¶ </u>The United States sits upon a fiscal cliff. Economic devastation is in the cards for the US. Many wonder what will happen when the country defaults and cannot pay its bills. The answer is simple, our country will enter receivership. Once receivership is thrust upon our country, the bankers will begin to take control of our assets. Among the prize assets coveted by the globalist bankers will be our water supply. <u>Soon, very soon, our water supplies will become the most expensive in the world. <mark>Obtaining water </mark>for many Americans <mark>will</mark> soon <mark>be a <strong>life and death struggle</strong></mark>.</p></u>

1NC

Off

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/EvZo/Baylor-Evans-Zoda-Neg-Kentucky-Doubles.docx

N

Kentucky

Doubles

George Mason KL

Rebecca Steiner, Kelly Young, and Brian Box

1ac was marijuana CSA 1nc was T not CSA GOP bad midterms Waivers CP Security K and case 2nc was Security and Midterms 1nr was Waivers and case 2nr was Security and case