Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 4

Their “changing the world” attitude is bullshit and leads to a hatred of the self and lashout

Baudrillard 5

Baudrillard 5 [Jean. French postmodern dude: philosopher, sociologist, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact. Page 146-150]

death has to be redeemed by a com- pulsive effort to transform the world. One has to ensure one's salvation at all costs by realizing the world for bette A performance that tops off the one described by Max Weber in The Spirit ofCapitalism: that of transforming it is no longer a question now of his glory; it is a question of his death and of exorcizing it. The point is to make the world transparent by extirpating from it any illusion and any evil force. And so, under the hegemony of good, everything is getting better and no hell any more, and no damnation. Everything becomes susceptible of redemption. From this point on, good and evil, which were still opposing powers, but linked to each other in transcendence, are to be dissociated for the purposes of a definitive realization of the world under the banner of happiness is to such an evangelization that we can ascribe all the manifest signs of well-being and accomplishment Offered to us by a paradisiac civilization subject to the eleventh commandment, the commandment that sweeps away ~1l others: 'Be happy and show all the signs of happiness the future, it is better and worse yet: everything will be genetically modified to" attain the biological and democratic perfection of the species' From the point when everyone is potentially saved, no one is. Salvation no longer has any meaning. This is the destiny that beckons for our democratic enterprise: it forgotten discrimination We need evil from which there is no redemption There is nothing immoral in this. nothing immoral in some losing and What would be immoral would be for everyone to win the imperative of salvation will always be thwarted by some challenge or passion from elsewhere, and any form of personal beatitude may be sacrificed which retains the fateful quality of that which, in opposition to any happy finality, is predestined to come to pass. Behind its euphoric exaltation, this imperative of maximum performance bears within it evil and misfortune in the form of a deep disavowal and a secret disillusionment. Perhaps performance is merely a collective form of human sacrifice Individuals carry on their lives like a useless function in the eyes of another world, irrelevant even in their own eyes. And they do what they do all the better for the fact that there is no other possibility. No authority to appeal to They have sacrificed their lives to their functional existences They are one with the exact numerical calculation of their lives and their performance Summoned to greatest efficiency and pleasure out of themselves human beings are at odds; and their existences dislocated An existence realized but denied, thwarted, disowned

death has to be redeemed by a effort to transform the world. One has to ensure salvation at all costs by realizing the world better A performance of transforming it is no longer a question of glory; it is a question of death The point is to make the world transparent by extirpating any evil force under the hegemony of good, everything is getting better and no hell no damnation Everything becomes susceptible of redemption From this point good and evil, which were still opposing are dissociated for the realization of the world under the banner of happiness It is to manifest signs of well-being and accomplishment show signs of happiness the future will be modified to" attain perfection of the species' From the point when everyone is saved, no one is Salvation no longer has any meaning. This is the destiny that beckons democratic enterprise it forgot discrimination We need evil from which there is no redemption There is nothing immoral in this. nothing immoral in some losing What would be immoral would be for everyone to win the imperative of salvation will always be thwarted by challenge elsewhere and personal beatitude sacrificed which retains the fateful quality that in opposition to any happy finality, is predestined to come to pass. Behind euphoric exaltation, this imperative of maximum performance bears misfortune in the form of disavowal and secret disillusionment performance is collective form of human sacrifice, Individuals carry on their lives like a useless function in the eyes of another world irrelevant even in their own eyes they do what they do for no other possibility No authority to appeal to They have sacrificed their lives to functional existences They are one with calculation of performance Summoned to efficiency human beings are at odds existences dislocated realized but denied, thwarted, disowned

'Bis Gottes Fehle hilft,' says H6lderlin. 'Until God's absence comes to our aid.' The death of God is, in fact, the deliverance from all re- sponsibility to another world. But our responsibility for this world then becomes total, and there is no longer any possible redemption. Or, rather, redemption changes meaning: it is no longer the redemption of man and his sin, but the redemption of the death of God. That death has to be redeemed by a com- pulsive effort to transform the world. One has to ensure one's salvation at all costs by realizing the world for better or for worse. A performance that tops off the one described by Max Weber in The Spirit ofCapitalism: that of transforming the world into wealth for the greater glory of God. But it is no longer a question now of his glory; it is a question of his death and of exorcizing it. The point is to make the world transparent and operational by extirpating from it any illusion and any evil force. And so, under the hegemony of good, everything is getting better and, at the same time, going from bad to worse: no hell any more, and no damnation. Everything becomes susceptible of redemption. From this point on, good and evil, which were still opposing powers, but linked to each other in transcendence, are to be dissociated for the purposes of a definitive realization of the world under the banner of happiness. In fact, this idea of happiness bears merely a distant relation to good. For if good is moral in essence, happiness, the performance of happiness - is in essence perfectly immoral. It is to such an evangelization that we can ascribe all the manifest signs of well-being and accomplishment Offered to us by a paradisiac civilization subject to the eleventh commandment, the commandment that sweeps away ~1l others: 'Be happy and show all the signs of happiness!' . We can see this demand for universal redemption in the way all current violence and injustice is being put on "trial, and also, retrospectively, all the crimes and violent events of the past: the French Revolution, slavery, original sin and battered wives, the ozone layer and sexual harassment. In short, the investigative process for the Last Judgement is already well under way and we are doomed first to condemn, then to absolve and whitewash the whole of our history; to exterminate evil from even the tiniest interstices, so as to offer the image of a radiant universe ready to pass over into the next world. An inhuman, superhuman, all-too-human undertaking? And why fuel this eternal repentance, this chain reaction of bad conscience? Because everything must be saved. This is where we have got to today. Everything will be re- deemed, the whole past will be rehabilitated, buffed up to the point of transparency. As for the future, it is better and worse yet: everything will be genetically modified to" attain the biological and democratic perfection of the species'; The salvation that was defined by the equivalence of merit and grace will be defined, once the fixation with evil and Hell has been overcome, by the equivalence of genes and performance. To tell the truth, once happiness becomes the general equi- valent of salvation, pure and simple, then heaven itself is no longer needed. From the point when everyone is potentially saved, no one is. Salvation no longer has any meaning. This is the destiny that beckons for our democratic enterprise: it is stifled at birth for having forgotten the necessary discrimination, for the omission of evil. We need, then, an irrevocable presence of evil, an evil from which there is no possible redemption, an irrevocable dis- crimination, a perpetual duality of Heaven and Hell, and even, in a sense, a predestination of evil, for there can be no destiny without some predestination. There is nothing immoral in this. According to the rules of the game, there is nothing immoral in some losing and others winning, or even in everyone losing. What would be immoral would be for everyone to win. This is the contemporary ideal of our democracy: that all should be saved. But that is possible only at the cost of a perpetual inflation and upping of the stakes. And this is reassuring, since the imperative of salvation, of the individual state of grace, will always be thwarted by some challenge or passion from elsewhere, and any form of personal beatitude may be sacrificed to something more vital, which may be of the order of the will in Schopenhauer's terms or of the will to power in Nietzsche's, but which, in any event, retains the fateful quality of that which, in opposition to any happy finality, is predestined to come to pass. Behind its euphoric exaltation, this imperative of maximum performance bears within it evil and misfortune in the form of a deep disavowal and a secret disillusionment. Perhaps performance is merely a collective form of human sacrifice, but disembodied and distilled into our entire technological machinery. In this strange world, where everything is potentially available - the body, sex, space, money, pleasure - to be taken or rejected en bloc, everything is there; nothing has disappeared physically, but everything has disappeared metaphysically. 'As if by magic,' one might say, except that it has disappeared not so much by enchantment as by disenchantment. Individuals, such as they are, become exactly what they are. Without transcendence and without image, they carry on their lives like a useless function in the eyes of another world, irrelevant even in their own eyes. And they do what they do all the better for the fact that there is no other possibility. No authority to appeal to. They have sacrificed their lives to their functional existences. They are one with the exact numerical calculation of their lives and their performance. Summoned to get the greatest efficiency and pleasure out of themselves, human beings are suddenly at odds; and their existences dislocated. An existence realized, then, but at the same time denied, thwarted, disowned. Wherever humans are condemned to total freedom or to an ideal fulfilment, this automatic abreaction to ;their own good and their own happiness seeps in. This imperative of maximum performance also comes into contradiction with the moral law, which dictates that everyone shall be put on an equal basis and everything set to zero in the name of democracy and an equal division of opportunity and advantage. From the perspective of universal redemption no one must stand out. For justice to be done, all privilege must disappear; everyone is called on to shed any specific qualities and to become once again an elementary particle - collective happiness being that of the lowest common denominator. This is like potlatch in reverse, each outbidding the other in insignificance, while zealously cultivating their tiniest difference and cobbling together their multiple identities. Recrimination means going back over the crime to correct its trajectory and its effects. This is what we are doing in going back over the whole of our history, over the criminal history of the human species, so that we may do penance right now as we await the Last Judgement.

<h4>Their “changing the world” attitude is bullshit and leads to a hatred of the self and lashout</h4><p><strong>Baudrillard 5 </strong>[Jean. French postmodern dude: philosopher, sociologist, cultural theorist, political commentator, and photographer. The Intelligence of Evil or the Lucidity Pact. Page 146-150]</p><p>'Bis Gottes Fehle hilft,' says H6lderlin. 'Until God's absence comes to our aid.' The death of God is, in fact, the deliverance from all re- sponsibility to another world. But our responsibility for this world then becomes total, and there is no longer any possible redemption. Or, rather, redemption changes meaning: it is no longer the redemption of man and his sin, but the redemption of the death of God. That <u><strong><mark>death has to be redeemed by a</mark> com- pulsive <mark>effort to transform the world. One has to ensure</mark> one's <mark>salvation at all costs by realizing the world</mark> for <mark>bette</u></strong>r</mark> or for worse. <u><strong><mark>A</mark> <mark>performance</mark> that tops off the one described by Max Weber in The Spirit ofCapitalism: that <mark>of transforming</u></strong></mark> the world into wealth for the greater glory of God. But <u><strong><mark>it is no longer a question</mark> now <mark>of</mark> his <mark>glory; it is a</mark> <mark>question of</mark> his <mark>death</mark> and of exorcizing it. <mark>The point is to make the world transparent</u></strong></mark> and operational <u><strong><mark>by extirpating</mark> from it any illusion and <mark>any evil force</mark>. And so, <mark>under the hegemony of good, everything is getting better and</u></strong></mark>, at the same time, going from bad to worse: <u><strong><mark>no hell</mark> any more, and <mark>no</mark> <mark>damnation</mark>. <mark>Everything becomes susceptible of redemption</mark>. <mark>From this point </mark>on, <mark>good and evil, which were still opposing</mark> powers, but linked to each other in transcendence, <mark>are</mark> to be <mark>dissociated for the</mark> purposes of a definitive <mark>realization of the world under the banner of happiness</u></strong></mark>. In fact, this idea of happiness bears merely a distant relation to good. For if good is moral in essence, happiness, the performance of happiness - is in essence perfectly immoral. <mark>It <u><strong>is to</mark> such an evangelization that we can ascribe all the <mark>manifest signs of well-being and accomplishment</mark> Offered to us by a paradisiac civilization subject to the eleventh commandment, the commandment that sweeps away ~1l others: 'Be happy and <mark>show</mark> all the <mark>signs of happiness</u></strong></mark>!' . We can see this demand for universal redemption in the way all current violence and injustice is being put on "trial, and also, retrospectively, all the crimes and violent events of the past: the French Revolution, slavery, original sin and battered wives, the ozone layer and sexual harassment. In short, the investigative process for the Last Judgement is already well under way and we are doomed first to condemn, then to absolve and whitewash the whole of our history; to exterminate evil from even the tiniest interstices, so as to offer the image of a radiant universe ready to pass over into the next world. An inhuman, superhuman, all-too-human undertaking? And why fuel this eternal repentance, this chain reaction of bad conscience? Because everything must be saved. This is where we have got to today. Everything will be re- deemed, the whole past will be rehabilitated, buffed up to the point of transparency. As for <u><strong><mark>the future</mark>, it is better and worse yet: everything <mark>will be</mark> genetically <mark>modified to" attain</mark> the biological and democratic <mark>perfection of the species'</u></strong></mark>; The salvation that was defined by the equivalence of merit and grace will be defined, once the fixation with evil and Hell has been overcome, by the equivalence of genes and performance. To tell the truth, once happiness becomes the general equi- valent of salvation, pure and simple, then heaven itself is no longer needed. <u><strong><mark>From the point when everyone is</mark> potentially <mark>saved, no one is</mark>. <mark>Salvation</mark> <mark>no longer has any meaning. This is the destiny that beckons</mark> for our <mark>democratic enterprise</mark>: <mark>it</u></strong></mark> is stifled at birth for having <u><strong><mark>forgot</mark>ten</u></strong> the necessary <u><strong><mark>discrimination</u></strong></mark>, for the omission of evil. <u><strong><mark>We need</u></strong></mark>, then, an irrevocable presence of <u><strong><mark>evil</u></strong></mark>, an evil <u><strong><mark>from which there is no</u></strong></mark> possible <u><strong><mark>redemption</u></strong></mark>, an irrevocable dis- crimination, a perpetual duality of Heaven and Hell, and even, in a sense, a predestination of evil, for there can be no destiny without some predestination. <u><strong><mark>There is nothing immoral in this.</mark> </u></strong>According to the rules of the game, there is <u><strong><mark>nothing immoral in some losing </mark>and</u></strong> others winning, or even in everyone losing. <u><strong><mark>What would be immoral would be for everyone to win</u></strong></mark>. This is the contemporary ideal of our democracy: that all should be saved. But that is possible only at the cost of a perpetual inflation and upping of the stakes. And this is reassuring, since <u><strong><mark>the imperative of salvation</u></strong></mark>, of the individual state of grace, <u><strong><mark>will always be thwarted by</mark> some <mark>challenge</mark> or passion from <mark>elsewhere</mark>, <mark>and</mark> any form of <mark>personal</mark> <mark>beatitude</mark> may be <mark>sacrificed</u></strong></mark> to something more vital, which may be of the order of the will in Schopenhauer's terms or of the will to power in Nietzsche's, but <u><strong><mark>which</u></strong></mark>, in any event, <u><strong><mark>retains the fateful quality</mark> of <mark>that</mark> which, <mark>in opposition to any happy finality, is predestined to come to pass.</mark> <mark>Behind</mark> its <mark>euphoric exaltation, this</mark> <mark>imperative of maximum performance</mark> <mark>bears</mark> within it evil and <mark>misfortune in the form of</mark> a deep <mark>disavowal</mark> <mark>and</mark> a <mark>secret disillusionment</mark>. Perhaps <mark>performance</mark> <mark>is</mark> merely a <mark>collective form of human sacrifice</u></strong>, </mark>but disembodied and distilled into our entire technological machinery. In this strange world, where everything is potentially available - the body, sex, space, money, pleasure - to be taken or rejected en bloc, everything is there; nothing has disappeared physically, but everything has disappeared metaphysically. 'As if by magic,' one might say, except that it has disappeared not so much by enchantment as by disenchantment. <u><strong><mark>Individuals</u></strong></mark>, such as they are, become exactly what they are. Without transcendence and without image, they <u><strong><mark>carry on their lives like a useless function in</mark> <mark>the eyes of another world</mark>, <mark>irrelevant even in their own eyes</mark>. And <mark>they do what they do</mark> all the better <mark>for</mark> the fact that there is <mark>no other possibility</mark>. <mark>No authority to appeal to</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>They have sacrificed their lives to</mark> their <mark>functional existences</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>They are one with</mark> the exact numerical <mark>calculation</mark> <mark>of</mark> their lives and their <mark>performance</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Summoned to</u></strong></mark> get the <u><strong>greatest <mark>efficiency</mark> and pleasure out of themselves</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>human beings are</u></strong></mark> suddenly <u><strong><mark>at odds</mark>; and their <mark>existences dislocated</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>An existence <mark>realized</u></strong></mark>, then, <u><strong><mark>but</u></strong></mark> at the same time <u><strong><mark>denied, thwarted, disowned</u></strong></mark>. Wherever humans are condemned to total freedom or to an ideal fulfilment, this automatic abreaction to ;their own good and their own happiness seeps in. This imperative of maximum performance also comes into contradiction with the moral law, which dictates that everyone shall be put on an equal basis and everything set to zero in the name of democracy and an equal division of opportunity and advantage. From the perspective of universal redemption no one must stand out. For justice to be done, all privilege must disappear; everyone is called on to shed any specific qualities and to become once again an elementary particle - collective happiness being that of the lowest common denominator. This is like potlatch in reverse, each outbidding the other in insignificance, while zealously cultivating their tiniest difference and cobbling together their multiple identities. Recrimination means going back over the crime to correct its trajectory and its effects. This is what we are doing in going back over the whole of our history, over the criminal history of the human species, so that we may do penance right now as we await the Last Judgement. </p>

2NC

1NC Market

2NC AT: Action Good

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Dems win – ad war

Blake 10/17

Blake 10/17 <Aaron, The Fix, “How Democrats are winning the ad wars — in 2 charts,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/17/how-democrats-are-winning-the-ad-wars-in-2-charts/>#SPS

One of the less-publicized realities of the 2014 Senate campaign is that Democrats are getting considerably more bang for their buck. they figure to have at least a slight advertising advantage in most of the key races -- despite being outspent overall. in Alaska Republicans figure to spend more than 72 percent of the ad dollars in the final few weeks. they will run less than half the ads There's a similar disparity in Arkansas in only two of the races above are Republicans getting more bang for their buck than Democrats, and those two states are Michigan and Virginia, which aren't really top-tier contests. The number of ads run isn't quite the same thing as the number of people reached by ads. Candidates get lower ad rates than outside groups, and incumbents tend to raise more money than challengers. Given Democrats have so many incumbents in the races above (nine) and Republicans have just two, that means Democrats tend to benefit more from lower rates for candidates. reserving ads early secures lower rates. Buying ads at this point in an election can be very expensive, because the airwaves are flooded in the markets playing host to competitive races GOP groups trying to play catch-up and even the advertising battlefield in the states that wound up being competitive have to spend considerably more on ads today than Democrats did when they reserved the space months ago. Republicans are about to get lapped on the airwaves Republicans are getting pummeled in Michigan, Oregon and Virginia. These are no longer expected to be potential pickup opportunities, and the ad-spending imbalance certainly won't do much to change that.

Democrats are getting considerably more bang for their buck The number of ads run isn't quite the same thing as the number of people reached by ads Candidates get lower ad rates than outside groups, and incumbents tend to raise more money than challengers. Given Democrats have so many incumbents that means Democrats tend to benefit more from lower rates for candidates. reserving ads early secures lower rates. GOP groups trying to play catch-up Republicans are about to get lapped on the airwaves

Over the final 18 days of the 2014 campaign, Republicans are set to outspend Democrats on ads in seven of the top 11 Senate races in the country. In only four of those races, though, will the GOP actually put more ads on the air. One of the less-publicized realities of the 2014 Senate campaign is that, while both parties are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of money trying to secure the majority, Democrats are getting considerably more bang for their buck. And down the stretch, they figure to have at least a slight advertising advantage in most of the key races -- despite being outspent overall. That's according to data compiled by Echelon Insights, a Republican research and analytics firm that has launched an effort to predict future ad spending using Federal Communications Commission data. (This, we would emphasize, is an inexact science, so keep in mind that these are estimates.) Here's the breakdown, both on total dollars being spent (on top) and on actual ads set to run (on bottom): You'll notice in Alaska, for example, that Republicans figure to spend more than 72 percent of the ad dollars in the final few weeks. Despite that spending advantage, though, they will run less than half the ads, according to these data. There's a similar disparity in Arkansas, though the GOP still figures to run slightly more ads than Democrats there. In fact, in only two of the races above are Republicans getting more bang for their buck than Democrats, and those two states are Michigan and Virginia, which aren't really top-tier contests. So why the disparity between dollars spent and ads run? 1) The number of ads run isn't quite the same thing as the number of people reached by ads. You can run a bunch of ads in Grand Junction, Colo., for example, for the same price as one ad in Denver. So looking at raw numbers of ads doesn't necessarily mean Democrats will reach more people with their ads. (At the same time, it's likely both sides spend relatively similar portions of their ad dollars in big markets vs. small markets across the country, so it's still a valuable measure.) 2) Candidates get lower ad rates than outside groups, and incumbents tend to raise more money than challengers. Given Democrats have so many incumbents in the races above (nine) and Republicans have just two, that means Democrats tend to benefit more from lower rates for candidates. 3) The following tweet is from Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee executive director Guy Cecil on Friday: What Cecil is referring to is the fact that reserving ads early secures lower rates. Buying ads at this point in an election can be very expensive, because the airwaves are flooded in the markets playing host to competitive races (such as Manchester). The best strategy, then, is always to reserve the ad space early, while it's still cheap. In this area, Democrats also benefit, because they tend to reserve the space earlier. The DSCC has raised considerably more money than its GOP counterpart this cycle and, as an incumbent-protection organization, had a pretty good idea where it needed to put that money early on. And it did so. Thus, GOP groups trying to play catch-up and even the advertising battlefield in the states that wound up being competitive have to spend considerably more on ads today than Democrats did when they reserved the space months ago. "While Republican candidates are getting better rates than their Democratic competitors, Democrats seem to be getting much more favorable rates for issue groups and party committees," said Patrick Ruffini, a co-founder of Echelon. "Republicans are obviously much more reliant on these, which further exacerbates that ad-efficiency gap." Republicans in the past complained that they faced sizeable advertising deficits in key states like Iowa and North Carolina, and outside groups soon came to the rescue. Similarly, on Thursday, National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Collins (Cecil's counterpart) mentioned that the race in Georgia is tightening. That's no coincidence; if you look at the chart above, Republicans are about to get lapped on the airwaves in Georgia, and Collins -- who can't communicate directly with outside groups but can send such smoke signals -- is doing just that. We'll see if GOP outside groups come in to close the gap. If they can afford it, of course. A few final observations about the above chart: Independent Greg Orman is running only 16 percent of the ads in his race with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) down the stretch. He'll probably close the gap, but it's pretty clear he's getting vastly outspent now that the cavalry has come to Roberts's aid. Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) faces a huge ad deficit in the Kentucky Senate race. This is because the DSCC just pulled out of Kentucky. There were some whispers that Grimes and other outside groups could pick up the slack and keep her competitive; this shows they would have plenty of ground to make up. Republicans are getting pummeled in Michigan, Oregon and Virginia. These are no longer expected to be potential pickup opportunities, and the ad-spending imbalance certainly won't do much to change that. And finally, the below chart is the same as above, except that it's for the past 21 days rather than the next 18. What you'll notice is that Republicans in most races have run a higher percentage of the ads than they are scheduled to down the stretch. So the GOP's projected advertising deficit down the stretch is relatively new. It also suggests that things change, and given GOP outside groups have come to the rescue before, they could tip the balance again. If they want to pay the price.

<h4><strong>Dems win – ad war</h4><p>Blake 10/17 </strong><Aaron, The Fix, “How Democrats are winning the ad wars — in 2 charts,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/17/how-democrats-are-winning-the-ad-wars-in-2-charts/>#SPS</p><p>Over the final 18 days of the 2014 campaign, Republicans are set to outspend Democrats on ads in seven of the top 11 Senate races in the country. In only four of those races, though, will the GOP actually put more ads on the air. <u><strong>One of the less-publicized realities of the 2014 Senate campaign is that</u></strong>, while both parties are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of money trying to secure the majority, <u><strong><mark>Democrats are getting considerably more bang for their buck</mark>.</u></strong> And down the stretch, <u><strong>they figure to have at least a slight advertising advantage in most of the key races -- despite being outspent overall. </u></strong>That's according to data compiled by Echelon Insights, a Republican research and analytics firm that has launched an effort to predict future ad spending using Federal Communications Commission data. (This, we would emphasize, is an inexact science, so keep in mind that these are estimates.) Here's the breakdown, both on total dollars being spent (on top) and on actual ads set to run (on bottom): You'll notice <u><strong>in Alaska</u></strong>, for example, that <u><strong>Republicans figure to spend more than 72 percent of the ad dollars in the final few weeks.</u></strong> Despite that spending advantage, though, <u><strong>they will run less than half the ads</u></strong>, according to these data. <u><strong>There's a similar disparity in Arkansas</u></strong>, though the GOP still figures to run slightly more ads than Democrats there. In fact, <u><strong>in only two of the races above are Republicans getting more bang for their buck than Democrats, and those two states are Michigan and Virginia, which aren't really top-tier contests. </u></strong>So why the disparity between dollars spent and ads run? 1) <u><strong><mark>The number of ads run isn't quite the same thing as the number of people reached by ads</mark>.</u></strong> You can run a bunch of ads in Grand Junction, Colo., for example, for the same price as one ad in Denver. So looking at raw numbers of ads doesn't necessarily mean Democrats will reach more people with their ads. (At the same time, it's likely both sides spend relatively similar portions of their ad dollars in big markets vs. small markets across the country, so it's still a valuable measure.) 2) <u><strong><mark>Candidates get lower ad rates than outside groups, and incumbents tend to raise more money than challengers.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>Given Democrats have so many incumbents</mark> in the races above (nine) and Republicans have just two, <mark>that means Democrats tend to benefit more from lower rates for candidates.</mark> </u></strong>3) The following tweet is from Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee executive director Guy Cecil on Friday: What Cecil is referring to is the fact that <u><strong><mark>reserving ads early secures lower rates.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Buying ads at this point in an election can be very expensive, because the airwaves are flooded in the markets playing host to competitive races</u></strong> (such as Manchester). The best strategy, then, is always to reserve the ad space early, while it's still cheap. In this area, Democrats also benefit, because they tend to reserve the space earlier. The DSCC has raised considerably more money than its GOP counterpart this cycle and, as an incumbent-protection organization, had a pretty good idea where it needed to put that money early on. And it did so. Thus, <u><strong><mark>GOP groups trying to play catch-up</mark> and even the advertising battlefield in the states that wound up being competitive have to spend considerably more on ads today than Democrats did when they reserved the space months ago. </u></strong>"While Republican candidates are getting better rates than their Democratic competitors, Democrats seem to be getting much more favorable rates for issue groups and party committees," said Patrick Ruffini, a co-founder of Echelon. "Republicans are obviously much more reliant on these, which further exacerbates that ad-efficiency gap." Republicans in the past complained that they faced sizeable advertising deficits in key states like Iowa and North Carolina, and outside groups soon came to the rescue. Similarly, on Thursday, National Republican Senatorial Committee executive director Rob Collins (Cecil's counterpart) mentioned that the race in Georgia is tightening. That's no coincidence; if you look at the chart above, <u><strong><mark>Republicans are about to get lapped on the airwaves</mark> </u></strong>in Georgia, and Collins -- who can't communicate directly with outside groups but can send such smoke signals -- is doing just that. We'll see if GOP outside groups come in to close the gap. If they can afford it, of course. A few final observations about the above chart: Independent Greg Orman is running only 16 percent of the ads in his race with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) down the stretch. He'll probably close the gap, but it's pretty clear he's getting vastly outspent now that the cavalry has come to Roberts's aid. Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) faces a huge ad deficit in the Kentucky Senate race. This is because the DSCC just pulled out of Kentucky. There were some whispers that Grimes and other outside groups could pick up the slack and keep her competitive; this shows they would have plenty of ground to make up. <u><strong>Republicans are getting pummeled in Michigan, Oregon and Virginia.</u></strong> <u><strong>These are no longer expected to be potential pickup opportunities, and the ad-spending imbalance certainly won't do much to change that. </u></strong>And finally, the below chart is the same as above, except that it's for the past 21 days rather than the next 18. <strong>What you'll notice is that Republicans in most races have run a higher percentage of the ads than they are scheduled to down the stretch. So the GOP's projected advertising deficit down the stretch is relatively new. It also suggests that things change, and given GOP outside groups have come to the rescue before, they could tip the balance again. If they want to pay the price.</p></strong>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Econ hegemony is resilient but doesn’t solve war

Kritzer 10

Adam Kritzer 10 is the lead editor of the Forex Blog and contributor to other leading financial news sites. B.A. in Economics from Penn, "Dollar Returns to Favor as World’s Reserve Currency" March 16 www.forexblog.org/2010/03/dollar-returns-to-favor-as-worlds-reserve-currency.html

. As the credit crisis slowly subsides investors are once again looking at the long-term, and they like what they see when it comes to the Dollar 2008 was a great year for the Dollar, as the credit crisis precipitated an increase in risk aversion, and investors realized that despite its pitfalls, the Dollar was (and still is) the most stable and really the only viable global reserve currency. Then came the debt crises Suddenly, a handful of smaller EU countries appeared vulnerable to fiscal crises. Japan officially became the first of the Aaa economies to receive a downgrade the crises are worse in (every) other countries, the base currency still looks attractive.¶ This is precisely the case when it comes to the US Dollar the economy is still flawed, financial markets have yet to fully to recover, the deficit topped $1.8 Trillion and government finances seem close to the breaking point And yet, when you look at the situation in every other currency that currently rivals the US for reserve currency status, the Dollar still wins hands down.¶ Its economy is the world’s largest. So are its financial markets, which are also the deepest and most liquid. Its sovereign finances are still manageable It is the only currency whose circulation can even come close to meeting the needs of global trade. The dollar’s widespread acceptance stems from the U.S. economy’s fundamental strength, which comes from the economy’s size and the flexibility of labor and product markets That’s why auctions of US Treasury bonds remain heavily oversubscribed (demand exceeds supply), despite the rock-bottom interest coupons. China has reaffirmed its commitment to Treasuries confirmed by some forensic accounting work none of these will seriously rival the US Dollar when it comes to the other majors, the Dollar is still King the dollar is the currency of last resort. It’s the currency people want in a crisis

investors are looking at the long-term, realized that the Dollar still is) the only viable currency when you look at every other currency the Dollar wins Its economy is the largest. So are its markets Its finances are manageable The dollar’s widespread acceptance stems from the economy’s fundamental strength

Rumor has it that the Dollar is about to make a run. As the credit crisis slowly subsides, (currency) investors are once again looking at the long-term, and they like what they see when it comes to the Dollar.¶ For those that care to remember, 2008 was a great year for the Dollar, as the credit crisis precipitated an increase in risk aversion, and investors realized that despite its pitfalls, the Dollar was (and still is) the most stable and really the only viable global reserve currency. [This reversed a trend which had essentially been in place since the inception of the Euro in 1999]. In 2009, meanwhile, the Dollar resumed its multi-year decline, and many analysts were quick to label the rally of 2008 as an aberration.¶ Then came the debt crises, first in Dubai, then in Greece. Suddenly, a handful of smaller EU countries appeared vulnerable to fiscal crises. Japan officially became the first of the Aaa economies to receive a downgrade in its credit rating. The British Pound is dealing with crises on both the political and economic fronts. According to Moody’s, “The ratings of the Aaa governments — which also include Britain, France, Spain and the Nordic countries — are currently ’stable’…But…their ‘distance-to-downgrade’ has in all cases substantially diminished.” Suddenly, the Greenback doesn’t look so bad.¶ I want to point out that in forex, everything is relative. (Novice) forex investors are often baffled by how sustained economic and financial crises don’t immediately result in currency depreciation. The explanation is that when the crises are worse in (every) other countries, the base currency still looks attractive.¶ This is precisely the case when it comes to the US Dollar. To be sure, the economy is still flawed, financial markets have yet to fully to recover, the federal budget deficit topped $1.8 Trillion in 2009, and government finances seem close to the breaking point. Moody’s has also identified the US as a candidate for a ratings downgrade. And yet, when you look at the situation in every other currency that currently rivals the US for reserve currency status, the Dollar still wins hands down.¶ Its economy is the world’s largest. So are its financial markets, which are also the deepest and most liquid. Its sovereign finances are still manageable from the standpoint of debt-to-GDP and interest-to-revenue ratios. It is the only currency whose circulation can even come close to meeting the needs of global trade. Summarized S&P – when it confirmed the AAA credit rating of the US, “The dollar’s widespread acceptance stems from the U.S. economy’s fundamental strength, which in our view comes from the economy’s size and the flexibility of labor and product markets. We view U.S. banking and capital markets to be dynamic and unfettered relative to their peers.”¶ That’s why auctions of US Treasury bonds remain heavily oversubscribed (demand exceeds supply), despite the rock-bottom interest coupons. China has reaffirmed its commitment to Treasuries (what other choice does it have), confirmed by some forensic accounting work. Gold might continue to rally. So will other commodities, for all I know. Emerging market currencies are still in good shape as well, but none of these will seriously rival the US Dollar for a long-time, if ever. In short, when it comes to the other majors, the Dollar is still King: “You can say whatever you want, but the dollar is the currency of last resort. It’s the currency people want in a crisis

<h4>Econ hegemony is resilient but doesn’t solve war</h4><p>Adam <strong>Kritzer 10<u></strong> is the lead editor of the Forex Blog and contributor to other leading financial news sites. B.A. in Economics from Penn, "Dollar Returns to Favor as World’s Reserve Currency" March 16 www.forexblog.org/2010/03/dollar-returns-to-favor-as-worlds-reserve-currency.html</p><p></u>Rumor has it that the Dollar is about to make a run<u><strong>. As the credit crisis slowly subsides</u></strong>, (currency) <u><strong><mark>investors are</mark> once again <mark>looking at the long-term, </mark>and they like what they see when it comes to the Dollar</u></strong>.¶ For those that care to remember, <u><strong>2008 was a great year for the Dollar, as the credit crisis precipitated an increase in risk aversion, and investors <mark>realized that </mark>despite its pitfalls, <mark>the Dollar</mark> was (and <mark>still is) the</mark> most stable and really the <mark>only viable</mark> global reserve <mark>currency</mark>. </u></strong>[This reversed a trend which had essentially been in place since the inception of the Euro in 1999]. In 2009, meanwhile, the Dollar resumed its multi-year decline, and many analysts were quick to label the rally of 2008 as an aberration.¶ <u><strong>Then came the debt crises</u></strong>, first in Dubai, then in Greece. <u><strong>Suddenly, a handful of smaller EU countries appeared vulnerable to fiscal crises. Japan officially became the first of the Aaa economies to receive a downgrade</u></strong> in its credit rating. The British Pound is dealing with crises on both the political and economic fronts. According to Moody’s, “The ratings of the Aaa governments — which also include Britain, France, Spain and the Nordic countries — are currently ’stable’…But…their ‘distance-to-downgrade’ has in all cases substantially diminished.” Suddenly, the Greenback doesn’t look so bad.¶ I want to point out that in forex, everything is relative. (Novice) forex investors are often baffled by how sustained economic and financial crises don’t immediately result in currency depreciation. The explanation is that when <u><strong>the crises are worse in (every) other countries, the base currency still looks attractive.¶ This is precisely the case when it comes to the US Dollar</u></strong>. To be sure, <u><strong>the economy is still flawed, financial markets have yet to fully to recover, the</u></strong> federal budget <u><strong>deficit topped $1.8 Trillion</u></strong> in 2009, <u><strong>and government finances seem close to the breaking point</u></strong>. Moody’s has also identified the US as a candidate for a ratings downgrade. <u><strong>And yet, <mark>when you look at</mark> the situation in <mark>every other currency</mark> that currently rivals the US for reserve currency status, <mark>the Dollar </mark>still <mark>wins </mark>hands down.¶ <mark>Its economy is the </mark>world’s <mark>largest. So are its</mark> financial <mark>markets</mark>, which are also the deepest and most liquid. <mark>Its</mark> sovereign <mark>finances are</mark> still <mark>manageable</u></strong></mark> from the standpoint of debt-to-GDP and interest-to-revenue ratios. <u><strong>It is the only currency whose circulation can even come close to meeting the needs of global trade.</u></strong> Summarized S&P – when it confirmed the AAA credit rating of the US, “<u><strong><mark>The dollar’s widespread acceptance stems from the</mark> U.S. <mark>economy’s fundamental strength</mark>, which</u></strong> in our view <u><strong>comes from the economy’s size and the flexibility of labor and product markets</u></strong>. We view U.S. banking and capital markets to be dynamic and unfettered relative to their peers.”¶ <u><strong>That’s why auctions of US Treasury bonds remain heavily oversubscribed (demand exceeds supply), despite the rock-bottom interest coupons. China has reaffirmed its commitment to Treasuries</u></strong> (what other choice does it have), <u><strong>confirmed by some forensic accounting work</u></strong>. Gold might continue to rally. So will other commodities, for all I know. Emerging market currencies are still in good shape as well, but <u><strong>none of these will seriously rival the US Dollar</u></strong> for a long-time, if ever. In short, <u><strong>when it comes to the other majors, the Dollar is still King</u></strong>: “You can say whatever you want, but <u><strong>the dollar is the currency of last resort. It’s the currency people want in a crisis</p></u></strong>

1NC

Regulations

1NC Dollar Hegemony

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Warming causes extinction

Potsdam 12

Potsdam 12 (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)

If emissions continue at current rates, resilience is likely to be exceeded . major changes are projected in ecological interactions and shifts in geographical ranges, with negative consequences for biod degradation of ecosystem services occurs With high levels of warming, stresses on ecosystems trigger large-scale ecosystem collapse there is a risk of feedbacks At greater than 4° biomes will be substantially affected. climatic variables are decisive vulnerability to heat and drought will likely lead species extinction Ecosystems will be affected by extremes rapid shifts such as sudden forest loss or desertification poleward biome shifts are possible in a 4° world In mountaintop ecosystems, such a shift is not possible, putting them at risk of extinction competition for space with ag is likely to prevent vegetation there exists a strong link between bio d and eco productivity overall diversity of species characterizes the evolutionary legacy of life loss of species classified as ‘endangered’ would confirm the sixth mass extinction episode With limitations on how fast species can disperse many species may face extinction Limiting warming to lower levels showed substantially reduced effects, with magnitude scaling linearly While human stresses are manifold, in a 4° world, climate change is likely to become a determining driver climate change, , will cause the irreversible transition of Earth´s ecosystems

If emissions continue at current rates, resilience is likely to be exceeded major changes are projected in ecological interactions and shifts in geographical ranges with negative consequences for biod degradation of ecosystem services occurs With high levels of warming, stresses on ecosystems trigger large-scale collapse there is a risk of feedbacks At greater than 4° biomes will be substantially affected. climatic variables are decisive vulnerability to heat and drought will likely lead species extinction Ecosystems will be affected by extremes rapid shifts such as sudden forest loss or desertification poleward biome shifts are possible in a 4° world In mountaintop ecosystems such a shift is not possible, putting them at risk of extinction competition for space with ag is likely to prevent vegetation there exists a strong link between bio d and eco productivity overall diversity of species characterizes the evolutionary legacy of life loss of species classified as ‘endangered’ would confirm the sixth mass extinction episode With limitations on how fast species can disperse many species may face extinction Limiting warming to lower levels showed substantially reduced effects with magnitude scaling linearly While human stresses are manifold, in a 4° world, climate change is likely to become a determining driver climate change will cause the irreversible transition of Earth´s ecosystems

Ecosystems and their species provide a range of important goods and services for human society. These include water, food, cultural and other values. In the AR4 an assessment of climate change effects on ecosystems and their services found the following: • If greenhouse gas emissions and other stresses continue at or above current rates, the resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded by an unprecedented combination of change in climate, associated disturbances (for example, flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, and ocean acidification) and other stressors (global change drivers) including land use change, pollution and over-exploitation of resources. • Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction, if increases in global average temperature exceed of 2–3° above preindustrial levels. • For increases in global average temperature exceeding 2 to 3° above preindustrial levels and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, major changes are projected in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions and shifts in species’ geographical ranges, with predominantly negative consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services, such as water and food supply. It is known that past large-scale losses of global ecosystems and species extinctions have been associated with rapid climate change combined with other ecological stressors. Loss and/or degradation of ecosystems, and rates of extinction because of human pressures over the last century or more, which have intensified in recent decades, have contributed to a very high rate of extinction by geological standards. It is well established that loss or degradation of ecosystem services occurs as a consequence of species extinctions, declining species abundance, or widespread shifts in species and biome distributions (Leadley et al. 2010). Climate change is projected to exacerbate the situation. This section outlines the likely consequences for some key ecosystems and for biodiversity. The literature tends to confirm the conclusions from the AR4 outlined above. Despite the existence of detailed and highly informative case studies, upon which this section will draw, it is also important to recall that there remain many uncertainties (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley, Thuiller, and Courchamp, 2012). However, threshold behavior is known to occur in biological systems (Barnosky et al. 2012) and most model projections agree on major adverse consequences for biodiversity in a 4°C world (Bellard et al., 2012). With high levels of warming, coalescing human induced stresses on ecosystems have the potential to trigger large-scale ecosystem collapse (Barnosky et al. 2012). Furthermore, while uncertainty remains in the projections, there is a risk not only of major loss of valuable ecosystem services, particularly to the poor and the most vulnerable who depend on them, but also of feedbacks being initiated that would result in ever higher CO2 emissions and thus rates of global warming. Significant effects of climate change are already expected for warming well below 4°C. In a scenario of 2.5°C warming, severe ecosystem change, based on absolute and relative changes in carbon and water fluxes and stores, cannot be ruled out on any continent (Heyder, Schaphoff, Gerten, & Lucht, 2011). If warming is limited to less than 2°C, with constant or slightly declining precipitation, small biome shifts are projected, and then only in temperate and tropical regions. Considerable change is projected for cold and tropical climates already at 3°C of warming. At greater than 4°C of warming, biomes in temperate zones will also be substantially affected. These changes would impact not only the human and animal communities that directly rely on the ecosystems, but would also exact a cost (economic and otherwise) on society as a whole, ranging from extensive loss of biodiversity and diminished land cover, through to loss of ecosystems services such as fisheries and forestry (de Groot et al., 2012; Farley et al., 2012). Ecosystems have been found to be particularly sensitive to geographical patterns of climate change (Gonzalez, Neilson, Lenihan, and Drapek, 2010). Moreover, ecosystems are affected not only by local changes in the mean temperature and precipitation, along with changes in the variability of these quantities and changes by the occurrence of extreme events. These climatic variables are thus decisive factors in determining plant structure and ecosystem composition (Reu et al., 2011). Increasing vulnerability to heat and drought stress will likely lead to increased mortality and species extinction. For example, temperature extremes have already been held responsible for mortality in Australian flying-fox species (Welbergen, Klose, Markus, and Eby 2008), and interactions between phenological changes driven by gradual climate changes and extreme events can lead to reduced fecundity (Campbell et al. 2009; Inouye, 2008). Climate change also has the potential to facilitate the spread and establishment of invasive species (pests and weeds) (Hellmann, Byers, Bierwagen, & Dukes, 2008; Rahel & Olden, 2008) with often detrimental implications for ecosystem services and biodiversity. Human land-use changes are expected to further exacerbate climate change driven ecosystem changes, particularly in the tropics, where rising temperatures and reduced precipitation are expected to have major impacts (Campbell et al., 2009; Lee & Jetz, 2008). Ecosystems will be affected by the increased occurrence of extremes such as forest loss resulting from droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion (Fischlin et al., 2007). Climate change also has the potential to catalyze rapid shifts in ecosystems such as sudden forest loss or regional loss of agricultural productivity resulting from desertification (Barnosky et al., 2012). The predicted increase in extreme climate events would also drive dramatic ecosystem changes (Thibault and Brown 2008; Wernberg, Smale, and Thomsen 2012). One such extreme event that is expected to have immediate impacts on ecosystems is the increased rate of wildfire occurrence. Climate change induced shifts in the fire regime are therefore in turn powerful drivers of biome shifts, potentially resulting in considerable changes in carbon fluxes over large areas (Heyder et al., 2011; Lavorel et al., 2006) It is anticipated that global warming will lead to global biome shifts (Barnosky et al. 2012). Based on 20th century observations and 21st century projections, poleward latitudinal biome shifts of up to 400 km are possible in a 4° C world (Gonzalez et al., 2010). In the case of mountaintop ecosystems, for example, such a shift is not necessarily possible, putting them at particular risk of extinction (La Sorte and Jetz, 2010). Species that dwell at the upper edge of continents or on islands would face a similar impediment to adaptation, since migration into adjacent ecosystems is not possible (Campbell, et al. 2009; Hof, Levinsky, Araújo, and Rahbek 2011). The consequences of such geographical shifts, driven by climatic changes as well as rising CO2 concentrations, would be found in both reduced species richness and species turnover (for example, Phillips et al., 2008; White and Beissinger 2008). A study by (Midgley and Thuiller, 2011) found that, of 5,197 African plant species studied, 25–42 percent could lose all suitable range by 2085. It should be emphasized that competition for space with human agriculture over the coming century is likely to prevent vegetation expansion in most cases (Zelazowski et al., 2011) Species composition changes can lead to structural changes of the entire ecosystem, such as the increase in lianas in tropical and temperate forests (Phillips et al., 2008), and the encroachment of woody plants in temperate grasslands (Bloor et al., 2008, Ratajczak et al., 2012), putting grass-eating herbivores at risk of extinction because of a lack of food available—this is just one example of the sensitive intricacies of ecosystem responses to external perturbations. There is also an increased risk of extinction for herbivores in regions of drought-induced tree dieback, owing to their inability to digest the newly resident C4 grasses (Morgan et al., 2008). The following provides some examples of ecosystems that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The discussion is restricted to ecosystems themselves, rather than the important and often extensive impacts on ecosystems services. Boreal-temperate ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, although there are large differences in projections, depending on the future climate model and emission pathway studied. Nevertheless there is a clear risk of large-scale forest dieback in the boreal-temperate system because of heat and drought (Heyder et al., 2011). Heat and drought related die-back has already been observed in substantial areas of North American boreal forests (Allen et al., 2010), characteristic of vulnerability to heat and drought stress leading to increased mortality at the trailing edge of boreal forests. The vulnerability of transition zones between boreal and temperate forests, as well as between boreal forests and polar/tundra biomes, is corroborated by studies of changes in plant functional richness with climate change (Reu et al., 2011), as well as analyses using multiple dynamic global vegetation models (Gonzalez et al., 2010). Subtle changes within forest types also pose a great risk to biodiversity as different plant types gain dominance (Scholze et al., 2006). Humid tropical forests also show increasing risk of major climate induced losses. At 4°C warming above pre-industrial levels, the land extent of humid tropical forest, characterized by tree species diversity and biomass density, is expected to contract to approximately 25 percent of its original size [see Figure 3 in (Zelazowski et al., 2011)], while at 2°C warming, more than 75 percent of the original land can likely be preserved. For these ecosystems, water availability is the dominant determinant of climate suitability (Zelazowski et al., 2011). In general, Asia is substantially less at risk of forest loss than the tropical Americas. However, even at 2°C, the forest in the Indochina peninsula will be at risk of die-back. At 4°C, the area of concern grows to include central Sumatra, Sulawesi, India and the Philippines, where up to 30 percent of the total humid tropical forest niche could be threatened by forest retreat (Zelazowski et al., 2011). There has been substantial scientific debate over the risk of a rapid and abrupt change to a much drier savanna or grassland ecosystem under global warming. This risk has been identified as a possible planetary tipping point at around a warming of 3.5–4.5°C, which, if crossed, would result in a major loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services and the loss of a major terrestrial carbon sink, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Lenton et al., 2008)(Cox, et al., 2004) (Kriegler, Hall, Held, Dawson, and Schellnhuber, 2009). Substantial uncertainty remains around the likelihood, timing and onset of such risk due to a range of factors including uncertainty in precipitation changes, effects of CO2 concentration increase on water use efficiency and the CO2 fertilization effect, land-use feedbacks and interactions with fire frequency and intensity, and effects of higher temperature on tropical tree species and on important ecosystem services such as pollinators. While climate model projections for the Amazon, and in particular precipitation, remain quite uncertain recent analyses using IPCC AR4 generation climate indicates a reduced risk of a major basin wide loss of precipitation compared to some earlier work. If drying occurs then the likelihood of an abrupt shift to a drier, less biodiverse ecosystem would increase. Current projections indicate that fire occurrence in the Amazon could double by 2050, based on the A2 SRES scenario that involves warming of approximately 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Silvestrini et al., 2011), and can therefore be expected to be even higher in a 4°C world. Interactions of climate change, land use and agricultural expansion increase the incidence of fire (Aragão et al., 2008), which plays a major role in the (re)structuring of vegetation (Gonzalez et al., 2010; Scholze et al., 2006). A decrease in precipitation over the Amazon forests may therefore result in forest retreat or transition into a low biomass forest (Malhi et al., 2009). Moderating this risk is a possible increase in ecosystem water use efficiency with increasing CO2 concentrations is accounted for, more than 90 percent of the original humid tropical forest niche in Amazonia is likely to be preserved in the 2°C case, compared to just under half in the 4°C warming case (see Figure 5 in Zelazowski et al., 2011) (Cook, Zeng, and Yoon, 2012; Salazar & Nobre, 2010). Recent work has analyzed a number of these factors and their uncertainties and finds that the risk of major loss of forest due to climate is more likely to be regional than Amazon basin-wide, with the eastern and southeastern Amazon being most at risk (Zelazowski et al., 2011). Salazar and Nobre (2010) estimates a transition from tropical forests to seasonal forest or savanna in the eastern Amazon could occur at warming at warming of 2.5–3.5°C when CO2 fertilization is not considered and 4.5–5.5°C when it is considered. It is important to note, as Salazar and Nobre (2010) point out, that the effects of deforestation and increased fire risk interact with the climate change and are likely to accelerate a transition from tropical forests to drier ecosystems. Increased CO2 concentration may also lead to increased plant water efficiency (Ainsworth and Long, 2005), lowering the risk of plant die-back, and resulting in vegetation expansion in many regions, such as the Congo basin, West Africa and Madagascar (Zelazowski et al., 2011), in addition to some dry-land ecosystems (Heyder et al., 2011). The impact of CO2 induced ‘greening’ would, however, negatively affect biodiversity in many ecosystems. In particular encroachment of woody plants into grasslands and savannahs in North American grassland and savanna communities could lead to a decline of up to 45 percent in species richness ((Ratajczak and Nippert, 2012) and loss of specialist savanna plant species in southern Africa (Parr, Gray, and Bond, 2012). Mangroves are an important ecosystem and are particularly vulnerable to the multiple impacts of climate change, such as: rise in sea levels, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, air and water temperature, and changes in precipitation patterns. Sea-level rise can cause a loss of mangroves by cutting off the flow of fresh water and nutrients and drowning the roots (Dasgupta, Laplante et al. 2010). By the end of the 21st century, global mangrove cover is projected to experience a significant decline because of heat stress and sea-level rise (Alongi, 2008; Beaumont et al., 2011). In fact, it has been estimated that under the A1B emissions scenario (3.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels) mangroves would need to geographically move on average about 1 km/year to remain in suitable climate zones (Loarie et al., 2009). The most vulnerable mangrove forests are those occupying low-relief islands such as small islands in the Pacific where sea-level rise is a dominant factor. Where rivers are lacking and/ or land is subsiding, vulnerability is also high. With mangrove losses resulting from deforestation presently at 1 to 2 percent per annum (Beaumont et al., 2011), climate change may not be the biggest immediate threat to the future of mangroves. However if conservation efforts are successful in the longer term climate change may become a determining issue (Beaumont et al., 2011). Coral reefs are acutely sensitive to changes in water temperatures, ocean pH and intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. Mass coral bleaching is caused by ocean warming and ocean acidification, which results from absorption of CO2 (for example, Frieler et al., 2012a). Increased sea-surface temperatures and a reduction of available carbonates are also understood to be driving causes of decreased rates of calcification, a critical reef-building process (De’ath, Lough, and Fabricius, 2009). The effects of climate change on coral reefs are already apparent. The Great Barrier Reef, for example, has been estimated to have lost 50 percent of live coral cover since 1985, which is attributed in part to coral bleaching because of increasing water temperatures (De’ath et al., 2012). Under atmospheric CO2 concentrations that correspond to a warming of 4°C by 2100, reef erosion will likely exceed rates of calcification, leaving coral reefs as “crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals” (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). In fact, frequency of bleaching events under global warming in even a 2°C world has been projected to exceed the ability of coral reefs to recover. The extinction of coral reefs would be catastrophic for entire coral reef ecosystems and the people who depend on them for food, income and shoreline. Reefs provide coastal protection against coastal floods and rising sea levels, nursery grounds and habitat for a variety of currently fished species, as well as an invaluable tourism asset. These valuable services to often subsistence-dependent coastal and island societies will most likely be lost well before a 4°C world is reached. The preceding discussion reviewed the implications of a 4°C world for just a few examples of important ecosystems. The section below examines the effects of climate on biological diversity Ecosystems are composed ultimately of the species and interactions between them and their physical environment. Biologically rich ecosystems are usually diverse and it is broadly agreed that there exists a strong link between this biological diversity and ecosystem productivity, stability and functioning (McGrady-Steed, Harris, and Morin, 1997; David Tilman, Wedin, and Knops, 1996)(Hector, 1999; D Tilman et al., 2001). Loss of species within ecosystems will hence have profound negative effects on the functioning and stability of ecosystems and on the ability of ecosystems to provide goods and services to human societies. It is the overall diversity of species that ultimately characterizes the biodiversity and evolutionary legacy of life on Earth. As was noted at the outset of this discussion, species extinction rates are now at very high levels compared to the geological record. Loss of those species presently classified as ‘critically endangered’ would lead to mass extinction on a scale that has happened only five times before in the last 540 million years. The loss of those species classified as ‘endangered’ and ‘vulnerable’ would confirm this loss as the sixth mass extinction episode (Barnosky 2011). Loss of biodiversity will challenge those reliant on ecosystems services. Fisheries (Dale, Tharp, Lannom, and Hodges, 2010), and agronomy (Howden et al., 2007) and forestry industries (Stram & Evans, 2009), among others, will need to match species choices to the changing climate conditions, while devising new strategies to tackle invasive pests (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley, Thuiller, and Courchamp, 2012). These challenges would have to be met in the face of increasing competition between natural and agricultural ecosystems over water resources. Over the 21st-century climate change is likely to result in some bio-climates disappearing, notably in the mountainous tropics and in the poleward regions of continents, with new, or novel, climates developing in the tropics and subtropics (Williams, Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007). In this study novel climates are those where 21st century projected climates do not overlap with their 20th century analogues, and disappearing climates are those 20th century climates that do not overlap with 21st century projected climates. The projections of Williams et al (2007) indicate that in a 4°C world (SRES A2), 12–39 percent of the Earth’s land surface may experience a novel climate compared to 20th century analogues. Predictions of species response to novel climates are difficult because researchers have no current analogue to rely upon. However, at least such climates would give rise to disruptions, with many current species associations being broken up or disappearing entirely. Under the same scenario an estimated 10–48 percent of the Earth’s surface including highly biodiverse regions such as the Himalayas, Mesoamerica, eastern and southern Africa, the Philippines and the region around Indonesia known as Wallacaea would lose their climate space. With limitations on how fast species can disperse, or move, this indicates that many species may find themselves without a suitable climate space and thus face a high risk of extinction. Globally, as in other studies, there is a strong association apparent in these projections between regions where the climate disappears and biodiversity hotspots. Limiting warming to lower levels in this study showed substantially reduced effects, with the magnitude of novel and disappearing climates scaling linearly with global mean warming. More recent work by Beaumont and colleagues using a different approach confirms the scale of this risk (Beaumont et al., 2011, Figure 36). Analysis of the exposure of 185 eco-regions of exceptional biodiversity (a subset of the so-called Global 200) to extreme monthly temperature and precipitation conditions in the 21st century compared to 1961–1990 conditions shows that within 60 years almost all of the regions that are already exposed to substantial environmental and social pressure, will experience extreme temperature conditions based on the A2 emission scenario (4.1°C global mean temperature rise by 2100) (Beaumont et al., 2011). Tropical and sub-tropical eco-regions in Africa and South America are particularly vulnerable. Vulnerability to such extremes is particularly acute for high latitude and small island biota, which are very limited in their ability to respond to range shifts, and to those biota, such as flooded grassland, mangroves and desert biomes, that would require large geographical displacements to find comparable climates in a warmer world. The overall sense of recent literature confirms the findings of the AR4 summarized at the beginning of the section, with a number of risks such as those to coral reefs occurring at significantly lower temperatures than estimated in that report. Although non-climate related human pressures are likely to remain a major and defining driver of loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in the coming decades, it is also clear that as warming rises so will the predominance of climate change as a determinant of ecosystem and biodiversity survival. While the factors of human stresses on ecosystems are manifold, in a 4°C world, climate change is likely to become a determining driver of ecosystem shifts and large-scale biodiversity loss (Bellard et al., 2012; New et al., 2011). Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Such damages to ecosystems would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (e.g., hydrology—quantity flow rates, quality; fisheries (corals), protection of coastline (loss of mangroves). Barnosky has described the present situation facing the biodiversity of the planet as “the perfect storm” with multiple high intensity ecological stresses because of habitat modification and degradation, pollution and other factors, unusually rapid climate change and unusually high and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In the past, as noted above, this combination of circumstances has led to major, mass extinctions with planetary consequences. Thus, there is a growing risk that climate change, combined with other human activities, will cause the irreversible transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience (Barnosky et al., 2012).

<h4>Warming causes extinction </h4><p><strong>Potsdam 12</strong> (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, “Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4°C Warmer World Must be Avoided”, A report for the World Bank, November, http://climatechange.worldbank.org/sites/default/files/Turn_Down_the_heat_Why_a_4_degree_centrigrade_warmer_world_must_be_avoided.pdf)</p><p>Ecosystems and their species provide a range of important goods and services for human society. These include water, food, cultural and other values. In the AR4 an assessment of climate change effects on ecosystems and their services found the following: • <u><strong><mark>If</mark> </u></strong>greenhouse gas<u><strong> <mark>emissions</mark> </u></strong>and other stresses<u><strong> <mark>continue at</mark> </u></strong>or above<u><strong> <mark>current rates, </u></strong></mark>the<u><strong> <mark>resilience </u></strong></mark>of many ecosystems<u><strong> <mark>is likely to be exceeded</u></strong></mark> by an unprecedented combination of change in climate, associated disturbances (for example, flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, and ocean acidification) and other stressors (global change drivers) including land use change, pollution and over-exploitation of resources. • Approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction, if increases in global average temperature exceed of 2–3° above preindustrial levels<u><strong>. </u></strong>• For increases in global average temperature exceeding 2 to 3° above preindustrial levels and in concomitant atmospheric CO2 concentrations, <u><strong><mark>major changes are projected in</mark> </u></strong>ecosystem structure and function, species’<u><strong> <mark>ecological</mark> <mark>interactions and shifts in</mark> </u></strong>species’ <u><strong><mark>geographical ranges</mark>, <mark>with</mark> </u></strong>predominantly<u><strong> <mark>negative consequences for biod</u></strong></mark>iversity<u><strong> </u></strong>and ecosystem goods and services, such as water and food supply. It is known that past large-scale losses of global ecosystems and species extinctions have been associated with rapid climate change combined with other ecological stressors. Loss and/or degradation of ecosystems, and rates of extinction because of human pressures over the last century or more, which have intensified in recent decades, have contributed to a very high rate of extinction by geological standards. It is well established that loss or<u><strong> <mark>degradation of ecosystem services occurs </u></strong></mark>as a consequence of species extinctions, declining species abundance, or widespread shifts in species and biome distributions (Leadley et al. 2010). Climate change is projected to exacerbate the situation. This section outlines the likely consequences for some key ecosystems and for biodiversity. The literature tends to confirm the conclusions from the AR4 outlined above. Despite the existence of detailed and highly informative case studies, upon which this section will draw, it is also important to recall that there remain many uncertainties (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley, Thuiller, and Courchamp, 2012). However, threshold behavior is known to occur in biological systems (Barnosky et al. 2012) and most model projections agree on major adverse consequences for biodiversity in a 4°C world (Bellard et al., 2012). <u><strong><mark>With high levels of warming, </u></strong></mark>coalescing human induced<u><strong> <mark>stresses on ecosystems </u></strong></mark>have the potential to<u><strong> <mark>trigger large-scale </mark>ecosystem <mark>collapse</u></strong></mark> (Barnosky et al. 2012). Furthermore, while uncertainty remains in the projections, <u><strong><mark>there is a risk</mark> </u></strong>not only of major loss of valuable ecosystem services, particularly to the poor and the most vulnerable who depend on them, but also <u><strong><mark>of feedbacks </u></strong></mark>being initiated that would result in ever higher CO2 emissions and thus rates of global warming. Significant effects of climate change are already expected for warming well below 4°C. In a scenario of 2.5°C warming, severe ecosystem change, based on absolute and relative changes in carbon and water fluxes and stores, cannot be ruled out on any continent (Heyder, Schaphoff, Gerten, & Lucht, 2011). If warming is limited to less than 2°C, with constant or slightly declining precipitation, small biome shifts are projected, and then only in temperate and tropical regions. Considerable change is projected for cold and tropical climates already at 3°C of warming. <u><strong><mark>At greater than 4°</u></strong></mark>C of warming,<u><strong> <mark>biomes</mark> </u></strong>in temperate zones<u><strong> <mark>will</mark> </u></strong>also<u><strong> <mark>be substantially affected. </u></strong></mark>These changes would impact not only the human and animal communities that directly rely on the ecosystems, but would also exact a cost (economic and otherwise) on society as a whole, ranging from extensive loss of biodiversity and diminished land cover, through to loss of ecosystems services such as fisheries and forestry (de Groot et al., 2012; Farley et al., 2012). Ecosystems have been found to be particularly sensitive to geographical patterns of climate change (Gonzalez, Neilson, Lenihan, and Drapek, 2010). Moreover, ecosystems are affected not only by local changes in the mean temperature and precipitation, along with changes in the variability of these quantities and changes by the occurrence of extreme events. These <u><strong><mark>climatic variables are </u></strong></mark>thus<u><strong> <mark>decisive </u></strong></mark>factors in determining plant structure and ecosystem composition (Reu et al., 2011). Increasing<u><strong> <mark>vulnerability to heat and drought</mark> </u></strong>stress<u><strong> <mark>will likely lead </u></strong></mark>to increased mortality and<u><strong> <mark>species extinction</u></strong></mark>. For example, temperature extremes have already been held responsible for mortality in Australian flying-fox species (Welbergen, Klose, Markus, and Eby 2008), and interactions between phenological changes driven by gradual climate changes and extreme events can lead to reduced fecundity (Campbell et al. 2009; Inouye, 2008). Climate change also has the potential to facilitate the spread and establishment of invasive species (pests and weeds) (Hellmann, Byers, Bierwagen, & Dukes, 2008; Rahel & Olden, 2008) with often detrimental implications for ecosystem services and biodiversity. Human land-use changes are expected to further exacerbate climate change driven ecosystem changes, particularly in the tropics, where rising temperatures and reduced precipitation are expected to have major impacts (Campbell et al., 2009; Lee & Jetz, 2008).<u><strong> <mark>Ecosystems will be affected by</mark> </u></strong>the increased occurrence of<u><strong> <mark>extremes</mark> </u></strong>such as forest loss resulting from droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion (Fischlin et al., 2007). Climate change also has the potential to catalyze<u><strong> <mark>rapid shifts</mark> </u></strong>in ecosystems<u><strong> <mark>such as sudden forest loss or</mark> </u></strong>regional loss of agricultural productivity resulting from<u><strong> <mark>desertification</u></strong></mark> (Barnosky et al., 2012). The predicted increase in extreme climate events would also drive dramatic ecosystem changes (Thibault and Brown 2008; Wernberg, Smale, and Thomsen 2012). One such extreme event that is expected to have immediate impacts on ecosystems is the increased rate of wildfire occurrence. Climate change induced shifts in the fire regime are therefore in turn powerful drivers of biome shifts, potentially resulting in considerable changes in carbon fluxes over large areas (Heyder et al., 2011; Lavorel et al., 2006) It is anticipated that global warming will lead to global biome shifts (Barnosky et al. 2012). Based on 20th century observations and 21st century projections, <u><strong><mark>poleward</mark> </u></strong>latitudinal<u><strong> <mark>biome shifts</mark> </u></strong>of up to 400 km<u><strong> <mark>are possible in a 4°</mark> </u></strong>C<u><strong> <mark>world</u></strong></mark> (Gonzalez et al., 2010). <u><strong><mark>In </u></strong></mark>the case of<u><strong> <mark>mountaintop ecosystems</mark>,</u></strong> for example, <u><strong><mark>such a shift is not</mark> </u></strong>necessarily<u><strong> <mark>possible, putting them at</mark> </u></strong>particular<u><strong> <mark>risk of extinction</u></strong></mark> (La Sorte and Jetz, 2010). Species that dwell at the upper edge of continents or on islands would face a similar impediment to adaptation, since migration into adjacent ecosystems is not possible (Campbell, et al. 2009; Hof, Levinsky, Araújo, and Rahbek 2011). The consequences of such geographical shifts, driven by climatic changes as well as rising CO2 concentrations, would be found in both reduced species richness and species turnover (for example, Phillips et al., 2008; White and Beissinger 2008). A study by (Midgley and Thuiller, 2011) found that, of 5,197 African plant species studied, 25–42 percent could lose all suitable range by 2085. It should be emphasized that<u><strong> <mark>competition for space with</mark> </u></strong>human<u><strong> <mark>ag</u></strong></mark>riculture<u><strong> </u></strong>over the coming century<u><strong> <mark>is likely to prevent vegetation </u></strong></mark>expansion in most cases (Zelazowski et al., 2011) Species composition changes can lead to structural changes of the entire ecosystem, such as the increase in lianas in tropical and temperate forests (Phillips et al., 2008), and the encroachment of woody plants in temperate grasslands (Bloor et al., 2008, Ratajczak et al., 2012), putting grass-eating herbivores at risk of extinction because of a lack of food available—this is just one example of the sensitive intricacies of ecosystem responses to external perturbations. There is also an increased risk of extinction for herbivores in regions of drought-induced tree dieback, owing to their inability to digest the newly resident C4 grasses (Morgan et al., 2008). The following provides some examples of ecosystems that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to climate change. The discussion is restricted to ecosystems themselves, rather than the important and often extensive impacts on ecosystems services. Boreal-temperate ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, although there are large differences in projections, depending on the future climate model and emission pathway studied. Nevertheless there is a clear risk of large-scale forest dieback in the boreal-temperate system because of heat and drought (Heyder et al., 2011). Heat and drought related die-back has already been observed in substantial areas of North American boreal forests (Allen et al., 2010), characteristic of vulnerability to heat and drought stress leading to increased mortality at the trailing edge of boreal forests. The vulnerability of transition zones between boreal and temperate forests, as well as between boreal forests and polar/tundra biomes, is corroborated by studies of changes in plant functional richness with climate change (Reu et al., 2011), as well as analyses using multiple dynamic global vegetation models (Gonzalez et al., 2010). Subtle changes within forest types also pose a great risk to biodiversity as different plant types gain dominance (Scholze et al., 2006). Humid tropical forests also show increasing risk of major climate induced losses. At 4°C warming above pre-industrial levels, the land extent of humid tropical forest, characterized by tree species diversity and biomass density, is expected to contract to approximately 25 percent of its original size [see Figure 3 in (Zelazowski et al., 2011)], while at 2°C warming, more than 75 percent of the original land can likely be preserved. For these ecosystems, water availability is the dominant determinant of climate suitability (Zelazowski et al., 2011). In general, Asia is substantially less at risk of forest loss than the tropical Americas. However, even at 2°C, the forest in the Indochina peninsula will be at risk of die-back. At 4°C, the area of concern grows to include central Sumatra, Sulawesi, India and the Philippines, where up to 30 percent of the total humid tropical forest niche could be threatened by forest retreat (Zelazowski et al., 2011). There has been substantial scientific debate over the risk of a rapid and abrupt change to a much drier savanna or grassland ecosystem under global warming. This risk has been identified as a possible planetary tipping point at around a warming of 3.5–4.5°C, which, if crossed, would result in a major loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services and the loss of a major terrestrial carbon sink, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Lenton et al., 2008)(Cox, et al., 2004) (Kriegler, Hall, Held, Dawson, and Schellnhuber, 2009). Substantial uncertainty remains around the likelihood, timing and onset of such risk due to a range of factors including uncertainty in precipitation changes, effects of CO2 concentration increase on water use efficiency and the CO2 fertilization effect, land-use feedbacks and interactions with fire frequency and intensity, and effects of higher temperature on tropical tree species and on important ecosystem services such as pollinators. While climate model projections for the Amazon, and in particular precipitation, remain quite uncertain recent analyses using IPCC AR4 generation climate indicates a reduced risk of a major basin wide loss of precipitation compared to some earlier work. If drying occurs then the likelihood of an abrupt shift to a drier, less biodiverse ecosystem would increase. Current projections indicate that fire occurrence in the Amazon could double by 2050, based on the A2 SRES scenario that involves warming of approximately 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Silvestrini et al., 2011), and can therefore be expected to be even higher in a 4°C world. Interactions of climate change, land use and agricultural expansion increase the incidence of fire (Aragão et al., 2008), which plays a major role in the (re)structuring of vegetation (Gonzalez et al., 2010; Scholze et al., 2006). A decrease in precipitation over the Amazon forests may therefore result in forest retreat or transition into a low biomass forest (Malhi et al., 2009). Moderating this risk is a possible increase in ecosystem water use efficiency with increasing CO2 concentrations is accounted for, more than 90 percent of the original humid tropical forest niche in Amazonia is likely to be preserved in the 2°C case, compared to just under half in the 4°C warming case (see Figure 5 in Zelazowski et al., 2011) (Cook, Zeng, and Yoon, 2012; Salazar & Nobre, 2010). Recent work has analyzed a number of these factors and their uncertainties and finds that the risk of major loss of forest due to climate is more likely to be regional than Amazon basin-wide, with the eastern and southeastern Amazon being most at risk (Zelazowski et al., 2011). Salazar and Nobre (2010) estimates a transition from tropical forests to seasonal forest or savanna in the eastern Amazon could occur at warming at warming of 2.5–3.5°C when CO2 fertilization is not considered and 4.5–5.5°C when it is considered. It is important to note, as Salazar and Nobre (2010) point out, that the effects of deforestation and increased fire risk interact with the climate change and are likely to accelerate a transition from tropical forests to drier ecosystems. Increased CO2 concentration may also lead to increased plant water efficiency (Ainsworth and Long, 2005), lowering the risk of plant die-back, and resulting in vegetation expansion in many regions, such as the Congo basin, West Africa and Madagascar (Zelazowski et al., 2011), in addition to some dry-land ecosystems (Heyder et al., 2011). The impact of CO2 induced ‘greening’ would, however, negatively affect biodiversity in many ecosystems. In particular encroachment of woody plants into grasslands and savannahs in North American grassland and savanna communities could lead to a decline of up to 45 percent in species richness ((Ratajczak and Nippert, 2012) and loss of specialist savanna plant species in southern Africa (Parr, Gray, and Bond, 2012). Mangroves are an important ecosystem and are particularly vulnerable to the multiple impacts of climate change, such as: rise in sea levels, increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, air and water temperature, and changes in precipitation patterns. Sea-level rise can cause a loss of mangroves by cutting off the flow of fresh water and nutrients and drowning the roots (Dasgupta, Laplante et al. 2010). By the end of the 21st century, global mangrove cover is projected to experience a significant decline because of heat stress and sea-level rise (Alongi, 2008; Beaumont et al., 2011). In fact, it has been estimated that under the A1B emissions scenario (3.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels) mangroves would need to geographically move on average about 1 km/year to remain in suitable climate zones (Loarie et al., 2009). The most vulnerable mangrove forests are those occupying low-relief islands such as small islands in the Pacific where sea-level rise is a dominant factor. Where rivers are lacking and/ or land is subsiding, vulnerability is also high. With mangrove losses resulting from deforestation presently at 1 to 2 percent per annum (Beaumont et al., 2011), climate change may not be the biggest immediate threat to the future of mangroves. However if conservation efforts are successful in the longer term climate change may become a determining issue (Beaumont et al., 2011). Coral reefs are acutely sensitive to changes in water temperatures, ocean pH and intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones. Mass coral bleaching is caused by ocean warming and ocean acidification, which results from absorption of CO2 (for example, Frieler et al., 2012a). Increased sea-surface temperatures and a reduction of available carbonates are also understood to be driving causes of decreased rates of calcification, a critical reef-building process (De’ath, Lough, and Fabricius, 2009). The effects of climate change on coral reefs are already apparent. The Great Barrier Reef, for example, has been estimated to have lost 50 percent of live coral cover since 1985, which is attributed in part to coral bleaching because of increasing water temperatures (De’ath et al., 2012). Under atmospheric CO2 concentrations that correspond to a warming of 4°C by 2100, reef erosion will likely exceed rates of calcification, leaving coral reefs as “crumbling frameworks with few calcareous corals” (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). In fact, frequency of bleaching events under global warming in even a 2°C world has been projected to exceed the ability of coral reefs to recover. The extinction of coral reefs would be catastrophic for entire coral reef ecosystems and the people who depend on them for food, income and shoreline. Reefs provide coastal protection against coastal floods and rising sea levels, nursery grounds and habitat for a variety of currently fished species, as well as an invaluable tourism asset. These valuable services to often subsistence-dependent coastal and island societies will most likely be lost well before a 4°C world is reached. The preceding discussion reviewed the implications of a 4°C world for just a few examples of important ecosystems. The section below examines the effects of climate on biological diversity Ecosystems are composed ultimately of the species and interactions between them and their physical environment. Biologically rich ecosystems are usually diverse and it is broadly agreed that<u><strong> <mark>there exists a strong link between </u></strong></mark>this<u><strong> <mark>bio</u></strong></mark>logical<u><strong> <mark>d</u></strong></mark>iversity<u><strong> <mark>and eco</u></strong></mark>system<u><strong> <mark>productivity</u></strong></mark>, stability and functioning (McGrady-Steed, Harris, and Morin, 1997; David Tilman, Wedin, and Knops, 1996)(Hector, 1999; D Tilman et al., 2001). Loss of species within ecosystems will hence have profound negative effects on the functioning and stability of ecosystems and on the ability of ecosystems to provide goods and services to human societies. It is the<u><strong> <mark>overall diversity of species </u></strong></mark>that ultimately<u><strong> <mark>characterizes the </u></strong></mark>biodiversity and<u><strong> <mark>evolutionary legacy of life </u></strong></mark>on Earth. As was noted at the outset of this discussion, species extinction rates are now at very high levels compared to the geological record. Loss of those species presently classified as ‘critically endangered’ would lead to mass extinction on a scale that has happened only five times before in the last 540 million years. The<u><strong> <mark>loss of </u></strong></mark>those<u><strong> <mark>species classified as ‘endangered’ </u></strong></mark>and ‘vulnerable’<u><strong> <mark>would confirm </u></strong></mark>this loss as<u><strong> <mark>the sixth mass extinction episode</u></strong></mark> (Barnosky 2011). Loss of biodiversity will challenge those reliant on ecosystems services. Fisheries (Dale, Tharp, Lannom, and Hodges, 2010), and agronomy (Howden et al., 2007) and forestry industries (Stram & Evans, 2009), among others, will need to match species choices to the changing climate conditions, while devising new strategies to tackle invasive pests (Bellard, Bertelsmeier, Leadley, Thuiller, and Courchamp, 2012). These challenges would have to be met in the face of increasing competition between natural and agricultural ecosystems over water resources. Over the 21st-century climate change is likely to result in some bio-climates disappearing, notably in the mountainous tropics and in the poleward regions of continents, with new, or novel, climates developing in the tropics and subtropics (Williams, Jackson, and Kutzbach, 2007). In this study novel climates are those where 21st century projected climates do not overlap with their 20th century analogues, and disappearing climates are those 20th century climates that do not overlap with 21st century projected climates. The projections of Williams et al (2007) indicate that in a 4°C world (SRES A2), 12–39 percent of the Earth’s land surface may experience a novel climate compared to 20th century analogues. Predictions of species response to novel climates are difficult because researchers have no current analogue to rely upon. However, at least such climates would give rise to disruptions, with many current species associations being broken up or disappearing entirely. Under the same scenario an estimated 10–48 percent of the Earth’s surface including highly biodiverse regions such as the Himalayas, Mesoamerica, eastern and southern Africa, the Philippines and the region around Indonesia known as Wallacaea would lose their climate space. <u><strong><mark>With limitations on how fast species can disperse</u></strong></mark>, or move, this indicates that <u><strong><mark>many species may </u></strong></mark>find themselves without a suitable climate space and thus<u><strong> <mark>face</mark> </u></strong>a high risk of<u><strong> <mark>extinction</u></strong></mark>. Globally, as in other studies, there is a strong association apparent in these projections between regions where the climate disappears and biodiversity hotspots. <u><strong><mark>Limiting warming to lower levels </u></strong></mark>in this study<u><strong> <mark>showed substantially reduced effects</mark>, <mark>with </u></strong></mark>the<u><strong> <mark>magnitude </u></strong></mark>of novel and disappearing climates<u><strong> <mark>scaling linearly </u></strong></mark>with global mean warming.<u><strong> </u></strong>More recent work by Beaumont and colleagues using a different approach confirms the scale of this risk (Beaumont et al., 2011, Figure 36). Analysis of the exposure of 185 eco-regions of exceptional biodiversity (a subset of the so-called Global 200) to extreme monthly temperature and precipitation conditions in the 21st century compared to 1961–1990 conditions shows that within 60 years almost all of the regions that are already exposed to substantial environmental and social pressure, will experience extreme temperature conditions based on the A2 emission scenario (4.1°C global mean temperature rise by 2100) (Beaumont et al., 2011). Tropical and sub-tropical eco-regions in Africa and South America are particularly vulnerable. Vulnerability to such extremes is particularly acute for high latitude and small island biota, which are very limited in their ability to respond to range shifts, and to those biota, such as flooded grassland, mangroves and desert biomes, that would require large geographical displacements to find comparable climates in a warmer world. The overall sense of recent literature confirms the findings of the AR4 summarized at the beginning of the section, with a number of risks such as those to coral reefs occurring at significantly lower temperatures than estimated in that report. Although non-climate related human pressures are likely to remain a major and defining driver of loss of ecosystems and biodiversity in the coming decades, it is also clear that as warming rises so will the predominance of climate change as a determinant of ecosystem and biodiversity survival.<u><strong> <mark>While </u></strong></mark>the factors of<u><strong> <mark>human stresses</mark> </u></strong>on ecosystems<u><strong> <mark>are manifold, in a 4°</u></strong></mark>C<u><strong><mark> world, climate change is likely to become a determining driver </u></strong></mark>of ecosystem shifts and large-scale biodiversity loss (Bellard et al., 2012; New et al., 2011). Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Such damages to ecosystems would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (e.g., hydrology—quantity flow rates, quality; fisheries (corals), protection of coastline (loss of mangroves). Barnosky has described the present situation facing the biodiversity of the planet as “the perfect storm” with multiple high intensity ecological stresses because of habitat modification and degradation, pollution and other factors, unusually rapid climate change and unusually high and elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations. In the past, as noted above, this combination of circumstances has led to major, mass extinctions with planetary consequences. Thus, there is a growing risk that<u><strong> <mark>climate change</mark>, </u></strong>combined with other human activities<u><strong>, <mark>will cause the irreversible transition of </u></strong></mark>the<u><strong> <mark>Earth´s ecosystems</mark> </u></strong>into a state unknown in human experience (Barnosky et al., 2012).</p>

1AC

1AC – Scenario 4

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round5.docx

A

UMKC

5

SFSU AG

Brian Rubaie

1AC Marijuana Environment 1NC Settlerism K 2NC Settlerism K 1NR Settlerism K 2NR Settlerism K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Extinction Framing generates violence – The drive for survival necessitates the creation of the other and the body as enemies to be eliminated. The AFF’s universal endorsement of survival conceals its inextricable violent underbelly: genocide and war.

Bauman ‘92

Bauman ‘92 (Zygmunt, Prof. Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Leeds, Mortality, Immortality and Other Life Strategies, Cambridge: Polity Press, Pg. 33-39)

survival is not identical with ‘self-preservation'. The idea of self-preservation, sometimes conceived of as an instinct, sometimes as a rational choice, hides or beautifies the gruesome truth of survival. Survival is targeted on others we live through the deaths of the others, and their death gives meaning to our success I can only measure my own performance against those other performance At the extreme of survival looms murder He wants to kill so that he can survive others; he wants to stay alive so as not to have others surviving him.' This wish can be denied but cannot be effaced The cynicism with which the wish of survival is inevitably infused, comes into the open during war socially sanctioned murder the purpose to limit our casualties' the price of that limiting is multiplying the dead on the other side Kill, so that you and your beloved shalt not be killed.’ Declaration of war means suspension of the guilt and shame that the wish of survival spawns dressed as the noble mission of fighting evil or disarming the enemies of mankind It shapes itself up as liberation, restoration of order, or crusade; it ends up as genocide. The survivor is mankind's worst evil, its curse and doom War shows in a spectacular way what is always there survival is never innocent when re-forged into action. the destructive edge of survival is sharpened by the socially organized setting in which the activity takes place the survival zero-sum game split the habitat into a part that is threatening and has to be annihilated survival is deployed to build and preserve boundaries of states, nations, races, classes invoked whenever hostility is to be directed, but also whenever loyalty to the cause and group solidarity are called for it generates the energy needed to wage ever new battles. ever new battlefields and war strategies, so that the struggle may continue the purpose of the struggle is gaining exclusive mastery over one's own body surviving its unsurvivable mortality The dream of survival constitutes the body as the most important of targets, as own body is the mortal side of the self, and is also the instrument through which individual immortality has been expropriated by the species. The body is the `natural enemy' of survival in the struggle aimed at the survival of the body, the would-be survivors meet the selfsame body as the arch-enemy Society fares no better than the body: it also emerges from the existential predicament as a monster of ambivalence: half-friend, half-enemy the object and the means of the struggle. The impulse of survival renders both the body and society ambivalent. Survival is torn apart by a contradiction no amount of lies may assuage; an inner split resulting in a constant outpouring of guilt which can be no more placated than its source can be drained self-death and Thou-death) two terrors are twin aspects of the hopelessly ambivalent sentiment gestated and sustained by the impulse of survival My own survival cannot be savoured otherwise than as a macabre privilege over the others, less fortunate. Yet these others are, the very meaning of my existence The death of others may be a benchmark for my own survival success, but it is the life of others which made that success desirable in the first place the image of a world emptied of others, a world that testifies to my ultimate triumph as a survivor, is unbearable the exit of every person that inhabits my life impoverishes that life of mine feeds on the drive to survival survival , a self-destructive and self-defeating impulse it can fulfil itself only in its defeat The core of all callousness, cruelty and brutality, the survival impulse Its struggle is to cut the ambivalent human predicament into a multitude of logically and pragmatically unequivocal situation The others' are divided into those who support, and those who threaten survival Murders which the survival impulse clamours for are no more clouded with the sorrow the murder is not a murder collectivized survival succeeded in `melting the meanness of chauvinism with the generosity of messianism' Universality the code-name for unbound inclusion, is deployed as a tool of exclusion Once the cause in the service of which the survival impulse is mobilized has been proclaimed universal, nothing is left outside whatever has been left outside is now non-entity: it does not count, it has no value left, its destruction is not counted among the costs of survival. the leftovers are waste to be disposed of for survival their destruction as necessary and universally beneficent the moment the boundaries of universality closed outside their abode

survival is not identical with ‘self-preservation' self-preservation beautifies the gruesome truth of survival. At the extreme of survival looms murder This wish can be denied but cannot be effaced The cynicism with which the wish of survival is inevitably infused, comes into the open during war It shapes itself up as liberation, restoration of order, or crusade; it ends up as genocide. the survival zero-sum game split the habitat into a part that is threatening and has to be annihilated survival is deployed to build and preserve boundaries of states, nations, races, classes. it generates the energy needed to wage ever new battles. The dream of survival constitutes the body as the most important of targets, and is the instrument through which individual immortality has been expropriated by the species. two terrors are twin aspects of the hopelessly ambivalent sentiment sustained by the impulse of survival the exit of every person impoverishes that life of mine survival a self-destructive and self-defeating impulse can fulfil itself only in its defeat The core of all callousness, cruelty and brutality, the survival impulse

Inescapably, as Elias Canetti wrote, 24 man is a survivor: `the most elementary and obvious form of success is to remain alive'. We are not just alive; at every moment we are still alive. Success is always an `until further notice' success; it is never final. It must be repeated over and over again. The effort can never grind to a halt. Survival is a lifelong task. Its energizing, creative potential in never exhausted. Whatever is left of it will be just locked up, in one felt swoop, at the moment of death. Canetti insists that survival is not identical with the old and trivial notion of ‘self-preservation'. The idea of self-preservation, sometimes conceived of as an instinct, sometimes as a rational choice, hides or beautifies the gruesome truth of survival. Survival is targeted on others, not on the self. Though we never live through our own death, we do live through the deaths of the others, and their death gives meaning to our success: we have not died, we are still alive. Thus `the desire for a long life which plays such a large part in most cultures really means that most people want to survive their contemporaries. They know that many die early and they want a different fate for themselves.' I would not conceive of my own performance as a success if it were not for the fact that performances of others proved unsuccessful; I can only measure my own performance against those other performances. I want to know what I should do to escape or to postpone the others' lot -- to outlive others. Others die of smoking; perhaps if I don't smoke, I'd survive them? At the radical extreme of survival, says Canetti, looms murder: `He wants to kill so that he can survive others; he wants to stay alive so as not to have others surviving him.' This wish can be silenced, even denied, indignantly, by consciousness -- but it cannot be really effaced: `Only survival at a distance in time is wholly innocent.' 25 The cynicism with which the wish of survival is inevitably, though self-ashamedly, infused, comes blatantly into the open during war -- that socially sanctioned, legitimate murder: the declared purpose is then `to limit our casualties', and anyone knows, even if refrains from spelling it out, that the price of that limiting is multiplying the dead on the other side of the battleline. ‘Kill, so that you and your beloved shalt not be killed.’ Declaration of war means suspension of the guilt and shame that the wish of survival spawns at `normal' times. That normally carefully concealed wish now emerges from hiding, dressed as the noble mission of fighting evil empires or disarming the enemies of mankind, be they carriers of disease that saps the civilized life or spoilers of harmonious world order. It shapes itself up as liberation, restoration of order, or crusade; it ends up as genocide. The survivor's `most fantastic triumphs have taken place in our own time, among people who set great store by the idea of humanity ... The survivor is mankind's worst evil, its curse and perhaps its doom.' 26 War is, admittedly, an extreme case -- but, Canetti insists, it shows in a spectacular way what is always there, though hidden; survival is never wholly innocent when re-forged into action. This is a dramatic, tragic vision of the inner tendency of survival. One wonders to what extent this tendency is truly inner (or innate); one is entitled to suspect that the destructive edge of survival is sharpened (and even more probably directed) by the socially organized setting in which the activity of survival takes place. It is this setting that may (or may not) arrange the survival as a zero-sum game, and then split the habitat into a part that is threatening and has to be subdued or better still annihilated, and another part whose well-being enhances the chance of my own survival; this is what most societies have been doing all along, and continue to do. Like other in-built qualities of the human predicament, the impulse of survival is the stuff of which societies are patched together. Even though this impulse is not the society's creation, it is keenly, skilfully and on the whole effectively manipulated by society; it is, as a rule, socially managed -- in a way that for one reason or another is deemed useful. It is deployed to build and preserve boundaries of states, nations, races, classes. It is invoked, explicitly or tacitly, whenever hostility is to be directed, but also whenever loyalty to the cause and group solidarity are called for. It is not just, and not necessarily destructive in its application. But if it can be put effectively to non-destructive uses, it is because of its destructive potential. One of such uses can be traced back to what Norman O. Brown dubbed the Oedipal project: 27 `The project of becoming God -- in Spinoza's terms, causa sui.' The Oedipal project is a flight from infantile dependency, a wish to become `the father of himself'. This stage in development always arrives, and once it arrives it is invariably directed against the parents, the true embodiment of dependency -- and this whatever the parents do and however they behave. The Oedipal project is a drive to emancipation that cannot be achieved unless the bond of dependency is broken. However, the deepest, the ultimate dependency is that on one's own mortal body -- that ultimate limit of autonomy; for this reason the battle cannot be won. Oedipal project is just a first `trial skirmish' in a long series of battles doomed to defeat (though the hubbub of successive skirmishes silences for a while, perhaps a long while, the thought of the final debacle). The causa sui project stays unfulfilled, and as long as it is unfulfilled it generates the energy needed to wage ever new battles. It also needs ever new battlefields and war strategies, so that the struggle may continue while each successive engagement is lost. The tragic paradox is that the undeclared purpose of the struggle is gaining exclusive mastery over one's own body (and thus, by proxy, surviving its unsurvivable mortality). The dream of survival constitutes the body as the most important of targets, as own body is the mortal side of the self, and -- with its procreative function -- is also the instrument through which individual immortality has been expropriated by the species. The body is the `natural enemy' of survival, and the only uncontrived enemy. A paradox indeed -- and the seat of perhaps the deepest and most hopeless of ambivalences: in the struggle aimed at the survival of the body, the would-be survivors meet the selfsame body as the arch-enemy. But let us note that even in the `struggle of liberation' targeted against one's own body it is always the socially set framework of dependence that injects meaning into the experience of the lack of mastery. These battlefronts are, like all others, socially drawn. And it is the selfsame society which has articulated the aims of the struggle and drawn the battlelines, that also supplies the weapons and the strategies with which the battles can be fought. It is therefore on this interface that the survival impulse of the developing individual meets and merges with the self-perpetuating processes of sociality. Society, in other respects the hostile field of competitors against which one's own survival can be measured and hopefully asserted, appears simultaneously as the armoury of survival's weapons, trusty ally, source of succour, encouragement, and hope. Society fares no better than the body: it also emerges from the existential predicament as a monster of ambivalence: half-friend, half-enemy – the object and the means of the struggle. The impulse of survival renders both the body and society ambivalent. Yet all ambivalence it spawns seem to pale into insignificance when compared to its own. Survival is torn apart by a contradiction no amount of lies may assuage; an inner split resulting in a constant outpouring of guilt which can be no more placated than its source can be drained. Philippe Ariès 28 suggested that the spectres of `la mort de Moi' (self-death) and `la mort de Toi' (Thou-death) were crystallization points of two successive (respectively, eighteenth-century, Enlightenment, and nineteenth-century Romanticism), and to an extent mutually exclusive, attitudes towards death. We may surmise instead that the two terrors are just twin aspects of the hopelessly ambivalent sentiment gestated and sustained by the impulse of survival at all ages of human existence. My own survival, as we have seen before, cannot be savoured otherwise than as a macabre privilege over the others, less fortunate. Yet these others may be, and more often than not are, the very meaning of my existence -- the uppermost value which makes my life worth living; the very sense of being alive: life is communicating with others, being with others, acting for others and being addressed, wanted, lifted into importance by the need of others and by the bid they make for my attention and sympathy. The death of others may be a benchmark for my own survival success, but it is the life of others which made that success desirable in the first place, as well as is making it now worthy of effort. After all, I want to survive mostly because the thought of all that communication, intercourse, loving, being loved -- all that grinding suddenly to a halt is so unbearable. My desire to survive is all the stronger the richer and more satisfying is that experience of being with others. The world without my seeing it or fantasizing it is unimaginable; but the image of a world emptied of others, a world that testifies to my ultimate triumph as a survivor, is unbearable. (The `sole survivor's' plight is no less a nightmare than death; after all, it shows what death is about, it is a mirror-image of death; moreover, only if reflected in that imaginary mirror can death be visualized in all its brutal truth.) More immediately, the exit of every person that inhabits my life and stands between sense and senselessness, fullness and void, impoverishes that life of mine which feeds and in turn feeds on the drive to survival. Is not survival, therefore, a self-destructive and self-defeating impulse? Is not it the case that it can fulfil itself only in its defeat? The core of all callousness, cruelty and brutality, the survival impulse seems also to be the fount of sociability. It is neither selfish nor selfless; or perhaps it is both, and cannot but be both at the same time. In a tormented, self-immolating and painful way it implements the order of nature: it seals the bond between individual self-preservation effort and the survival of the species. By mobilizing the emotional and rational faculties of individuals, its practice fulfils and reinforces the logical and pragmatic interdependence between perpetuity of the species and the temporal existence of its members. Its innate ambivalence has itself a survival value. It is an ambivalence all the same, and an acute one with that. One would expect therefore a drive to separate the inseparable -- a favourite point of entry for all societal managerial skills and ambitions; a stuff from which all man-made, `cultured', contrived social order is made. Making distinctions, discriminating, setting apart, classifying, is culture's foremost mark, craft and tour de force. In its intentions (though hardly ever in its practical accomplishments) culture is a war of attrition declared on ambivalence. Its promise is to separate the grain from the chaff in all their incarnations -- be they called truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, friends and enemies, or good and evil. Its job is to see that the world is well mapped and well marked, so that confusion will have little chance to arise. Its ambition is to make the world hospitable by eliminating the torments of choice where no fully satisfying choice seems available. Its struggle -- futile yet unstoppable -- is to cut the ambivalent human predicament into a multitude of logically and pragmatically unequivocal situations. Obviously, the poignantly ambivalent survival impulse is the prime candidate for such treatment. Individual survival makes no sense and offers no allurement without survival of others; but then such others as are needed for survival to remain attractive and to make sense may be -- should be -- separated from the rest of the others who are not. This is exactly what society, through its `culturing' effort, achieves -- or at least tries hard to achieve. `The others' are divided into those who support, and those who threaten survival. The uncompromising, overwhelming self-assertion of the species is split into more palatable and easier-to-manage tribal interests. The `inside' and the `outside' are thereby created and carefully demarcated. Inside -- unity, cooperation and mutual love. Outside -- wilderness, vigilance and fight. My tribe is to be spared all casualties at all costs. Among the costs (or are they costs at all? Are they not, to be frank, gains?), the most indispensable of all is `collateral damage' inflicted on the enemy tribe once it has been appointed `the target' and, as targets are meant to be, is `hit' and `neutralized'. My tribe's survival has been offered what it demands: a measure of callous self-love and a measure of loving co-operation with others. Only such others as are earmarked for love, and the others selected for callous treatment, are no more the same others. In Reinhold Niebuhr's words, tribal patriotism `transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism'. 29 Murders which the survival impulse clamours for are no more clouded with the sorrow with which la mort de Toi tends to inject the survivor. The killed is not Tu, and so the murder is not a murder. The haunting contradiction of human survival has been resolved. The resolution is greatly helped by the ingenious game of universality and particularity: by the uncanny talent of particularity to dress up as universality. Most instances of collectivized survival succeeded in what Régis Debray described as `melting the meanness of chauvinism with the generosity of messianism'. 30 Universality, the code-name for unbound inclusion, is deployed as a tool of exclusion. Once the cause in the service of which the survival impulse is mobilized (the cause that ennobles survival exertions, legitimizes them, cleans them of the gnawing suspicion of selfishness, immorality, a sociality) has been proclaimed universal, nothing is left outside; or, rather, whatever has been left outside is now non-entity: it does not count, it has no value left, its destruction is not counted among the costs of survival. At best, the leftovers are waste to be disposed of for the sake of the health and sanity of that which has been marked for survival. If the leftovers had feelings and gumption, they would, surely, rejoice in their destruction, which has been sealed as a necessary and universally beneficent event the moment the boundaries of universality closed outside their abode. They would sing merrily on the way to the sewage gutters.

<h4><u><strong>Extinction Framing generates violence – The drive for survival necessitates the creation of the other and the body as enemies to be eliminated. The AFF’s universal endorsement of survival conceals its inextricable violent underbelly: genocide and war.</h4><p></u>Bauman ‘92</strong> (Zygmunt, Prof. Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Leeds, Mortality, Immortality and Other Life Strategies, Cambridge: Polity Press, Pg. 33-39)</p><p>Inescapably, as Elias Canetti wrote, 24 man is a survivor: `the most elementary and obvious form of success is to remain alive'. We are not just alive; at every moment we are still alive. Success is always an `until further notice' success; it is never final. It must be repeated over and over again. The effort can never grind to a halt. Survival is a lifelong task. Its energizing, creative potential in never exhausted. Whatever is left of it will be just locked up, in one felt swoop, at the moment of death. Canetti insists that <u><mark>survival is not identical with</u></mark> the old and trivial notion of <u><mark>‘self-preservation'</mark>. The idea of <mark>self-preservation</mark>, sometimes conceived of as an instinct, sometimes as a rational choice, hides or <mark>beautifies the gruesome truth of survival.</mark> Survival is targeted on others</u>, not on the self. Though we never live through our own death, <u>we</u> do <u>live through the deaths of the others, and their death gives meaning to our success</u>: we have not died, we are still alive. Thus `the desire for a long life which plays such a large part in most cultures really means that most people want to survive their contemporaries. They know that many die early and they want a different fate for themselves.' I would not conceive of my own performance as a success if it were not for the fact that performances of others proved unsuccessful; <u>I can only measure my own performance against those other performance</u>s. I want to know what I should do to escape or to postpone the others' lot -- to outlive others. Others die of smoking; perhaps if I don't smoke, I'd survive them? <u><mark>At the</u></mark> radical <u><mark>extreme of survival</u></mark>, says Canetti, <u><mark>looms murder</u></mark>: `<u>He wants to kill so that he can survive others; he wants to stay alive so as not to have others surviving him.' <mark>This wish can be</u></mark> silenced, even <u><mark>denied</u></mark>, indignantly, by consciousness -- <u><mark>but</u></mark> it <u><mark>cannot be</u></mark> really <u><mark>effaced</u></mark>: `Only survival at a distance in time is wholly innocent.' 25 <u><mark>The cynicism with which the wish of survival is inevitably</u></mark>, though self-ashamedly, <u><mark>infused, comes</u></mark> blatantly <u><mark>into the open during war</u></mark> -- that <u>socially sanctioned</u>, legitimate <u>murder</u>: <u>the</u> declared <u>purpose</u> is then `<u>to limit our casualties'</u>, and anyone knows, even if refrains from spelling it out, that <u>the price of that limiting is multiplying the dead on the other side</u> of the battleline. ‘<u>Kill, so that you and your beloved shalt not be killed.’ Declaration of war means suspension of the guilt and shame that the wish of survival spawns </u>at `normal' times. That normally carefully concealed wish now emerges from hiding, <u>dressed as the noble mission of fighting evil</u> empires <u>or disarming the enemies of mankind</u>, be they carriers of disease that saps the civilized life or spoilers of harmonious world order. <u><mark>It shapes itself up as liberation, restoration of order, or crusade; it ends up as genocide.</u></mark> The survivor's `most fantastic triumphs have taken place in our own time, among people who set great store by the idea of humanity ... <u>The survivor is mankind's worst evil, its curse and</u> perhaps its <u>doom</u>.' 26 <u>War</u> is, admittedly, an extreme case -- but, Canetti insists, it <u>shows in a spectacular way what is always there</u>, though hidden; <u>survival is never</u> wholly <u>innocent when re-forged into action.</u> This is a dramatic, tragic vision of the inner tendency of survival. One wonders to what extent this tendency is truly inner (or innate); one is entitled to suspect that <u>the destructive edge of survival is sharpened</u> (and even more probably directed) <u>by the socially organized setting in which the activity</u> of survival <u>takes place</u>. It is this setting that may (or may not) arrange <u><mark>the survival</u></mark> as a <u><mark>zero-sum game</u></mark>, and then <u><mark>split the habitat into a part that is threatening and has to be</u></mark> subdued or better still <u><mark>annihilated</u></mark>, and another part whose well-being enhances the chance of my own <u><mark>survival</u></mark>; this is what most societies have been doing all along, and continue to do. Like other in-built qualities of the human predicament, the impulse of survival is the stuff of which societies are patched together. Even though this impulse is not the society's creation, it is keenly, skilfully and on the whole effectively manipulated by society; it is, as a rule, socially managed -- in a way that for one reason or another is deemed useful. It <u><mark>is deployed to build and preserve boundaries of states, nations, races, classes</u>.</mark> It is <u>invoked</u>, explicitly or tacitly, <u>whenever hostility is to be directed, but also whenever loyalty to the cause and group solidarity are called for</u>. It is not just, and not necessarily destructive in its application. But if it can be put effectively to non-destructive uses, it is because of its destructive potential. One of such uses can be traced back to what Norman O. Brown dubbed the Oedipal project: 27 `The project of becoming God -- in Spinoza's terms, causa sui.' The Oedipal project is a flight from infantile dependency, a wish to become `the father of himself'. This stage in development always arrives, and once it arrives it is invariably directed against the parents, the true embodiment of dependency -- and this whatever the parents do and however they behave. The Oedipal project is a drive to emancipation that cannot be achieved unless the bond of dependency is broken. However, the deepest, the ultimate dependency is that on one's own mortal body -- that ultimate limit of autonomy; for this reason the battle cannot be won. Oedipal project is just a first `trial skirmish' in a long series of battles doomed to defeat (though the hubbub of successive skirmishes silences for a while, perhaps a long while, the thought of the final debacle). The causa sui project stays unfulfilled, and as long as it is unfulfilled <u><mark>it generates the energy needed to wage ever new battles.</u></mark> It also needs <u>ever new battlefields and war strategies, so that the struggle may continue</u> while each successive engagement is lost. The tragic paradox is that <u>the</u> undeclared <u>purpose of the struggle is gaining exclusive mastery over one's own body</u> (and thus, by proxy, <u>surviving its unsurvivable mortality</u>). <u><mark>The dream of survival constitutes the body as the most important of targets,</mark> as own body is the mortal side of the self, <mark>and</u></mark> -- with its procreative function -- <u><mark>is</mark> also <mark>the instrument through which individual immortality has been expropriated by the species.</mark> The body is the `natural enemy' of survival</u>, and the only uncontrived enemy. A paradox indeed -- and the seat of perhaps the deepest and most hopeless of ambivalences: <u>in the struggle aimed at the survival of the body, the would-be survivors meet the selfsame body as the arch-enemy</u>. But let us note that even in the `struggle of liberation' targeted against one's own body it is always the socially set framework of dependence that injects meaning into the experience of the lack of mastery. These battlefronts are, like all others, socially drawn. And it is the selfsame society which has articulated the aims of the struggle and drawn the battlelines, that also supplies the weapons and the strategies with which the battles can be fought. It is therefore on this interface that the survival impulse of the developing individual meets and merges with the self-perpetuating processes of sociality. Society, in other respects the hostile field of competitors against which one's own survival can be measured and hopefully asserted, appears simultaneously as the armoury of survival's weapons, trusty ally, source of succour, encouragement, and hope. <u>Society fares no better than the body: it also emerges from the existential predicament as a monster of ambivalence: half-friend, half-enemy</u> – <u>the object and the means of the struggle. The impulse of survival renders both the body and society ambivalent. </u>Yet all ambivalence it spawns seem to pale into insignificance when compared to its own. <u>Survival is torn apart by a contradiction no amount of lies may assuage; an inner split resulting in a constant outpouring of guilt which can be no more placated than its source can be drained</u>. Philippe Ariès 28 suggested that the spectres of `la mort de Moi' (<u>self-death</u>) <u>and</u> `la mort de Toi' (<u>Thou-death)</u> were crystallization points of two successive (respectively, eighteenth-century, Enlightenment, and nineteenth-century Romanticism), and to an extent mutually exclusive, attitudes towards death. We may surmise instead that the <u><mark>two terrors are</u></mark> just <u><mark>twin aspects of the hopelessly ambivalent sentiment</mark> gestated and <mark>sustained by the impulse of survival</u></mark> at all ages of human existence. <u>My own survival</u>, as we have seen before, <u>cannot be savoured otherwise than as a macabre privilege over the others, less fortunate. Yet these others</u> may be, and more often than not <u>are, the very meaning of my existence</u> -- the uppermost value which makes my life worth living; the very sense of being alive: life is communicating with others, being with others, acting for others and being addressed, wanted, lifted into importance by the need of others and by the bid they make for my attention and sympathy. <u>The death of others may be a benchmark for my own survival success, but it is the life of others which made that success desirable in the first place</u>, as well as is making it now worthy of effort. After all, I want to survive mostly because the thought of all that communication, intercourse, loving, being loved -- all that grinding suddenly to a halt is so unbearable. My desire to survive is all the stronger the richer and more satisfying is that experience of being with others. The world without my seeing it or fantasizing it is unimaginable; but <u>the image of a world emptied of others, a world that testifies to my ultimate triumph as a survivor, is unbearable</u>. (The `sole survivor's' plight is no less a nightmare than death; after all, it shows what death is about, it is a mirror-image of death; moreover, only if reflected in that imaginary mirror can death be visualized in all its brutal truth.) More immediately, <u><mark>the exit of every person</mark> that inhabits my life </u>and stands between sense and senselessness, fullness and void, <u><mark>impoverishes that life of mine</u></mark> which feeds and in turn <u>feeds on the drive to survival</u>. Is not <u><mark>survival</u></mark>, therefore<u>, <mark>a self-destructive and self-defeating impulse</u></mark>? Is not it the case that <u>it <mark>can fulfil itself only in its defeat</u></mark>? <u><mark>The core of all callousness, cruelty and brutality, the survival impulse</u></mark> seems also to be the fount of sociability. It is neither selfish nor selfless; or perhaps it is both, and cannot but be both at the same time. In a tormented, self-immolating and painful way it implements the order of nature: it seals the bond between individual self-preservation effort and the survival of the species. By mobilizing the emotional and rational faculties of individuals, its practice fulfils and reinforces the logical and pragmatic interdependence between perpetuity of the species and the temporal existence of its members. Its innate ambivalence has itself a survival value. It is an ambivalence all the same, and an acute one with that. One would expect therefore a drive to separate the inseparable -- a favourite point of entry for all societal managerial skills and ambitions; a stuff from which all man-made, `cultured', contrived social order is made. Making distinctions, discriminating, setting apart, classifying, is culture's foremost mark, craft and tour de force. In its intentions (though hardly ever in its practical accomplishments) culture is a war of attrition declared on ambivalence. Its promise is to separate the grain from the chaff in all their incarnations -- be they called truth and falsehood, beauty and ugliness, friends and enemies, or good and evil. Its job is to see that the world is well mapped and well marked, so that confusion will have little chance to arise. Its ambition is to make the world hospitable by eliminating the torments of choice where no fully satisfying choice seems available. <u>Its struggle</u> -- futile yet unstoppable -- <u>is to cut the ambivalent human predicament into a multitude of logically and pragmatically unequivocal situation</u>s. Obviously, the poignantly ambivalent survival impulse is the prime candidate for such treatment. Individual survival makes no sense and offers no allurement without survival of others; but then such others as are needed for survival to remain attractive and to make sense may be -- should be -- separated from the rest of the others who are not. This is exactly what society, through its `culturing' effort, achieves -- or at least tries hard to achieve. `<u>The others' are divided into those who support, and those who threaten survival</u>. The uncompromising, overwhelming self-assertion of the species is split into more palatable and easier-to-manage tribal interests. The `inside' and the `outside' are thereby created and carefully demarcated. Inside -- unity, cooperation and mutual love. Outside -- wilderness, vigilance and fight. My tribe is to be spared all casualties at all costs. Among the costs (or are they costs at all? Are they not, to be frank, gains?), the most indispensable of all is `collateral damage' inflicted on the enemy tribe once it has been appointed `the target' and, as targets are meant to be, is `hit' and `neutralized'. My tribe's survival has been offered what it demands: a measure of callous self-love and a measure of loving co-operation with others. Only such others as are earmarked for love, and the others selected for callous treatment, are no more the same others. In Reinhold Niebuhr's words, tribal patriotism `transmutes individual unselfishness into national egoism'. 29 <u>Murders which the survival impulse clamours for are no more clouded with the sorrow</u> with which la mort de Toi tends to inject the survivor. The killed is not Tu, and so <u>the murder is not a murder</u>. The haunting contradiction of human survival has been resolved. The resolution is greatly helped by the ingenious game of universality and particularity: by the uncanny talent of particularity to dress up as universality. Most instances of <u>collectivized survival succeeded in</u> what Régis Debray described as <u>`melting the meanness of chauvinism with the generosity of messianism'</u>. 30 <u>Universality</u>, <u>the code-name for unbound inclusion, is deployed as a tool of exclusion</u>. <u>Once the cause in the service of which the survival impulse is mobilized</u> (the cause that ennobles survival exertions, legitimizes them, cleans them of the gnawing suspicion of selfishness, immorality, a sociality) <u>has been proclaimed universal, nothing is left outside</u>; or, rather, <u>whatever has been left outside is now non-entity: it does not count, it has no value left, its destruction is not counted among the costs of survival.</u> At best, <u>the leftovers are waste to be disposed of</u> for the sake of the health and sanity of that which has been marked <u>for survival</u>. If the leftovers had feelings and gumption, they would, surely, rejoice in <u>their destruction</u>, which has been sealed <u>as</u> a <u>necessary and universally beneficent </u>event <u>the moment the boundaries of universality closed outside their abode</u>. They would sing merrily on the way to the sewage gutters.</p>

2NC

1NC Market

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Physician assisted suicide is a wedge issue – strong partisan gap.

Saad ’11

Saad, ’11 [Lydia, “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Moral Issue Dividing Americans Most”, 5-31-11, Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/147842/doctor-assisted-suicide-moral-issue-dividing-americans.aspx, RSR]

Doctor-assisted suicide emerges as the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's 2011 Values and Beliefs poll, with Americans divided 45% vs. 48% over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong Partisans disagree widely on these issues with majorities of Democrats accepting of all three issues, compared with, at most, barely a third of Republicans

Doctor-assisted suicide emerges as the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's Values and Beliefs poll with Americans divided 45% vs. 48% over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong Partisans disagree widely on these issues, with majorities of Democrats accepting of all three issues, compared with, at most, barely a third of Republicans

PRINCETON, NJ -- Doctor-assisted suicide emerges as the most controversial cultural issue in Gallup's 2011 Values and Beliefs poll, with Americans divided 45% vs. 48% over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong. Having a baby out of wedlock and abortion also closely divide Americans. However, stronger public consensus exists on 14 other issues tested. Americans are in broadest agreement about what behaviors are morally wrong. At least 8 in 10 U.S. adults interviewed in the May 5-8 survey say this about extramarital affairs, polygamy, cloning humans, and suicide. At least 6 in 10 say pornography and cloning animals are each morally wrong. Widest agreement about what is morally acceptable, ranging from 60% to 69%, is found for divorce, the death penalty, gambling, embryonic stem cell research, and premarital sex. Also, 55% or better say medical testing on animals, gay/lesbian relations, and the use of animal fur for clothing are each acceptable. The three most controversial issues -- doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births -- are the ones on which fewer than 15 points separate the percentage considering the issue morally acceptable from the percentage considering it morally wrong. Attitudes on each have been fairly stable in recent years. Partisans disagree widely on these issues, with majorities of Democrats accepting of all three issues, compared with, at most, barely a third of Republicans. Abortion is the most divisive of the three, with a 37-point Republican-Democratic gap.

<h4><strong>Physician assisted suicide is a wedge issue – strong partisan gap.</h4><p>Saad</strong>, <strong>’11</strong> [Lydia, “Doctor-Assisted Suicide Is Moral Issue Dividing Americans Most”, 5-31-11, Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/147842/doctor-assisted-suicide-moral-issue-dividing-americans.aspx, RSR]</p><p>PRINCETON, NJ -- <u><strong><mark>Doctor-assisted suicide emerges as the most controversial cultural issue</mark> <mark>in</mark> <mark>Gallup's</mark> 2011 <mark>Values and Beliefs poll</mark>, <mark>with Americans divided 45% vs. 48% over whether it is morally acceptable or morally wrong</u></strong></mark>. Having a baby out of wedlock and abortion also closely divide Americans. However, stronger public consensus exists on 14 other issues tested. Americans are in broadest agreement about what behaviors are morally wrong. At least 8 in 10 U.S. adults interviewed in the May 5-8 survey say this about extramarital affairs, polygamy, cloning humans, and suicide. At least 6 in 10 say pornography and cloning animals are each morally wrong. Widest agreement about what is morally acceptable, ranging from 60% to 69%, is found for divorce, the death penalty, gambling, embryonic stem cell research, and premarital sex. Also, 55% or better say medical testing on animals, gay/lesbian relations, and the use of animal fur for clothing are each acceptable. The three most controversial issues -- doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, and out-of-wedlock births -- are the ones on which fewer than 15 points separate the percentage considering the issue morally acceptable from the percentage considering it morally wrong. Attitudes on each have been fairly stable in recent years. <u><strong><mark>Partisans disagree widely on these issues</u></strong>, <u><strong>with majorities of Democrats accepting of all three issues, compared with, at most, barely a third of Republicans</u></strong></mark>. Abortion is the most divisive of the three, with a 37-point Republican-Democratic gap.</p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Regulations fail

Thackston 14

Thackston 14, James Thackston, is a Florida-based independent software engineer with a background in the aerospace, manufacturing and energy industries. Earl L. Grinols is distinguished professor of economics at Baylor University, former senior economist for the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and author of "Gambling In America: Costs and Benefits.", http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-online-gambling-is-a-strategic-national-threat/2151317

Remote gambling is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar casino gambling Using tech undetectable to operators and regulators, House Commerce Committee witnessed a demonstration in which a single remote computer took control of two computers and used them as alias machines to play poker online. The demonstration showed tech and techniques terror and crime use to operate untraceable money laundering built on a highly liquid legalized online poker industry — just the environment that will result from the spread of poker online A drug cartel could arrange for buyers' machines to be remotely linked and lose to the aliased cartel machines. Drug buyers would not even need to play from their own machines. Illegal drug money would appear to be legal online winnings. A single poker game takes just a few hours to transfer $5 million An established al-Qaida poker network could extract from the U S enough untraceable money in six days to fund an operation like 9/11 The threat is real gambling regulations are no match for determined terrorists and criminals it is possible to make money laundering undetectable. Gambling should be firmly restricted to stay offline.

House Commerce Committee witnessed a demonstration in which a single remote computer took control of two computers and used them to play poker online. The demo showed tech terror and crime use to operate untraceable laundering built on a highly liquid legalized online poker industry — just the environment that will result from spread of poker online gambling regulations are no match for determined terrorists and criminals, it is possible to make money laundering undetectable. Gambling should be firmly restricted to stay offline.

Remote gambling is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar casino gambling because the website operator never has complete control. Using technology undetectable to website operators and their regulators, it is possible for gamblers to play games from physical locations that are not what they seem. We know, because we have done it. Recently, House Energy and Commerce Committee staff and others in the Capitol Hill office of U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., witnessed a demonstration in which a single remote computer took control of two computers and used them as alias machines to play poker online. The Harper demonstration showed the technology and techniques that terror and crime organizations could use to operate untraceable money laundering built on a highly liquid legalized online poker industry — just the environment that will result from the spread of poker online. One of us set up a website — undetectablelaundering.com — to help communicate the problem to a broader audience. No one should doubt the ability of criminals to exploit the inherent weakness in online gambling. A drug cartel could arrange for buyers' machines to be remotely linked and lose to the aliased cartel machines. Drug buyers would not even need to play from their own machines. Illegal drug money would appear to be legal online winnings. A single poker game takes just a few hours to transfer $5 million as was recently demonstrated — legally — by American player Brian Hastings with his Swedish competitor half a world away. An established al-Qaida poker network could extract from the United States enough untraceable money in six days to fund an operation like the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. The threat is real. Last month a Texas lawyer was found guilty of trying to launder $600 million in drug money for a Mexican cartel. Caesar's Entertainment is currently under investigation by the Justice Department and IRS, accused of money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act violations. In December 2012, the FBI's Tampa field office asked us to take down the website explaining the threat. We complied. This May, special agents at FBI headquarters in Washington responsible for enforcing the Wire Act and all other federal gambling laws were briefed on the vulnerability. In July, a Senate Commerce Committee hearing seemed to reinforce concerns. Rep. C.W. Bill Young wrote a letter of concern to FBI director Robert Mueller on Aug. 7. But since then action seems to have stalled. And the threat moves on. With the passing of Young, we have put the website back up and joined together in hopes of spurring action. Since it remains true that gambling regulations in Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey are no match for determined terrorists and criminals, we feel duty-bound as responsible citizens to ensure knowledge of the threat reaches as many policymakers as possible. We have proved it is possible to make money laundering undetectable. Gambling should be firmly restricted to stay offline.

<h4>Regulations fail </h4><p><strong>Thackston 14</strong>, James Thackston, is a Florida-based independent software engineer with a background in the aerospace, manufacturing and energy industries. Earl L. Grinols<u> is distinguished professor of economics at Baylor University, former senior economist for the President's Council of Economic Advisers, and author of "Gambling In America: Costs and Benefits.", http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-online-gambling-is-a-strategic-national-threat/2151317</p><p>Remote gambling is fundamentally different from brick-and-mortar casino gambling</u> because the website operator never has complete control. <u>Using tech</u>nology <u>undetectable to</u> website <u>operators and</u> their <u>regulators,</u> it is possible for gamblers to play games from physical locations that are not what they seem. We know, because we have done it. Recently, <u><mark>House</u></mark> Energy and <u><mark>Commerce Committee</u></mark> staff and others in the Capitol Hill office of U.S. Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., <u><mark>witnessed a demonstration in which a single remote computer took control of two computers and used them</mark> as alias machines <mark>to play poker online. The</u></mark> Harper <u><mark>demo</mark>nstration <mark>showed</u></mark> the <u><mark>tech</u></mark>nology <u>and techniques</u> that <u><mark>terror and crime</u></mark> organizations could <u><mark>use to operate untraceable</mark> money <mark>laundering built on a highly liquid legalized online poker industry — just the environment that will result from</mark> the <mark>spread of poker online</u></mark>. One of us set up a website — undetectablelaundering.com — to help communicate the problem to a broader audience. No one should doubt the ability of criminals to exploit the inherent weakness in online gambling. <u>A drug cartel could arrange for buyers' machines to be remotely linked and lose to the aliased cartel machines. Drug buyers would not even need to play from their own machines. Illegal drug money would appear to be legal online winnings. A single poker game takes just a few hours to transfer $5 million </u>as was recently demonstrated — legally — by American player Brian Hastings with his Swedish competitor half a world away. <u>An established al-Qaida poker network could extract from the U</u>nited <u>S</u>tates <u>enough untraceable money in six days to fund an operation like </u>the <u>9/11 </u>attack on the World Trade Center. <u>The threat is real</u>. Last month a Texas lawyer was found guilty of trying to launder $600 million in drug money for a Mexican cartel. Caesar's Entertainment is currently under investigation by the Justice Department and IRS, accused of money laundering and Bank Secrecy Act violations. In December 2012, the FBI's Tampa field office asked us to take down the website explaining the threat. We complied. This May, special agents at FBI headquarters in Washington responsible for enforcing the Wire Act and all other federal gambling laws were briefed on the vulnerability. In July, a Senate Commerce Committee hearing seemed to reinforce concerns. Rep. C.W. Bill Young wrote a letter of concern to FBI director Robert Mueller on Aug. 7. But since then action seems to have stalled. And the threat moves on. With the passing of Young, we have put the website back up and joined together in hopes of spurring action. Since it remains true that <u><mark>gambling regulations</mark> </u>in Nevada, Delaware and New Jersey <u><mark>are no match for determined terrorists and criminals</u>,</mark> we feel duty-bound as responsible citizens to ensure knowledge of the threat reaches as many policymakers as possible. We have proved <u><mark>it is possible to make money laundering undetectable. Gambling should be firmly restricted to stay offline.</p></u></mark>

1NC

Regulations

1NC No Regulations

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Pragmatic warming policy is effective and key to prevent extinction

Simpson 10

Simpson 10 (Francis, College of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, “Environmental Pragmatism and its Application to Climate Change The Moral Obligations of Developed and Developing Nations to Avert Climate Change as viewed through Technological Pragmatism”, Spring 2010 | Volume 6 | Number 1)

Environmental pragmatism seeks to move beyond strictly theoretical exercises normal in philosophy and allow the movement to formulate substantial new policies This particular discipline advocates moral pluralism, implying that the environmental problems being faced have multiple correct solutions. Light argues that the urgency of ecological crises requires that action is necessary While theorists serve to further the field of environmental ethics and to debate the metaethical basis of various philosophies, some answers to questions are best left to private discussion rather than taking time to argue about them publically the commitment to solving environmental problems is the only precondition for any workable and democratic political theory pragmatism calls for bridging the gap between theory and policy/ practices By utilizing footprinting and life-cycle analysis, it becomes possible to make environmentally conscious decisions not only based upon a gut instinct but based on sound science Climate change modeling inherently contains many unknowns but these factors should not be enough to hold us back from an environmental pragmatism stand point. Rather than hiding behind a veil of uncertainty with the science, the uncertainty of the possible catastrophic outcomes demands action Since we are attempting to protect human lives and prevent unnecessary suffering, environmental pragmatism would dictate that we should take action now and stop debating the theoretical aspects of this problem. A moral obligation exists to protect human life, and it becomes our obligation to avert climate change. People inherently fear change, and it is my opinion that averting climate change requires a drastic change it is humanities responsibility to avert climate change before it is too late since we have a moral obligation to protect the future of humanity and the biosphere

Environmental pragmatism seeks to move beyond theoretical exercises and allow new policies This discipline advocates moral pluralism the urgency of ecological crises requires action While theorists serve to further the field some answers to questions are best left to private discussion rather than taking time to argue publically pragmatism bridg theory and policy Climate change contains many unknowns but these factors should not be enough to hold us back Rather than hiding behind uncertainty possible catastrophic outcomes demand action Since we are attempting to protect human lives we should take action now and stop debating theoretical aspects it becomes our obligation to avert climate change

Pragmatism and Footprinting¶ Environmental pragmatism is a relatively new field of environmental ethics that seeks to move beyond the strictly theoretical exercises normal in philosophy and allows the environmental movement to formulate substantial new policies (Light, 1). Environmental Pragmatism was initially posited by Bryan Norton and evolved to not take a stance over the dispute between non-anthropocentric and anthropocentric ethics. Distancing himself from this dispute, he preferred to distinguish between strong and weak anthropocentricism (Light, 290-291, 298). The main philosophers involved in advancing the debate in environmental pragmatism include Eric Katz, Andrew Light, and Bryan Norton. This particular discipline advocates moral pluralism, implying that the environmental problems being faced have multiple correct solutions. Light argues that the urgency of ecological crises requires that action is necessary through negotiation and compromise. While theorists serve to further the field of environmental ethics and to debate the metaethical basis of various environmental philosophies, some answers to questions are best left to private discussion rather than taking time to argue about them publically (introduction of pragmatism). Pragmatism believes that if two theories are equally able to provide solutions to a given problem, then debate on which is more is argued that: “the commitment to solving environmental problems is the only precondition for any workable and democratic political theory” (Light, 11). While the science behind a footprint is well understood, what can the synthesis of environmental pragmatism and footprinting tell us about the moral obligation to avert climate change? How does grounding the practice of sustainability footprinting in environmental pragmatism generate moral prescriptions for averting climate change?¶ Environmental Pragmatism necessitates the need for tools in engineering to be developed and applied to avert the climate change problem, since pragmatism inherently calls for bridging the gap between theory and policy/ practices. With the theory of pragmatism in mind, further research and development of tools such as life-cycle analysis and footprinting are potential policy tools that are necessary under a pragmatist viewpoint so that informed decisions can be made by policy makers. Since the role of life-cycle analysis and footprinting attempt to improve the efficiency and decrease the overall environmental impact of a given process, good, or service, environmental pragmatism would call for the further development and usage of these tools so that we can continue to develop sustainably and fulfill our moral obligation to future generations. By utilizing footprinting and life-cycle analysis, it becomes possible to make environmentally conscious decisions not only based upon a gut instinct but additionally based on sound science. Finally, in regards to averting climate change, footprinting and life-cycle analysis offer another dimension to traditional cost-benefit analysis and can allow for our moral obligation to future generations to weigh into final decisions which will eventually result in policies and/ or a production of a good or service. Since traditional cost benefit analysis does not account for the environment explicitly, pragmatism would call for the application of these tools to ensure that the environment is adequately protected for future generations.¶ Climate change modeling inherently contains many unknowns in terms of future outcomes and applied simplifications, but these factors should not be enough to hold us back from an environmental pragmatism stand point. Rather than hiding behind a veil of uncertainty with the science, the uncertainty of the possible catastrophic outcomes demands action on the part of every human individual. Environmental pragmatism could also adopt a view point like the precautionary principle where a given action has great uncertainty, but also great consequence (Haller). Since we are attempting to protect human lives and prevent unnecessary suffering, environmental pragmatism would dictate that we should take action now and stop debating the theoretical aspects of this problem. A moral obligation exists to protect human life, and it becomes our obligation to avert climate change. Despite the relatively high economic costs of averting climate change, it is worth noting that the creation of green jobs and new sectors will help to stimulate the economy rather than completely hindering it. People inherently fear change, and it is my opinion that averting climate change requires a drastic change in our consumption patterns, an important reason why people are resisting averting climate change. From an environmental pragmatism viewpoint, it is humanities responsibility to avert climate change before it is too late since we have a moral obligation to protect the future of humanity and the biosphere.

<h4>Pragmatic warming policy is effective and key to prevent extinction</h4><p><strong>Simpson 10</strong> (Francis, College of Engineering, Vanderbilt University, “Environmental Pragmatism and its Application to Climate Change The Moral Obligations of Developed and Developing Nations to Avert Climate Change as viewed through Technological Pragmatism”, Spring 2010 | Volume 6 | Number 1)</p><p>Pragmatism and Footprinting¶ <u><strong><mark>Environmental pragmatism</u></strong></mark> is a relatively new field of environmental ethics that <u><strong><mark>seeks to move beyond</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong>strictly <mark>theoretical exercises</mark> normal in philosophy <mark>and allow</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong>the</u></strong> environmental <u><strong>movement to formulate substantial <mark>new policies</u></strong></mark> (Light, 1). Environmental Pragmatism was initially posited by Bryan Norton and evolved to not take a stance over the dispute between non-anthropocentric and anthropocentric ethics. Distancing himself from this dispute, he preferred to distinguish between strong and weak anthropocentricism (Light, 290-291, 298). The main philosophers involved in advancing the debate in environmental pragmatism include Eric Katz, Andrew Light, and Bryan Norton. <u><strong><mark>This</mark> particular <mark>discipline advocates moral pluralism</mark>, implying that the environmental problems being faced have multiple correct solutions.</u></strong> <u><strong>Light argues that <mark>the urgency of ecological crises requires</mark> that <mark>action</mark> is necessary</u></strong> through negotiation and compromise. <u><strong><mark>While theorists serve to further the field</mark> of environmental ethics and to debate the metaethical basis of various</u></strong> environmental <u><strong>philosophies, <mark>some answers to questions are best left to private discussion rather than taking time to argue</mark> about them <mark>publically</u></strong></mark> (introduction of pragmatism). Pragmatism believes that if two theories are equally able to provide solutions to a given problem, then debate on which is more is argued that: “<u><strong>the commitment to solving environmental problems is the only precondition for any workable and democratic political theory</u></strong>” (Light, 11). While the science behind a footprint is well understood, what can the synthesis of environmental pragmatism and footprinting tell us about the moral obligation to avert climate change? How does grounding the practice of sustainability footprinting in environmental pragmatism generate moral prescriptions for averting climate change?¶ Environmental Pragmatism necessitates the need for tools in engineering to be developed and applied to avert the climate change problem, since <u><strong><mark>pragmatism</u></strong></mark> inherently <u><strong>calls for <mark>bridg</mark>ing the gap between <mark>theory and policy</mark>/ practices</u></strong>. With the theory of pragmatism in mind, further research and development of tools such as life-cycle analysis and footprinting are potential policy tools that are necessary under a pragmatist viewpoint so that informed decisions can be made by policy makers. Since the role of life-cycle analysis and footprinting attempt to improve the efficiency and decrease the overall environmental impact of a given process, good, or service, environmental pragmatism would call for the further development and usage of these tools so that we can continue to develop sustainably and fulfill our moral obligation to future generations. <u><strong>By utilizing footprinting and life-cycle analysis, it becomes possible to make environmentally conscious decisions not only based upon a gut instinct but </u></strong>additionally <u><strong>based on sound science</u></strong>. Finally, in regards to averting climate change, footprinting and life-cycle analysis offer another dimension to traditional cost-benefit analysis and can allow for our moral obligation to future generations to weigh into final decisions which will eventually result in policies and/ or a production of a good or service. Since traditional cost benefit analysis does not account for the environment explicitly, pragmatism would call for the application of these tools to ensure that the environment is adequately protected for future generations.¶ <u><strong><mark>Climate change</mark> modeling inherently <mark>contains many unknowns</u></strong></mark> in terms of future outcomes and applied simplifications, <u><strong><mark>but these factors should not be enough to hold us back</mark> from an environmental pragmatism stand point. <mark>Rather than hiding behind</mark> a veil of <mark>uncertainty</mark> with the science, the uncertainty of the <mark>possible catastrophic outcomes demand</mark>s<mark> action</u></strong></mark> on the part of every human individual. Environmental pragmatism could also adopt a view point like the precautionary principle where a given action has great uncertainty, but also great consequence (Haller). <u><strong><mark>Since we are attempting to protect human lives</mark> and prevent unnecessary suffering, environmental pragmatism would dictate that <mark>we should take action now and stop debating</mark> the <mark>theoretical aspects</mark> of this problem. A moral obligation exists to protect human life, and <mark>it becomes our obligation to avert climate change</mark>.</u></strong> Despite the relatively high economic costs of averting climate change, it is worth noting that the creation of green jobs and new sectors will help to stimulate the economy rather than completely hindering it. <u><strong>People inherently fear change, and it is my opinion that averting climate change requires a drastic change</u></strong> in our consumption patterns, an important reason why people are resisting averting climate change. From an environmental pragmatism viewpoint, <u><strong>it is humanities responsibility to avert climate change before it is too late since we have a moral obligation to protect the future of humanity and the biosphere</u></strong>.</p>

1AC

1AC – Scenario 4

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round5.docx

A

UMKC

5

SFSU AG

Brian Rubaie

1AC Marijuana Environment 1NC Settlerism K 2NC Settlerism K 1NR Settlerism K 2NR Settlerism K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The universe won’t miss us

Seed ‘88

Seed ‘88 (John; Australian environmentalist and director of the Rainforest Information Centre; THINKING LIKE A MOUNTAIN - TOWARDS A COUNCIL OF ALL BEINGS; http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/deep-eco/Anthropo.htm)

"Anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism" means human chauvinism. Human chauvinism, the idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things, is deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness. hen humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most profound change in consciousness begins to take place. Alienation subsides. The human is no longer an outsider, apart. For some people however, this change of perspective follows from actions on behalf of Mother Earth. "I am protecting the rainforest" develops to "I am part of the rainforest protecting myself. I am that part of the rainforest recently emerged into thinking." What a relief then! The thousands of years of imagined separation are over and we begin to recall our true nature. That is, the change is a spiritual one, thinking like a mountain (3), sometimes referred to as "deep ecology". As your memory improves, as the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace the outmoded anthropocentric structures in your mind, there is an identification with all life, Then follows the realisation that the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct. Every atom in this body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago.

the idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, is deeply embedded in our consciousness. When humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most profound change in consciousness begins to take place this change of perspective follows from actions on behalf of Mother Earth. "I am part of the rainforest protecting myself. the change is a spiritual one, "deep ecology". , as the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace anthropocentric structures there is an identification with all life the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct. Every atom in this body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago.

"But the time is not a strong prison either. A little scraping of the walls of dishonest contractor's concrete Through a shower of chips and sand makes freedom. Shake the dust from your hair. This mountain sea-coast is real For it reaches out far into the past and future; It is part of the great and timeless excellence of things." (1) "Anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism" means human chauvinism. Similar to sexism, but substitute "human race" for "man" and "all other species" for "woman". Human chauvinism, the idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value, the measure of all things, is deeply embedded in our culture and consciousness. "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth , and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered".(2) When humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most profound change in consciousness begins to take place. Alienation subsides. The human is no longer an outsider, apart. Your humanness is then recognised as being merely the most recent stage of your existence, and as you stop identifying exclusively with this chapter, you start to get in touch with yourself as mammal, as vertebrate, as a species only recently emerged from the rainforest. As the fog of amnesia disperses, there is a transformation in your relationship to other species, and in your commitment to them. What is described here should not be seen as merely intellectual. The intellect is one entry point to the process outlined, and the easiest one to communicate. For some people however, this change of perspective follows from actions on behalf of Mother Earth. "I am protecting the rainforest" develops to "I am part of the rainforest protecting myself. I am that part of the rainforest recently emerged into thinking." What a relief then! The thousands of years of imagined separation are over and we begin to recall our true nature. That is, the change is a spiritual one, thinking like a mountain (3), sometimes referred to as "deep ecology". As your memory improves, as the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace the outmoded anthropocentric structures in your mind, there is an identification with all life, Then follows the realisation that the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct. Every atom in this body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago.

<h4><strong>The universe won’t miss us </h4><p>Seed ‘88 </strong>(John; Australian environmentalist and director of the Rainforest Information Centre; THINKING LIKE A MOUNTAIN - TOWARDS A COUNCIL OF ALL BEINGS; <u>http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/deep-eco/Anthropo.htm</u>)</p><p>"But the time is not a strong prison either. A little scraping of the walls of dishonest contractor's concrete Through a shower of chips and sand makes freedom. Shake the dust from your hair. This mountain sea-coast is real For it reaches out far into the past and future; It is part of the great and timeless excellence of things." (1) <u>"Anthropocentrism" or "homocentrism" means human chauvinism.</u> Similar to sexism, but substitute "human race" for "man" and "all other species" for "woman". <u>Human chauvinism, <mark>the idea that humans are the crown of creation, the source of all value,</mark> the measure of all things, <mark>is deeply embedded in our</mark> culture and <mark>consciousness.</u></mark> "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth , and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hands they are delivered".(2) <mark>W<u>hen humans investigate and see through their layers of anthropocentric self-cherishing, a most profound change in consciousness begins to take place</mark>. Alienation subsides. The human is no longer an outsider, apart.</u> Your humanness is then recognised as being merely the most recent stage of your existence, and as you stop identifying exclusively with this chapter, you start to get in touch with yourself as mammal, as vertebrate, as a species only recently emerged from the rainforest. As the fog of amnesia disperses, there is a transformation in your relationship to other species, and in your commitment to them. What is described here should not be seen as merely intellectual. The intellect is one entry point to the process outlined, and the easiest one to communicate. <u>For some people however, <mark>this change of perspective follows from actions on behalf of Mother Earth.</mark> "I am protecting the rainforest" develops to <mark>"I am part of the rainforest protecting myself.</mark> I am that part of the rainforest recently emerged into thinking." What a relief then! The thousands of years of imagined separation are over and we begin to recall our true nature. That is, <mark>the change is a spiritual one, </mark>thinking like a mountain (3), sometimes referred to as <mark>"deep ecology".</mark> As your memory improves<mark>, as the implications of evolution and ecology are internalised and replace</mark> the outmoded <mark>anthropocentric structures</mark> in your mind, <mark>there is an identification with all life</mark>, Then follows the realisation that <strong><mark>the distinction between "life" and "lifeless" is a human construct</strong>. Every atom in this body existed before organic life emerged 4000 million years ago.</u></mark> </p>

2NC

1NC Market

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Trade collapse inevitable – DOHA recently failed – that’s NYT – specifically says it will erode trust

<h4>Trade collapse inevitable – DOHA recently failed – that’s NYT – specifically says it will erode trust</h4>

1NR

WTO

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

GOP Senate passes Russia sanctions---Obama won’t block it

Tayler 14

Jeffrey Tayler 14, contributing editor at The Atlantic, 8/12/14, “The Way Out of the Ukraine Crisis,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/talk-to-the-russians/375898/?single_page=true

Corker introduced a bill that seems designed to destroy what remains of relations between the U S and Russia its provisions would dramatically heighten tensions between Moscow and Washington it would deepen the conflict and shove us to the brink of war The R A P A is just a proposed bill, for now But if the Republicans take the Senate the legislation shows the direction in which Congress will push President Obama as the current standoff intensifies the measure represents a hardline approach the White House is warming to at a pivotal moment in the months-long crisis Its nuclear arsenal the only such arsenal capable of destroying the West imposes an imperative: dialogue if Russia and the U S are quarreling global peace is under threat According to the legislation, the U S and NATO would accelerate European and NATO missile defense efforts The act’s chief clauses would come into force if Putin doesn’t reverse course on Ukraine within seven to 30 days from its enactment How would the Russian president react to such an ultimatum? The former FSB chief would never submit to it damaging economic restrictions would strengthen Russians’ conviction that the West is ganging up on Russia and bent on destroying it If American-made bombs or bullets supplied to Ukraine, end up killing Russian troops Putin would have to respond or risk appearing weak Beyond the R A P A Obama has shown little aptitude for dealing with the crisis in Ukraine

Corker introduced a bill to destroy relations its provisions would dramatically heighten tensions and shove us to the brink of war R A P A is just proposed now. if Republicans take the Senate legislation shows the direction Congress will push Obama the measure represents a hardline approach the White House is warming to Putin would never submit to it If American bombs supplied to Ukraine kill Russian troops Putin would have to respond Beyond R A P A Obama has shown little aptitude for Ukraine

In May, Bob Corker, the ranking Republican on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, introduced a bill of stunning recklessness that seems specifically designed to destroy what remains of relations between the United States and Russia. The legislation’s very name—the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”—is a misnomer, for its provisions, if enacted, would dramatically heighten tensions between Moscow and Washington. By foreclosing the option of doing what we really need to do—launch a serious dialogue with Russia about how to end the Ukraine crisis—it would deepen the conflict there, augment the human misery spreading as a result, and shove us to the brink of war. In fact, the bill is already doing damage to the prospect of peace by serving Kremlin propagandists as a manifesto of U.S. intent to force Russia to its knees and humiliate its leader. It presents an ultimatum to the Kremlin that no head of state, least of all the famously supercilious Vladimir Putin, would accept. The Russian Aggression Prevention Act is just a proposed bill, for now. But if the Republicans take the Senate (and retain the House of Representatives) in November’s midterm elections, the legislation shows the direction in which Congress will push President Obama as the current standoff intensifies. Elections aside, the measure represents a hardline approach that the White House is warming to—at a pivotal moment in the months-long crisis when the Ukrainian military is advancing on the pro-Russian rebel stronghold of Donetsk, and Russian troops are massing on the border. Corker’s document reveals a grave, even inexplicable (in light of history) misapprehension of how to deal with an assertive Russia. Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which put Russia’s socialist, expansionist regime at loggerheads with much of the world for most of the 20th century, the West, and especially the United States, has struggled with a confounding question: What to do about Russia? In the 1970s, the Nixon administration found an answer: détente, a policy predicated not on threats, but on dialogue. Russia is too big, too resource-rich, too vital (as an energy supplier to Europe), and too technologically advanced to disregard (or “isolate” as Obama has said he hopes to do). Its nuclear arsenal alone—the only such arsenal capable of destroying the West—imposes an imperative: dialogue, as distasteful as that may be to many. In short, if Russia and the United States are quarreling, global peace is under threat. Corker’s bill purports to offer a “strategic framework for United States security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia,” but in fact directs the president to take a number of measures that would imperil both objectives. According to the legislation, the United States and NATO would, in violation of the 1997 Founding Act (concluded between the alliance and Russia), permanently station troops in the alliance member states of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and “accelerate” (in an unspecified way) “European and NATO missile defense efforts.” (There is much to specify here, since in 2009 the Obama administration, facing strong criticism from Russia and public opposition in the Czech Republic and Poland, the proposed host countries, scaled back plans for missile-defense systems in Eastern Europe.) Unprecedented “major non-NATO ally status” is to be accorded to Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Military aid is promised to Ukraine, and cryptic verbiage about providing “defense articles or defense services” leaves open the possibility of doing the same for the other two former Soviet republics. There are many other troubling provisions, but significantly, the bill instructs the president to block Russian assets and dramatically broaden sanctions against Russia if the Kremlin does not withdraw its military from Crimea and the Ukrainian border, and cease destabilizing the Ukrainian government’s control over its eastern regions. It also directs the U.S. secretary of state to “increase efforts [to] … strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation”—which sounds an awful lot like helping NGOs in Moscow promote regime change. (If Putin harbored any doubts that such NGOs were in the pay of the United States and working to subvert him, the bill neatly resolves them.) The act’s chief clauses would come into force if Putin doesn’t reverse course on Ukraine within seven to 30 days from its enactment. How would the Russian president react to such an ultimatum? The former FSB chief, whose 14-year tenure in the country’s highest offices has bristled with televised displays of manliness and derring-do, would never submit to it. Sanctions have so far done nothing but consolidate domestic support for him and his Ukraine policy. Truly damaging economic restrictions would foment more anti-Western (and, specifically, anti-American) hostility and strengthen Russians’ conviction—generated by the virulent propaganda streaming forth endlessly over Kremlin-controlled airwaves—that the West is ganging up on Russia and bent on destroying it. Indeed, this perception is already widespread, and has taken root among many Russians who were previously indifferent to politics or hostile to Putin, whose popularity now stands at 87 percent. The military measures the act proposes are positively dangerous. Providing Western arms, intelligence, and military advisors to Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova—all of which are clashing or have clashed with Russia—would make possible scenarios hitherto unimaginable. If American-made bombs or bullets supplied to Ukraine, for example, end up killing Russian troops, or if American intelligence helps Ukraine score significant victories against Russian-backed separatists, Putin would have to respond or risk appearing weak. Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine have never formed part of a Western political, military, or economic alliance, though they have participated in NATO’s symbolic Partnership for Peace program. With the exception of Georgia, they do, however, belong to the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States. Just what these countries would bring to the United States and NATO besides trouble is hard to see. Beyond the Russian Aggression Prevention Act, the Obama administration has shown little aptitude for dealing with the crisis in Ukraine, imposing sanctions that have not prompted Putin to quit Crimea or stop supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine, and spouting rhetoric that has only hardened Putin’s determination to not back down.

<h4>GOP Senate passes Russia sanctions---Obama won’t block it </h4><p>Jeffrey <strong>Tayler 14</strong>, contributing editor at The Atlantic, 8/12/14, “The Way Out of the Ukraine Crisis,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/talk-to-the-russians/375898/?single_page=true</p><p>In May, Bob <u><strong><mark>Corker</u></strong></mark>, the ranking Republican on the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee, <u><strong><mark>introduced a bill</u></strong></mark> of stunning recklessness <u><strong>that seems</u></strong> specifically <u><strong>designed <mark>to destroy</mark> what remains of <mark>relations</mark> between the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>and Russia</u></strong>. The legislation’s very name—the “Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”—is a misnomer, for <u><strong><mark>its provisions</u></strong></mark>, if enacted, <u><strong><mark>would</u></strong> <u><strong>dramatically heighten tensions</mark> between Moscow and Washington</u></strong>. By foreclosing the option of doing what we really need to do—launch a serious dialogue with Russia about how to end the Ukraine crisis—<u><strong>it would deepen the conflict</u></strong> there, augment the human misery spreading as a result, <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong> <u><strong>shove us to the brink of war</u></strong></mark>. In fact, the bill is already doing damage to the prospect of peace by serving Kremlin propagandists as a manifesto of U.S. intent to force Russia to its knees and humiliate its leader. It presents an ultimatum to the Kremlin that no head of state, least of all the famously supercilious Vladimir Putin, would accept. <u><strong>The <mark>R</u></strong></mark>ussian <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ggression <u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>revention <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ct <u><strong><mark>is</u></strong> <u><strong>just</mark> a <mark>proposed</mark> bill, for <mark>now</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong>But <mark>if</mark> the <mark>Republicans take the Senate</u></strong></mark> (and retain the House of Representatives) in November’s midterm elections, <u><strong>the <mark>legislation shows the direction</mark> in which</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Congress will push</mark> President <mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>as the current standoff intensifies</u></strong>. Elections aside, <u><strong><mark>the measure represents a hardline approach</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>the White House is warming to</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>at a pivotal moment in the months-long crisis</u></strong> when the Ukrainian military is advancing on the pro-Russian rebel stronghold of Donetsk, and Russian troops are massing on the border. Corker’s document reveals a grave, even inexplicable (in light of history) misapprehension of how to deal with an assertive Russia. Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, which put Russia’s socialist, expansionist regime at loggerheads with much of the world for most of the 20th century, the West, and especially the United States, has struggled with a confounding question: What to do about Russia? In the 1970s, the Nixon administration found an answer: détente, a policy predicated not on threats, but on dialogue. Russia is too big, too resource-rich, too vital (as an energy supplier to Europe), and too technologically advanced to disregard (or “isolate” as Obama has said he hopes to do). <u><strong>Its nuclear arsenal</u></strong> alone—<u><strong>the</u></strong> <u><strong>only such arsenal capable of destroying the West</u></strong>—<u><strong>imposes an</u></strong> <u><strong>imperative: dialogue</u></strong>, as distasteful as that may be to many. In short, <u><strong>if Russia and the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>are quarreling</u></strong>, <u><strong>global peace is under threat</u></strong>. Corker’s bill purports to offer a “strategic framework for United States security assistance and cooperation in Europe and Eurasia,” but in fact directs the president to take a number of measures that would imperil both objectives. <u><strong>According to the legislation, the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>and NATO would</u></strong>, in violation of the 1997 Founding Act (concluded between the alliance and Russia), permanently station troops in the alliance member states of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia, and “<u><strong>accelerate</u></strong>” (in an unspecified way) “<u><strong>European and NATO missile defense efforts</u></strong>.” (There is much to specify here, since in 2009 the Obama administration, facing strong criticism from Russia and public opposition in the Czech Republic and Poland, the proposed host countries, scaled back plans for missile-defense systems in Eastern Europe.) Unprecedented “major non-NATO ally status” is to be accorded to Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia. Military aid is promised to Ukraine, and cryptic verbiage about providing “defense articles or defense services” leaves open the possibility of doing the same for the other two former Soviet republics. There are many other troubling provisions, but significantly, the bill instructs the president to block Russian assets and dramatically broaden sanctions against Russia if the Kremlin does not withdraw its military from Crimea and the Ukrainian border, and cease destabilizing the Ukrainian government’s control over its eastern regions. It also directs the U.S. secretary of state to “increase efforts [to] … strengthen democratic institutions and political and civil society organizations in the Russian Federation”—which sounds an awful lot like helping NGOs in Moscow promote regime change. (If Putin harbored any doubts that such NGOs were in the pay of the United States and working to subvert him, the bill neatly resolves them.) <u><strong>The act’s chief clauses would come into force if <mark>Putin</mark> doesn’t reverse course on Ukraine</u></strong> <u><strong>within seven to 30 days from its enactment</u></strong>. <u><strong>How would the Russian president react to such an ultimatum? The former FSB chief</u></strong>, whose 14-year tenure in the country’s highest offices has bristled with televised displays of manliness and derring-do, <u><strong><mark>would</u></strong> <u><strong>never submit to it</u></strong></mark>. Sanctions have so far done nothing but consolidate domestic support for him and his Ukraine policy. Truly <u><strong>damaging economic restrictions would</u></strong> foment more anti-Western (and, specifically, anti-American) hostility and <u><strong>strengthen Russians’ conviction</u></strong>—generated by the virulent propaganda streaming forth endlessly over Kremlin-controlled airwaves—<u><strong>that the West is ganging up on Russia and bent on destroying it</u></strong>. Indeed, this perception is already widespread, and has taken root among many Russians who were previously indifferent to politics or hostile to Putin, whose popularity now stands at 87 percent. The military measures the act proposes are positively dangerous. Providing Western arms, intelligence, and military advisors to Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova—all of which are clashing or have clashed with Russia—would make possible scenarios hitherto unimaginable. <u><strong><mark>If American</mark>-made <mark>bombs</mark> or bullets <mark>supplied to Ukraine</mark>,</u></strong> for example, <u><strong>end up <mark>kill</mark>ing <mark>Russian troops</u></strong></mark>, or if American intelligence helps Ukraine score significant victories against Russian-backed separatists, <u><strong><mark>Putin would have to respond</mark> or risk appearing weak</u></strong>. Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine have never formed part of a Western political, military, or economic alliance, though they have participated in NATO’s symbolic Partnership for Peace program. With the exception of Georgia, they do, however, belong to the Russia-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States. Just what these countries would bring to the United States and NATO besides trouble is hard to see. <u><strong><mark>Beyond</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>the <mark>R</u></strong></mark>ussian <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ggression <u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>revention <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ct, the <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> administration <u><strong><mark>has shown</u></strong> <u><strong>little aptitude for</mark> dealing with the crisis in <mark>Ukraine</u></strong></mark>, imposing sanctions that have not prompted Putin to quit Crimea or stop supporting separatists in eastern Ukraine, and spouting rhetoric that has only hardened Putin’s determination to not back down.</p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Status quo solves internet laundering

Disraeli 8

Benjamin Disraeli 8, “Internet Gambling Law and Regulation in the Digital Age: Theory and Practice in the United States” http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/9781934854006.107

Accusations ignore the fundamental realities of Internet technology. All messages are packet-switched the relevant information is divided into packets, each of which contains the address of the sender and receiver. money transmitted is not only identified but pinpointed This is what a money laundering op- eration must not have The most important step is removing the illegally gained money from the original locale and turning it into negotiable assets No camouflage is possible for such on the Internet because the basic mechanics of the system require identification layering and integration, are the process of complicating the paper trail until the "dirty money" can't be told apart from "clean Records must be kept for business purposes, and for audits shipping a large sum of money and calling it pay- out provides no cover It may be possible to fake such things if the entire operation is in crooked hands but this is also true of a restaurant or a laundromat a brick-and-mortar casino, where unmarked cash can change hands rapidly, offers a more promising venue for money laundering

money transmitted is not only identified but pinpointed This is what a money laundering op- eration must not have No camouflage is possible on the Internet because the mechanics require identification shipping large sum of money and calling it pay- out provides no cover It may be possible to fake such things but this is true of a restaurant a brick-and-mortar casino, where unmarked cash can change hands offers a more promising venue

Accusations of this sort ignore the fundamental realities of Internet technology. All messages over the Internet, whether advertisements or bank wires, are packet-switched. This means that the relevant information is divided into packets, each one of which contains the address of the sender and receiver. It is therefore clear that money transmitted via the Internet is not only identified, but pinpointed at any given time. This is precisely what a money laundering op- eration must not have. The first and most important step in money laundering is placement.86 Place- ment involves removing the illegally gained money from the original locale and turning it into other negotiable assets, such as money orders or traveler's checks. No camouflage is possible for such things on the Internet, because the basic mechanics of the system require identification of where the money is coming from and where it is going. The next two stages, layering and integration, are simply the process of complicating the paper trail until the "dirty money" can't be told apart from "clean."87 While the Internet can and may be used for such things, an Internet casino is surprisingly little help. Records of wagers, bets, results, and payouts must be kept for business purposes, and of course for audits in those jurisdictions where Internet gam- bling is licensed. Simply shipping a large sum of money and calling it pay- out or settling of a gambling debt provides no cover, unless records of the bet or wager, the result, and the amount owed can also be shown. It may be possible to fake such things if the entire operation is in crooked hands—but then again, this is also true of a restaurant or a laundromat. Paradoxically, a brick-and-mortar casino, where unmarked cash can and docs change hands rapidly, offers a more promising venue for money laundering than the online version.

<h4>Status quo solves internet laundering </h4><p>Benjamin <strong>Disraeli 8</strong>, “Internet Gambling Law and Regulation in the Digital Age: Theory and Practice in the United States” http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/9781934854006.107</p><p><u><strong>Accusations</u></strong> of this sort <u><strong>ignore the fundamental realities of Internet technology. All messages</u></strong> over the Internet, whether advertisements or bank wires, <u><strong>are packet-switched</u></strong>. This means that <u><strong>the relevant information is divided into packets, each</u></strong> one <u><strong>of which contains the address of the sender and receiver.</u></strong> It is therefore clear that <u><strong><mark>money transmitted</u></strong></mark> via the Internet <u><strong><mark>is not only identified</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>but</u></strong> <u><strong>pinpointed</u></strong></mark> at any given time. <u><strong><mark>This is</mark> </u></strong>precisely <u><strong><mark>what a money laundering op- eration must not have</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>The</u></strong> first and <u><strong>most important step </u></strong>in money laundering<u><strong> is </u></strong>placement.86 Place- ment involves <u><strong>removing</u></strong> <u><strong>the illegally gained money from the original locale and turning it into</u></strong> other <u><strong>negotiable assets</u></strong>, such as money orders or traveler's checks. <u><strong><mark>No camouflage</mark> <mark>is possible</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>for such</u></strong> things <u><strong><mark>on the Internet</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>because</mark> <mark>the</mark> basic <mark>mechanics</mark> of the system <mark>require identification</u></strong></mark> of where the money is coming from and where it is going. The next two stages, <u><strong>layering and integration, are</u></strong> simply <u><strong>the process of complicating the paper trail until the "dirty money" can't be told apart from "clean</u></strong>."87 While the Internet can and may be used for such things, an Internet casino is surprisingly little help. <u><strong>Records</u></strong> of wagers, bets, results, and payouts <u><strong>must be kept for business purposes, and</u></strong> of course <u><strong>for audits</u></strong> in those jurisdictions where Internet gam- bling is licensed. Simply <u><strong><mark>shipping</mark> a <mark>large sum of money and calling it pay- out</u></strong></mark> or settling of a gambling debt <u><strong><mark>provides no cover</u></strong></mark>, unless records of the bet or wager, the result, and the amount owed can also be shown. <u><strong><mark>It may be possible to fake such things</mark> if the entire operation is in crooked hands</u></strong>—<u><strong><mark>but</u></strong></mark> then again, <u><strong><mark>this is</mark> also <mark>true of a restaurant</mark> or a laundromat</u></strong>. Paradoxically, <u><strong><mark>a brick-and-mortar casino, where unmarked cash can</u></strong></mark> and docs <u><strong><mark>change hands</mark> rapidly, <mark>offers a more promising venue</mark> for money laundering</u></strong> than the online version.</p>

1NC

Regulations

1NC No Laundering

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No risk of nuke terrorism

Mearsheimer 14

Mearsheimer 14 John Mearsheimer, IR Prof at UChicago, National Interest, January 2, 2014, "America Unhinged", http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639?page=show

terrorism is a minor threat another attack of magnitude is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future there has not been a single instance over twelve years of a terrorist organization exploding a primitive bomb on American soil Terrorism was a much bigger problem in the 70s the possibility a group might obtain a nuclear weapon? the chances of that happening are virtually nil No nuclear-armed state is going to supply terrorists with a weapon because it would have no control over how the recipients use that weapon. Political turmoil could in theory allow terrorists to grab a loose weapon, but the U S already has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely contingency. Terrorists might try to build their own bomb that scenario is extremely unlikely as well there are significant obstacles to getting enough material and even bigger obstacles to building a bomb and then delivering it every country has a profound interest in making sure no terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target Nuclear terrorism is not a serious threat

terrorism is a minor threat an attack of magnitude is highly unlikely there has not been a single instance of a bomb on American soil the possibility a group obtain a nuclear weapon are virtually nil. No state is going to supply because it would have no control over use turmoil could allow a loose weapon, but the U S has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely contingency. to build is extremely unlikely nificant obstacles to getting enough material and even bigger obstacles to building and delivering every country has a profound interest in making sure no t group acquires a nuclear weapon Nuc terror is not a serious threat

Am I overlooking the obvious threat that strikes fear into the hearts of so many Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. Sure, the United States has a terrorism problem. But it is a minor threat. There is no question we fell victim to a spectacular attack on September 11, but it did not cripple the United States in any meaningful way and another attack of that magnitude is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Indeed, there has not been a single instance over the past twelve years of a terrorist organization exploding a primitive bomb on American soil, much less striking a major blow. Terrorism—most of it arising from domestic groups—was a much bigger problem in the United States during the 1970s than it has been since the Twin Towers were toppled. What about the possibility that a terrorist group might obtain a nuclear weapon? Such an occurrence would be a game changer, but the chances of that happening are virtually nil. No nuclear-armed state is going to supply terrorists with a nuclear weapon because it would have no control over how the recipients might use that weapon. Political turmoil in a nuclear-armed state could in theory allow terrorists to grab a loose nuclear weapon, but the United States already has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely contingency. Terrorists might also try to acquire fissile material and build their own bomb. But that scenario is extremely unlikely as well: there are significant obstacles to getting enough material and even bigger obstacles to building a bomb and then delivering it. More generally, virtually every country has a profound interest in making sure no terrorist group acquires a nuclear weapon, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target of a nuclear attack, either by the terrorists or another country the terrorists strike. Nuclear terrorism, in short, is not a serious threat. And to the extent that we should worry about it, the main remedy is to encourage and help other states to place nuclear materials in highly secure custody.

<h4><strong>No risk of nuke terrorism</h4><p>Mearsheimer 14</p><p></strong>John Mearsheimer, IR Prof at UChicago, National Interest, January 2, 2014, "America Unhinged", http://nationalinterest.org/article/america-unhinged-9639?page=show</p><p>Am I overlooking the obvious threat that strikes fear into the hearts of so many Americans, which is terrorism? Not at all. Sure, the United States has a <u><mark>terrorism</u></mark> problem. But it <u><strong><mark>is a minor threat</u></strong></mark>. There is no question we fell victim to a spectacular attack on September 11, but it did not cripple the United States in any meaningful way and <u><mark>an</mark>other <mark>attack of</u></mark> that <u><mark>magnitude</u> <u><strong>is highly unlikely</mark> in the foreseeable future</u></strong>. Indeed, <u><mark>there has not been a single instance</mark> over</u> the past <u>twelve years <mark>of a</mark> terrorist organization exploding a primitive <mark>bomb on American soil</u></mark>, much less striking a major blow. <u>Terrorism</u>—most of it arising from domestic groups—<u>was a much bigger problem in</u> the United States during <u>the</u> 19<u>70s</u> than it has been since the Twin Towers were toppled.</p><p>What about <u><mark>the possibility</u></mark> that <u><mark>a</u></mark> terrorist <u><mark>group </mark>might <mark>obtain a nuclear weapon</mark>?</u> Such an occurrence would be a game changer, but <u><strong>the chances of that happening <mark>are virtually nil</u></strong>. <u>No </mark>nuclear-armed <mark>state</mark> <mark>is going to supply</mark> terrorists with a</u> nuclear <u>weapon <mark>because it would have no control over</mark> how the recipients</u> might <u><mark>use</mark> that weapon. Political <mark>turmoil</u></mark> in a nuclear-armed state <u><mark>could</mark> in theory <mark>allow</mark> terrorists to grab <mark>a loose</u></mark> nuclear <u><mark>weapon, but the <strong>U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong>already <mark>has detailed plans to deal with that highly unlikely contingency.</p><p></strong></mark>Terrorists might</u> also <u>try <mark>to</u></mark> acquire fissile material and <u><mark>build</mark> their own bomb</u>. But <u><strong>that scenario <mark>is</mark> <mark>extremely unlikely</mark> as well</u></strong>: <u>there are</u> <u><strong>sig<mark>nificant obstacles to getting enough material and even bigger obstacles to building</mark> a bomb <mark>and</mark> then <mark>delivering</mark> it</u></strong>. More generally, virtually <u><strong><mark>every country has a profound interest in making sure no t</mark>errorist <mark>group acquires a nuclear weapon</strong></mark>, because they cannot be sure they will not be the target</u> of a nuclear attack, either by the terrorists or another country the terrorists strike. <u><strong><mark>Nuc</mark>lear <mark>terror</mark>ism</u></strong>, in short, <u><strong><mark>is not a serious threat</u></strong></mark>. And to the extent that we should worry about it, the main remedy is to encourage and help other states to place nuclear materials in highly secure custody.</p>

1NC

Regulations

1NC No Terror Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Triggers U.S.-Russia nuclear war and extinction

Starr 14

Steven Starr 14, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 8/22/14, ““The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russian-aggression-prevention-act-rapa-a-direct-path-to-nuclear-war-with-russia/5397171

The R A P A will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia US-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war since neither the US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine RAPA, “Provides RAPA would bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO civil war in Ukraine could evolve into a Ukrainian-Russian war deployment of US/NATO forces in Ukraine would make it virtually inevitable they would come into fight with Ukraine against Russia RAPA demands that “Russian forces must have withdrawn from Crimea within seven days of the enactment of the Act Not likely in the eyes of Russia, the requirement to “withdraw from Crimea” amounts to a US demand that Russia surrender Russian territory RAPA stipulates that the US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, Should NATO intervene Russian military action against any NATO member would trigger the alliance’s Chapter 5 mutual defense clause committing it to war with Russia major Ukrainian attack upon Crimea would make war with Russia inevitable Ukraine appears to be preparing for such an assault A US/NATO-Russian war would instantly put US and Russian nuclear forces at peak alert the US and Russia have changed their nuclear war-fighting plans to include preemptive nuclear first-strikes both nations have “tactical” nuclear weapons Peer-reviewed scientific studies predict the environmental consequences of a war fought with only a fraction of US and/or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would wipe out the human race even a “successful” US nuclear first-strike would create catastrophic changes in global weather Nuclear war is suicide for humans no awareness of the existential danger posed by nuclear war is embodied by The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, which will put us on a direct course for nuclear war with Russia

R A P A will set the US towards military conflict with Russia likely to quickly escalate into nuclear war neither would admit defeat deployment of US forces in Ukraine would make it inevitable they would fight Russia Russian action against any NATO member would trigger mutual defense committing it to war with Russia Ukrainian attack would make war inevitable. Ukraine appears preparing for an assault Peer-reviewed studies predict war with a fraction of Russian nuc s would wipe out the human race Nuclear war is suicide for humans existential danger is embodied by R A P A

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine. Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to preemptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy. RAPA provides de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova via RAPA The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, or RAPA, “Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.” Major non-NATO ally status would for practical purposes give NATO membership to these nations, as it would allow the US to move large amounts of military equipment and forces to them without the need for approval of other NATO member states. Thus RAPA would effectively bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO. Germans rightly fear placing US/NATO troops and US Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) in Ukraine, given the profound and long-standing Russian objections against the expansion of NATO (especially to Ukraine and Georgia) along with deployment of European US/NATO BMD. Germany is acutely aware of the distinct possibility that the civil war raging in Ukraine could evolve into a Ukrainian-Russian war. Under such circumstances, deployment of US/NATO forces in Ukraine would make it virtually inevitable they would come into fight with Ukraine against Russia. RAPA would accelerate the “implementation of phase three of the European Phased Adaptive Approach for Europe-based missile defense . . . by no later than the end of calendar year 2016.” In 2012, Russia’s highest ranking military officer stated that Russia might consider a pre-emptive strike against such BMD deployments “when the situation gets harder.” RAPA “Directs DOD [US Department of Defense] to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces” and “Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.” RAPA would have the US quickly supply Ukraine with$100 million worth of weapons and equipment, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, crew weapons, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. RAPA requires the Obama administration to “use all appropriate elements of United States national power…to protect the independence, sovereignty, and territorial and economic integrity of Ukraine and other sovereign nations in Europe and Eurasia from Russian aggression.” This includes “substantially increasing United States and NATO support for the armed forces of the Republics of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia,” and “substantially increasing the complement of forward-based NATO forces in those states.” Consequently, RAPA would produce significant buildups of US/NATO forces into Poland and the Baltic States, accelerate the construction of US BMD systems in Eastern Europe, and authorize substantial U.S. intelligence and military aid for Ukrainian military forces that continue to lay siege to the largest cities in Eastern Ukraine. If RAPA did not result in the deployment of US forces to Ukraine, it would certainly position them for rapid deployment there, in the event that the Ukrainian civil war escalates into a Ukrainian-Russian conflict. RAPA intensifies support for ethnic cleansing in Eastern Ukraine In Russia, Putin now is under intense domestic political pressure to send Russian forces into Eastern Ukraine, in order to stop the attacks by the Ukrainian military on the cities there, which were once part of the Soviet Union.These attacks have created an absolute humanitarian catastrophe. On August 5, 2014, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that 740,000 Eastern Ukrainians had fled to Russia. They go there because Russia is close, and because most of the refugees are ethnic Russians, a fact that explains why the Russophobes in Kiev have been quite willing to indiscriminately bombard their cities. What is taking place in Eastern Ukraine amounts to “ethnic cleansing,” the forced removal of ethnic Russians from Eastern Ukraine. This is a process that is fully supported by the US; RAPA would greatly enhance this support. Ukrainian military forces have surrounded Donetsk – a city of almost one million people – and have for weeks conducted daily attacks against it using inaccurate multiple-launch rockets, heavy artillery fire, ballistic missiles carrying warheads with up to 1000 pounds of high explosive, and aerial bombardments. Water supplies, power plants, train stations, airports, bridges, highways, and schools have all been targeted, along with the general population. In Lugansk, a city of more than 440,000 people, a humanitarian crisis has been declared by its mayor, because the siege of the city has left it with little medicine, no fuel,intermittent power, and no water since August 3 (three weeks at the time of this writing). After the separatists of Eastern Ukraine demanded autonomy from Kiev, and then reunion with Russia, the government in Kiev branded them as “terrorists”, and sent its military forces against them in what they euphemistically call an “anti-terrorist operation.” Framing the conflict this way makes it politically acceptable to refuse to negotiate with the separatists, and easier to justify in the US and Europe, which have grown accustomed to “the War on Terrorism.” However, the thousands of Ukrainians being killed and hundreds of thousands of being driven from their homes are just ordinary people, trying to live ordinary lives. The New York Times reports the Ukrainian military strategy has been to bombard separatist-held cities and then send paramilitary forces to carry out “chaotic, violent assaults” against them. Many of the Ukrainian paramilitary forces were recruited from ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi political parties; the Azov battalion flies the “Wolfs Hook” flag of Hitler’s SS divisions. Considering that more than 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis during World War II, the presence of openly Nazi militias attacking ethnic Russians in Ukraine creates extreme anger in Russia. RAPA supports plans in Kiev for an attack on Crimea The Russian Aggression Prevention Act demands that Russia “withdraw from the eastern border of Ukraine,” which is by definition, the Russian border. In other words, RAPA provocatively demands that Russia remove its own military forces away from its own borders, while Ukrainian military forces are meanwhile massed on the other side, attacking predominantly Russian cities. RAPA also demands that “Russian forces must have withdrawn from Crimea within seven days of the enactment of the Act.” Not likely to happen, given that (1) Crimea was part of the Russian empire from 1783 until 1954, (2) withdrawal from Crimea would require Russia to abandon its only warm water port at Sevastopol, where Russian forces have been based, by internationally recognized treaty, since 1997, and (3) more than three-quarters of all Crimeans voted “yes” to reunify with Russia, a vote which Russia accepted by its subsequent annexation of Crimea. Thus, in the eyes of Russia, the requirement to “withdraw from Crimea” amounts to a US demand that Russia surrender Russian territory. Putin has just taken the entire Russian Duma (the Russian House of Representatives) to Crimea, to address them there and strongly make the point that there will be no withdrawal from Crimea. RAPA, however, stipulates that the US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea, and creates sanctions and legal penalties for anyone who does. RAPA therefore provides both military and political support for Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s stated goat that Ukraine will retake Crimea. This goal was recently echoed by the Ukrainian defense minister, who was applauded by the Ukrainian Parliament when he told them that the Ukrainian army will “have a victory parade in Sevastopol“. These statements are taken seriously in Moscow, where they are viewed as a promise to attack Russia. Thus, Putin’s advisers are telling him he must fight today in Eastern Ukraine, or tomorrow in Crimea. Any Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine would certainly be described in the West as Russian aggression in pursuit of empire, which would trigger deafening demands that US/NATO forces act to support Ukraine. Should NATO intervene, subsequent Russian military action against any NATO member would trigger the alliance’s Chapter 5 mutual defense clause, committing it to war with Russia. Any major Ukrainian attack upon Crimea would make war with Russia inevitable. Ukraine appears to be preparing for such an assault by drafting all men of ages 18 to 60 years, in a forced mobilization of its armed forces, which also includes calling up its active reserves of one million men, and bringing more than 1000 battle tanksout of storage. Putin is being told by his close advisers that Ukraine will have an army of half a million men in 2015. RAPA would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to train and arm the rapidly expanding Ukrainian armed forces, and position US/NATO forces for rapid intervention on the side of Ukraine in the event of a Ukrainian-Russian war. Thus, the many political and military provisions of RAPA would certainly act to fully encourage Ukraine to carry out its stated policy to retake Crimea. The Republic of Georgia attacked Russian forces in 2008 with far fewer US promises of aid. Of course, RAPA would also arm Georgia, too. RAPA moves the US towards nuclear war with Russia A US/NATO-Russian war would instantly put US and Russian nuclear forces at peak alert, with both sides anticipating a nuclear first-strike from the other. Both the US and Russia have changed their nuclear war-fighting plans to include the use of preemptive nuclear first-strikes; both nations have “tactical” nuclear weapons designed for battlefield use. The US has 180 B61 nuclear bombs deployed on six military bases of five other NATO states, which would be released to these NATO members in the event of a US/NATO-Russian war. Russia also has at least 1300 tactical nuclear weapons, and Russian war doctrine specifies their use against overwhelming conventional (NATO) forces. Any use of “tactical” or “battlefield” nuclear weapons, by either side, would likely trigger an equal or greater response from the other. During the first Cold War, the US studiously avoided any direct military confrontation with Russia, because it was widely thought that such a war would inevitably escalate to become a nuclear war – which would utterly destroy both nations. However, there seems to be little thought or discussion of this in the US today, despite the fact that both the US and Russia appear to be preparing for such a war. In May, the increasing tensions in Ukraine led both nations to almost simultaneously conduct large nuclear war games. Long-range Russian nuclear bombers tested US air defenses16 times in a ten day period (July 29 – August 7). US and Russian leaders are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that such “games” and “tests” are a dress rehearsal for human extinction. Peer-reviewed scientific studies predict the environmental consequences of a war fought with only a fraction of US and/or Russian strategic nuclear weapons would likely wipe out the human race. Scientists predict that even a “successful” US nuclear first-strike, which destroyed 100% of Russia’s nuclear forces before they could be launched, would create catastrophic changes in global weather that would eliminate growing seasons for years. Most humans and large animals would starve to death. Nuclear war is suicide for humans, but our leaders still have their fingers on the nuclear triggers. There seems to be absolutely no awareness, either in our Federal government or in the American public, of the existential danger posed by nuclear war. Such ignorance is embodied by The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, which if enacted will put us on a direct course for nuclear war with Russia.

<h4>Triggers U.S.-Russia nuclear war and extinction </h4><p>Steven <strong>Starr 14</strong>, Senior Scientist, Physicians for Social Responsibility, 8/22/14, ““The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia,” http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-russian-aggression-prevention-act-rapa-a-direct-path-to-nuclear-war-with-russia/5397171</p><p><u><strong>The <mark>R</u></strong></mark>ussian <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ggression <u><strong><mark>P</u></strong></mark>revention <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>ct”, introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), <u><strong><mark>will</u></strong> <u><strong>set the US</mark> on a path <mark>towards</mark> direct <mark>military conflict with Russia</u></strong></mark> in Ukraine. Any <u><strong>US-Russian war is <mark>likely to</u></strong> <u><strong>quickly escalate into</mark> a <mark>nuclear war</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>since <mark>neither</mark> the US nor Russia <mark>would</mark> be willing to <mark>admit defeat</mark>,</u></strong> both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and <u><strong>both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine</u></strong> that tasks their military, in the event of war, to preemptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy. RAPA provides de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova via RAPA The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, or <u><strong>RAPA, “Provides</u></strong> major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.” Major non-NATO ally status would for practical purposes give NATO membership to these nations, as it would allow the US to move large amounts of military equipment and forces to them without the need for approval of other NATO member states. Thus <u><strong>RAPA would</u></strong> effectively <u><strong>bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO</u></strong>. Germans rightly fear placing US/NATO troops and US Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) in Ukraine, given the profound and long-standing Russian objections against the expansion of NATO (especially to Ukraine and Georgia) along with deployment of European US/NATO BMD. Germany is acutely aware of the distinct possibility that the <u><strong>civil war</u></strong> raging <u><strong>in Ukraine could evolve into a Ukrainian-Russian war</u></strong>. Under such circumstances, <u><strong><mark>deployment of US</mark>/NATO <mark>forces in Ukraine would make it</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>virtually <mark>inevitable they would</mark> come into <mark>fight</mark> with Ukraine against <mark>Russia</u></strong></mark>. RAPA would accelerate the “implementation of phase three of the European Phased Adaptive Approach for Europe-based missile defense . . . by no later than the end of calendar year 2016.” In 2012, Russia’s highest ranking military officer stated that Russia might consider a pre-emptive strike against such BMD deployments “when the situation gets harder.” RAPA “Directs DOD [US Department of Defense] to assess the capabilities and needs of the Ukrainian armed forces” and “Authorizes the President, upon completion of such assessment, to provide specified military assistance to Ukraine.” RAPA would have the US quickly supply Ukraine with$100 million worth of weapons and equipment, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, crew weapons, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, and Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles. RAPA requires the Obama administration to “use all appropriate elements of United States national power…to protect the independence, sovereignty, and territorial and economic integrity of Ukraine and other sovereign nations in Europe and Eurasia from Russian aggression.” This includes “substantially increasing United States and NATO support for the armed forces of the Republics of Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia,” and “substantially increasing the complement of forward-based NATO forces in those states.” Consequently, RAPA would produce significant buildups of US/NATO forces into Poland and the Baltic States, accelerate the construction of US BMD systems in Eastern Europe, and authorize substantial U.S. intelligence and military aid for Ukrainian military forces that continue to lay siege to the largest cities in Eastern Ukraine. If RAPA did not result in the deployment of US forces to Ukraine, it would certainly position them for rapid deployment there, in the event that the Ukrainian civil war escalates into a Ukrainian-Russian conflict. RAPA intensifies support for ethnic cleansing in Eastern Ukraine In Russia, Putin now is under intense domestic political pressure to send Russian forces into Eastern Ukraine, in order to stop the attacks by the Ukrainian military on the cities there, which were once part of the Soviet Union.These attacks have created an absolute humanitarian catastrophe. On August 5, 2014, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reported that 740,000 Eastern Ukrainians had fled to Russia. They go there because Russia is close, and because most of the refugees are ethnic Russians, a fact that explains why the Russophobes in Kiev have been quite willing to indiscriminately bombard their cities. What is taking place in Eastern Ukraine amounts to “ethnic cleansing,” the forced removal of ethnic Russians from Eastern Ukraine. This is a process that is fully supported by the US; RAPA would greatly enhance this support. Ukrainian military forces have surrounded Donetsk – a city of almost one million people – and have for weeks conducted daily attacks against it using inaccurate multiple-launch rockets, heavy artillery fire, ballistic missiles carrying warheads with up to 1000 pounds of high explosive, and aerial bombardments. Water supplies, power plants, train stations, airports, bridges, highways, and schools have all been targeted, along with the general population. In Lugansk, a city of more than 440,000 people, a humanitarian crisis has been declared by its mayor, because the siege of the city has left it with little medicine, no fuel,intermittent power, and no water since August 3 (three weeks at the time of this writing). After the separatists of Eastern Ukraine demanded autonomy from Kiev, and then reunion with Russia, the government in Kiev branded them as “terrorists”, and sent its military forces against them in what they euphemistically call an “anti-terrorist operation.” Framing the conflict this way makes it politically acceptable to refuse to negotiate with the separatists, and easier to justify in the US and Europe, which have grown accustomed to “the War on Terrorism.” However, the thousands of Ukrainians being killed and hundreds of thousands of being driven from their homes are just ordinary people, trying to live ordinary lives. The New York Times reports the Ukrainian military strategy has been to bombard separatist-held cities and then send paramilitary forces to carry out “chaotic, violent assaults” against them. Many of the Ukrainian paramilitary forces were recruited from ultra-nationalist, neo-Nazi political parties; the Azov battalion flies the “Wolfs Hook” flag of Hitler’s SS divisions. Considering that more than 20 million Russians died fighting the Nazis during World War II, the presence of openly Nazi militias attacking ethnic Russians in Ukraine creates extreme anger in Russia. RAPA supports plans in Kiev for an attack on Crimea The Russian Aggression Prevention Act demands that Russia “withdraw from the eastern border of Ukraine,” which is by definition, the Russian border. In other words, RAPA provocatively demands that Russia remove its own military forces away from its own borders, while Ukrainian military forces are meanwhile massed on the other side, attacking predominantly Russian cities. <u><strong>RAPA</u></strong> also <u><strong>demands that “Russian forces must have withdrawn from Crimea within seven days of the enactment of the Act</u></strong>.” <u><strong>Not likely</u></strong> to happen, given that (1) Crimea was part of the Russian empire from 1783 until 1954, (2) withdrawal from Crimea would require Russia to abandon its only warm water port at Sevastopol, where Russian forces have been based, by internationally recognized treaty, since 1997, and (3) more than three-quarters of all Crimeans voted “yes” to reunify with Russia, a vote which Russia accepted by its subsequent annexation of Crimea. Thus, <u><strong>in the eyes of Russia, the requirement to “withdraw from Crimea”</u></strong> <u><strong>amounts to a US demand that Russia surrender Russian territory</u></strong>. Putin has just taken the entire Russian Duma (the Russian House of Representatives) to Crimea, to address them there and strongly make the point that there will be no withdrawal from Crimea. <u><strong>RAPA</u></strong>, however, <u><strong>stipulates that the US does not recognize the Russian annexation of Crimea,</u></strong> and creates sanctions and legal penalties for anyone who does. RAPA therefore provides both military and political support for Ukrainian President Poroshenko’s stated goat that Ukraine will retake Crimea. This goal was recently echoed by the Ukrainian defense minister, who was applauded by the Ukrainian Parliament when he told them that the Ukrainian army will “have a victory parade in Sevastopol“. These statements are taken seriously in Moscow, where they are viewed as a promise to attack Russia. Thus, Putin’s advisers are telling him he must fight today in Eastern Ukraine, or tomorrow in Crimea. Any Russian military intervention in Eastern Ukraine would certainly be described in the West as Russian aggression in pursuit of empire, which would trigger deafening demands that US/NATO forces act to support Ukraine. <u><strong>Should NATO intervene</u></strong>, subsequent <u><strong><mark>Russian</mark> military <mark>action against any NATO member would</u></strong> <u><strong>trigger</mark> the alliance’s Chapter 5 <mark>mutual defense</mark> clause</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>committing it to war with Russia</u></strong></mark>. Any <u><strong>major <mark>Ukrainian attack</mark> upon Crimea <mark>would make war</mark> with Russia <mark>inevitable</u></strong>. <u><strong>Ukraine appears</mark> to be</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>preparing for</mark> such <mark>an assault</u></strong></mark> by drafting all men of ages 18 to 60 years, in a forced mobilization of its armed forces, which also includes calling up its active reserves of one million men, and bringing more than 1000 battle tanksout of storage. Putin is being told by his close advisers that Ukraine will have an army of half a million men in 2015. RAPA would provide hundreds of millions of dollars to train and arm the rapidly expanding Ukrainian armed forces, and position US/NATO forces for rapid intervention on the side of Ukraine in the event of a Ukrainian-Russian war. Thus, the many political and military provisions of RAPA would certainly act to fully encourage Ukraine to carry out its stated policy to retake Crimea. The Republic of Georgia attacked Russian forces in 2008 with far fewer US promises of aid. Of course, RAPA would also arm Georgia, too. RAPA moves the US towards nuclear war with Russia <u><strong>A US/NATO-Russian war would instantly put US and Russian nuclear forces at peak alert</u></strong>, with both sides anticipating a nuclear first-strike from the other. Both <u><strong>the US and Russia have changed their nuclear war-fighting plans to include</u></strong> the use of <u><strong>preemptive nuclear first-strikes</u></strong>; <u><strong>both nations have “tactical” nuclear weapons</u></strong> designed for battlefield use. The US has 180 B61 nuclear bombs deployed on six military bases of five other NATO states, which would be released to these NATO members in the event of a US/NATO-Russian war. Russia also has at least 1300 tactical nuclear weapons, and Russian war doctrine specifies their use against overwhelming conventional (NATO) forces. Any use of “tactical” or “battlefield” nuclear weapons, by either side, would likely trigger an equal or greater response from the other. During the first Cold War, the US studiously avoided any direct military confrontation with Russia, because it was widely thought that such a war would inevitably escalate to become a nuclear war – which would utterly destroy both nations. However, there seems to be little thought or discussion of this in the US today, despite the fact that both the US and Russia appear to be preparing for such a war. In May, the increasing tensions in Ukraine led both nations to almost simultaneously conduct large nuclear war games. Long-range Russian nuclear bombers tested US air defenses16 times in a ten day period (July 29 – August 7). US and Russian leaders are either unaware or choose to ignore the fact that such “games” and “tests” are a dress rehearsal for human extinction. <u><strong><mark>Peer-reviewed</mark> scientific <mark>studies</u></strong> <u><strong>predict</mark> the environmental consequences of a <mark>war</mark> fought <mark>with</mark> only <mark>a fraction of</mark> US and/or <mark>Russian</mark> strategic <mark>nuc</mark>lear weapon<mark>s would</u></strong></mark> likely <u><strong><mark>wipe out the human race</u></strong></mark>. Scientists predict that <u><strong>even a “successful” US nuclear first-strike</u></strong>, which destroyed 100% of Russia’s nuclear forces before they could be launched, <u><strong>would create catastrophic changes in global weather</u></strong> that would eliminate growing seasons for years. Most humans and large animals would starve to death. <u><strong><mark>Nuclear war is suicide for humans</u></strong></mark>, but our leaders still have their fingers on the nuclear triggers. There seems to be absolutely <u><strong>no awareness</u></strong>, either in our Federal government or in the American public, <u><strong>of the</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>existential danger</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>posed by nuclear war</u></strong>. Such ignorance <u><strong><mark>is embodied by</mark> The <mark>R</mark>ussian <mark>A</mark>ggression <mark>P</mark>revention <mark>A</mark>ct, which</u></strong> if enacted <u><strong>will put us on a direct course for nuclear war with Russia</u></strong>.</p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

B. Dumping

Codd 07

Codd 07 Kathryn Codd is a Litigation Attorney in Arlington, VA with 6 years of experience, William and Mary Law Review, 2007, vol. 27, iss. 9, “Betting on the Wrong Horse: The Detrimental Effect of Noncompliance in the Internet Gambling Dispute on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) “, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dantigua%2Bwto%2Bgambling%2Bdispute%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C9%26as_ylo%3D2006%26as_yhi%3D#search=%22antigua%20wto%20gambling%20dispute%22

A number of cases are still pending in which the U S has failed to bring itself into compliance with a WTO ruling. These cases include U.S.-Section 110 Section 211 and Internet gambling each of these cases requires a legislative fix to achieve compliance The Byrd Amendment dispute is one of the most often-cited examples of U.S. reluctance to comply with a DSB recommendation The complainants asserted that the Amendment violated U.S. obligations under GATT and other WTO agreements, and the Appellate Body report, largely agreed The U S failed to bring the Act into conformity with its obligations within the reasonable period of time set by the DSB and retaliatory sanctions were authorized. The U S imposed antidumping measures on Japanese imports of certain hot-rolled steel products Japan argued that such measures violated U.S. obligations under GATT the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the U.S. measure was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and ordered that the U S bring its measures into conformity the U S was granted a number of extensions to the reasonable period of time in which to conform to DSB recommendations Japan also agreed not to resort to the suspension of concessions or other obligations in exchange for agreement by the U S the only offering made by the U S was that legislation had been introduced that would bring the United States into conformity with recommendations The case is still pending the EC claimed that Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act1 prohibited Cuban nationals from registering or renewing any trademarks that were confiscated as part of the Cuban Revolution this measure violated TRIPS The Appellate Body eventually held that certain parts of Section 211 were inconsistent with TRIPS and ordered the United States to bring the measure into conformity with the agreement." the U S expressed its intention to conform with the DSB's recommendations but is currently still "working in 1999 the EC alleged violations of TRIPS The EC alleged that amended sections of the Act, which exempted certain establishments below a particular size and equipment level from paying royalties to copyright holders when music was played were violations of the TRIPS duty to protect copyright The Panel agreed, and it ordered the United States to pay royalties to copyright holders and bring the measure into conformity with TRIPS Congress has yet to pass legislation to amend the noncompliant sections of the Act

cases are still pending in which the U St failed to bring itself into compliance The Byrd dispute is one of the most cited complainants asserted the Amendment violated U.S. obligations under GATT The U S failed to bring the Act into conformity The U S imposed antidumping measures on Japanese imports that violated obligations under GATT The case is still pending Congress has yet to pass legislation to amend the noncompliant sections

D. Specific Issues with U.S. Compliance A number of cases are still pending in which the United States has failed to bring itself into compliance with a WTO ruling. These cases include U.S.-Section 110(5)(b) Copyright Act; U.S.-Section 211 Appropriation Act; U.S.-Hot-Rolled Steel; U.S.-Offset Act (Byrd Amendment); and, of course, the instant case regarding Internet gambling.96 Notably, each of these cases requires a legislative fix to achieve compliance. 1. U.S.-Byrd Amendment Dispute The Byrd Amendment dispute is one of the most often-cited examples of U.S. reluctance to comply with a DSB recommendation. In this dispute, a number of countries initiated a complaint with the DSB with regard to the Byrd Amendment to the U.S. Offset Act;9 the Amendment provided that domestic producers who supported petitions to investigate antidumping or countervailing duty violations could receive part of the duties imposed as a result of the investigations.9" The complainants asserted that the Amendment violated U.S. obligations under GATT 1994 and other WTO agreements, and the Appellate Body report, issued in 2003, largely agreed.99 The United States failed to bring the Act into conformity with its obligations within the reasonable period of time set by the DSB, however, and retaliatory sanctions were authorized.' 0 It was not until early 2006 that Congress approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act, which may have finally brought the United States into compliance with the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute,10 1 subject to evaluation and acceptance by the WTO. 102 2. U. S.-Hot-Rolled Steel Dispute A similarly contested DSB decision occurred in the hot-rolled steel case. The United States had imposed antidumping measures on Japanese imports of certain hot-rolled steel products.0 3 Japan argued that such measures violated U.S. obligations under GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.' 4 Ultimately, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the U.S. measure was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and ordered that the United States bring its measures into conformity."' 0 With Japan's approval, the United States was granted a number of extensions to the reasonable period of time in which to conform to DSB recommendations, originally from November 23, 2002 until July 31, 2005.106 Japan also agreed not to resort to the suspension of concessions or other obligations in exchange for agreement by the United States to continue in its efforts to achieve compliance.0 7 In its most recent status report, however, the only offering made by the United States was that legislation had been introduced in May of 2005 that would bring the United States into conformity with DSB recommendations, and that the administration would continue to work with Congress to pass the legislation. 1 8 The case is still pending, more than five years after its initiation. 3. U.S.-Section 211 Dispute In the U.S.-Section 211 Appropriations Act dispute, the European Communities (EC) claimed that Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act1"9 prohibited Cuban nationals from registering or renewing any trademarks that were confiscated as part of the Cuban Revolution.110 The EC asserted that this measure violated the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which also falls under the purview of the WTO dispute settlement framework.' The Appellate Body eventually held that certain parts of Section 211 were inconsistent with TRIPS and ordered the United States to bring the measure into conformity with the agreement." 2 Much like the Hot-Rolled Steel dispute, the United States expressed its intention to conform with the DSB's recommendations but is currently still "working with ... Congress" to pass the appropriate legislation. 3 4. U.S.-Section 110(5)(b) Dispute In a final example of U.S. noncompliance, in 1999 the EC alleged violations of the TRIPS with regard to § 110(5)(b) of the United States Copyright Act." 4 The EC alleged that amended sections of the Act, which exempted certain establishments below a particular size and equipment level from paying royalties to copyright holders when music was played,1'5 were violations of the TRIPS duty to protect copyright.' 6 The Panel agreed, and it ordered the United States to pay royalties to copyright holders and bring the measure into conformity with TRIPS."' The United States made the royalty payments, but, as in the above three disputes, Congress has yet to pass legislation to amend the noncompliant sections of the Act.118

<h4><strong>B. Dumping</h4><p>Codd 07</p><p></strong>Kathryn Codd is a Litigation Attorney in Arlington, VA with 6 years of experience, William and Mary Law Review, 2007, vol. 27, iss. 9, “Betting on the Wrong Horse: The Detrimental Effect of Noncompliance in the Internet Gambling Dispute on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) “, http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1133&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fq%3Dantigua%2Bwto%2Bgambling%2Bdispute%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%252C9%26as_ylo%3D2006%26as_yhi%3D#search=%22antigua%20wto%20gambling%20dispute%22</p><p>D. Specific Issues with U.S. Compliance <u><strong>A number of <mark>cases are still pending in which the U</u></strong></mark>nited<u><strong> <mark>S</u></strong>t</mark>ates <u><strong>has <mark>failed to bring itself into compliance </mark>with a WTO ruling. These cases include U.S.-Section 110</u></strong>(5)(b) Copyright Act; U.S.-<u><strong>Section 211</u></strong> Appropriation Act; U.S.-Hot-Rolled Steel; U.S.-Offset Act (Byrd Amendment); <u><strong>and</u></strong>, of course, the instant case regarding <u><strong>Internet gambling</u></strong>.96 Notably, <u><strong>each of these cases requires a legislative fix to achieve compliance</u></strong>. 1. U.S.-Byrd Amendment Dispute <u><strong><mark>The Byrd </mark>Amendment <mark>dispute is one of the most</mark> often-<mark>cited </mark>examples of U.S. reluctance to comply with a DSB recommendation</u></strong>. In this dispute, a number of countries initiated a complaint with the DSB with regard to the Byrd Amendment to the U.S. Offset Act;9 the Amendment provided that domestic producers who supported petitions to investigate antidumping or countervailing duty violations could receive part of the duties imposed as a result of the investigations.9" <u><strong>The <mark>complainants asserted </mark>that <mark>the Amendment violated U.S. obligations under GATT</u></strong></mark> 1994 <u><strong>and other WTO agreements, and the Appellate Body report,</u></strong> issued in 2003, <u><strong>largely agreed</u></strong>.99 <u><strong><mark>The U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>failed to bring the Act into conformity </mark>with its obligations within the reasonable period of time set by the DSB</u></strong>, however, <u><strong>and retaliatory sanctions were authorized.</u></strong>' 0 It was not until early 2006 that Congress approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act, which may have finally brought the United States into compliance with the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute,10 1 subject to evaluation and acceptance by the WTO. 102 2. U. S.-Hot-Rolled Steel Dispute A similarly contested DSB decision occurred in the hot-rolled steel case. <u><strong><mark>The U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates had <u><strong><mark>imposed antidumping measures on Japanese imports </mark>of certain hot-rolled steel products</u></strong>.0 3 <u><strong>Japan argued <mark>that</mark> such measures <mark>violated</mark> U.S. <mark>obligations under GATT</u></strong> </mark>1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.' 4 Ultimately, <u><strong>the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the U.S. measure was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and ordered that the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>bring its measures into conformity</u></strong>."' 0 With Japan's approval, <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>was granted a number of extensions to the reasonable period of time in which to conform to DSB recommendations</u></strong>, originally from November 23, 2002 until July 31, 2005.106 <u><strong>Japan also agreed not to resort to the suspension of concessions or other obligations in exchange for agreement by the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates to continue in its efforts to achieve compliance.0 7 In its most recent status report, however, <u><strong>the only offering made by the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>was that legislation had been introduced</u></strong> in May of 2005 <u><strong>that would bring the United States into conformity with</u></strong> DSB <u><strong>recommendations</u></strong>, and that the administration would continue to work with Congress to pass the legislation. 1 8 <u><strong><mark>The case is still pending</u></strong></mark>, more than five years after its initiation. 3. U.S.-Section 211 Dispute In the U.S.-Section 211 Appropriations Act dispute, <u><strong>the</u></strong> European Communities (<u><strong>EC</u></strong>) <u><strong>claimed that</u></strong> <u><strong>Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act1</u></strong>"9 <u><strong>prohibited Cuban nationals from registering or renewing any trademarks that were confiscated as part of the Cuban Revolution</u></strong>.110 The EC asserted that <u><strong>this measure violated</u></strong> the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (<u><strong>TRIPS</u></strong>) agreement, which also falls under the purview of the WTO dispute settlement framework.' <u><strong>The Appellate Body eventually held that certain parts of Section 211 were inconsistent with TRIPS and ordered the United States to bring the measure into conformity with the agreement."</u></strong> 2 Much like the Hot-Rolled Steel dispute, <u><strong>the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>expressed its intention to conform with the DSB's recommendations but is currently still "working </u></strong>with ... Congress" to pass the appropriate legislation. 3 4. U.S.-Section 110(5)(b) Dispute In a final example of U.S. noncompliance, <u><strong>in 1999 the EC alleged violations of</u></strong> the <u><strong>TRIPS</u></strong> with regard to § 110(5)(b) of the United States Copyright Act." 4 <u><strong>The EC alleged that amended sections of the Act, which exempted certain establishments below a particular size and equipment level from paying royalties to copyright holders when music was played</u></strong>,1'5 <u><strong>were violations of the TRIPS duty to protect copyright</u></strong>.' 6 <u><strong>The Panel agreed, and it ordered the United States to pay royalties to copyright holders and bring the measure into conformity with TRIPS</u></strong>."' The United States made the royalty payments, but, as in the above three disputes, <u><strong><mark>Congress has yet to pass legislation to amend the noncompliant sections</mark> of the</u></strong> <u><strong>Act</u></strong>.118</p>

1NR

WTO

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Non-compliance inev

Ikenson 13

Daniel J. Ikenson 13, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, MA in economics from George Washington University, “Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox on America’s Glass House,” www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionist-antidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house

U.S. policies have been the subject of more W T O disputes 119 followed by China with 30 and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other governmen policies No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final DSB ruling the U S remains out of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate yet non-compliance continues

U.S. policies have been the subject of more W T O disputes 119 and violate WTO rules more than any other governmen the U S remains out of compliance in subsidies to cotton farmers country of origin labeling requirements the Byrd Amendment antidumping measures, and several other issues U.S. trade partners have retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate yet non-compliance continues

U.S. policies have been the subject of more World Trade Organization disputes (119, followed by the EU with 73, then China with 30) and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other government’s policies. No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruling — or for a longer period — than the U.S. government. To this day, the United States remains out of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers, restrictions on Antigua’s provision of gambling services, country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues, some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. In some of these cases, U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, yet the non-compliance continues as though the United States considers itself above the rules.

<h4>Non-compliance inev </h4><p>Daniel J. <strong>Ikenson 13</strong>, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, MA in economics from George Washington University, “Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox on America’s Glass House,” www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionist-antidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house</p><p><u><strong><mark>U.S. policies have been the subject of more</u></strong> <u><strong>W</u></strong></mark>orld <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>rade <u><strong><mark>O</u></strong></mark>rganization <u><strong><mark>disputes</u></strong></mark> (<u><strong><mark>119</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>followed by </u></strong>the EU with 73, then <u><strong>China with 30</u></strong>) <u><strong><mark>and</mark> have been found to <mark>violate WTO rules more</mark> frequently <mark>than any other governmen</u></strong></mark>t’s <u><strong>policies</u></strong>. <u><strong>No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final</u></strong> WTO Dispute Settlement Body (<u><strong>DSB</u></strong>) <u><strong>ruling</u></strong> — or for a longer period — than the U.S. government. To this day, <u><strong><mark>the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>remains out of compliance in</mark> cases involving U.S. <mark>subsidies to cotton farmers</u></strong></mark>, restrictions on Antigua’s provision of gambling services,<u><strong> <mark>country of origin labeling requirements </mark>on meat products, <mark>the</mark> so-called <mark>Byrd Amendment</mark>, a variety of <mark>antidumping measures, and several other issues</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. </u></strong>In some of these cases,<u><strong> <mark>U.S. trade partners have</mark> either <mark>retaliated, or been authorized to</mark> <mark>retaliate</u></strong></mark>, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, <u><strong><mark>yet</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>non-compliance continues</u></strong></mark> as though the United States considers itself above the rules.</p>

1NC

Trade

1NC Alt Causes

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

C. Non-compliance Inevitable

Ikenson 13

Daniel J. Ikenson 13, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, MA in economics from George Washington University, “Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox on America’s Glass House,” www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionist-antidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house

U.S. policies have been the subject of more W T O disputes 119 and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other government’s policies No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final DSB ruling the U S remains out of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. , U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate yet non-compliance continues

U.S. policies have been the subject of more W T O disputes 119 and violate WTO rules more than any other government the U S remains out of compliance in subsidies to cotton farmers country of origin labeling the Byrd Amendment antidumping measures, and several other issues U.S. trade partners have retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate yet non-compliance continues

Other candidates come to mind when contemplating the world’s worst international trade scofflaw, but the United States makes a strong case for itself. A recent Commerce Department determination that foreign companies like Samsung, LG, and Electrolux engaged in “targeted dumping” by reducing prices on their washing machines for Black Friday sales confirms that the United States is actively seeking that ignominious distinction. U.S. policies have been the subject of more World Trade Organization disputes (119, followed by the EU with 73, then China with 30) and have been found to violate WTO rules more frequently than any other government’s policies. No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruling — or for a longer period — than the U.S. government. To this day, the United States remains out of compliance in cases involving U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers, restrictions on Antigua’s provision of gambling services, country of origin labeling requirements on meat products, the so-called Byrd Amendment, a variety of antidumping measures, and several other issues, some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. In some of these cases, U.S. trade partners have either retaliated, or been authorized to retaliate, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, yet the non-compliance continues as though the United States considers itself above the rules.

<h4>C. Non-compliance Inevitable</h4><p>Daniel J. <strong>Ikenson 13</strong>, director of Cato’s Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies, MA in economics from George Washington University, “Protectionist Antidumping Regime Is a Pox on America’s Glass House,” www.cato.org/publications/commentary/protectionist-antidumping-regime-pox-americas-glass-house</p><p>Other candidates come to mind when contemplating the world’s worst international trade scofflaw, but the United States makes a strong case for itself. A recent Commerce Department determination that foreign companies like Samsung, LG, and Electrolux engaged in “targeted dumping” by reducing prices on their washing machines for Black Friday sales confirms that the United States is actively seeking that ignominious distinction.</p><p><u><strong><mark>U.S. policies have been the subject of more</u></strong> <u><strong>W</u></strong></mark>orld <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>rade <u><strong><mark>O</u></strong></mark>rganization <u><strong><mark>disputes</u></strong></mark> (<u><strong><mark>119</u></strong></mark>, followed by the EU with 73, then China with 30) <u><strong><mark>and</mark> have been found to <mark>violate WTO rules more</mark> frequently <mark>than any other government</mark>’s policies</u></strong>. <u><strong>No government is more likely to be out of compliance with a final</u></strong> WTO Dispute Settlement Body (<u><strong>DSB</u></strong>) <u><strong>ruling</u></strong> — or for a longer period — than the U.S. government. To this day, <u><strong><mark>the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>remains out of compliance in</mark> cases involving U.S. <mark>subsidies to cotton farmers</u></strong></mark>, restrictions on Antigua’s provision of gambling services,<u><strong> <mark>country of origin labeling </mark>requirements on meat products, <mark>the </mark>so-called <mark>Byrd Amendment</mark>, a variety of <mark>antidumping measures, and several other issues</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>some of which were adjudicated more than a decade ago. </u></strong>In some of these cases<u><strong>, <mark>U.S. trade partners have</mark> either <mark>retaliated, or been authorized to</mark> <mark>retaliate</u></strong></mark>, against U.S. exporters or asset holders, <u><strong><mark>yet</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>non-compliance continues</u></mark> as though the United States considers itself above the rules.</p></strong>

1NR

WTO

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Medicalization is the FRAMEWORK in which thanatopolitics may exert violence -- increasing the power of physicians over life gives justification for the creation of bare life and war

[makes a causal claim that wars are NOT fought for the existence of the sovereign, which answers THEIR internal link of death control, they are fought based on the biological heirchies medicalized and biologized interps of the world]

[“The War of Races and the Constitution of the State: Foucault's «Il faut défendre la société» and the Politics of Calculation,” Boundary, http://boundary2.dukejournals.org/content/29/1/125.full.pdf] The reverse side is the power to allow death State racism is a recoding of mechanisms through regulation Racism, as biologizing takes shape where the procedures of intervention at the level of the body health, and everyday life, received their color and justification from the mythical concern with protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the race The use of medical language is important Because certain groups are conceived of in medical terms, society is no longer in need of being defended from the outsider but from the insider: the abnormal in behavior, species, or race What is novel is not the mentality of power but the technology of power The recoding of problems is made possible through techniques a division between those who must live and those who must die The "biological continuum of the human species" is fragmented The species is subdivided into subgroups that are thought of as races. human continuum is divided made calculable and orderable, two centuries later to suggest that racism has its roots in nationalism is a mistake Bio-power is able to establish a relation not warlike but biological inferior species disappear The existence in question is no longer of sovereignty, juridical but that of the population, biological If genocide is truly the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a return today of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life if a sovereign power wishes to function with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it must also pass through racism This holds for indirect death—the exposure to death—as much as for direct killing theme of the political enemy is extrapolated biologically. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of all; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed

The reverse side is the power to allow death Racism, as biologizing takes shape where intervention "at the level of the body health and justification from concern with protecting purity of blood The use of medical language is important Because groups are conceived of in medical terms society is no longer in need of being defended from the outsider but from the abnormal species or race Bio-power is able to establish a relation not warlike but biological The existence in question is no longer of sovereignty, but biological genocide is situated at the level of life Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign they are waged on behalf of the existence of all; entire populations mobilized for slaughter in the name of life necessity

Stuart Elden, politics at University of Warwick, 2/29/2002 [“The War of Races and the Constitution of the State: Foucault's «Il faut défendre la société» and the Politics of Calculation,” Boundary, http://boundary2.dukejournals.org/content/29/1/125.full.pdf] The reverse side is the power to allow death. State racism is a recoding of the old mechanisms of blood through the new procedures of regulation. Racism, as biologizing, as tied to a state, takes shape where the procedures of intervention "at the level of the body, conduct, health, and everyday life, received their color and their justification from the mythical concern with protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the race" (VS, 197; WK, 149). 37 For example, the old anti-Semitism based on religion is reused under the new rubric of state racism. The integrity and purity of the race is threatened, and the state apparatuses are introduced against the race that has infiltrated and introduced noxious elements into the body. The Jews are characterized as the race present in the middle of all races (FDS, 76). 38 The use of medical language is important. Because certain groups in society are conceived of in medical terms, society is no longer in need of being defended from the outsider but from the insider: the abnormal in behavior, species, or race. What is novel is not the mentality of power but the technology of power (FDS, 230). The recoding of old problems is made possible through new techniques. A break or cut (coupure) is fundamental to racism: a division or incision between those who must live and those who must die. The "biological continuum of the human species" is fragmented by the apparition of races, which are seen as distinguished, hierarchized, qualified as good or inferior, and so forth. The species is subdivided into subgroups that are thought of as races. In a sense, then, just as the continuum of geometry becomes divisible in Descartes, 39 the human continuum is divided, that is, made calculable and orderable, two centuries later. As Anderson has persuasively argued, to suggest that racism has its roots in nationalism is a mistake. He suggests that "the dreams of racism actually have their origin in ideologies of class, rather than in those of nation: above all in claims to divinity among rulers and to ‘blue' or ‘white' blood and breeding among aristocracies." 40 As Stoler has noted, for Foucault, it is the other way around: "A discourse of class derives from an earlier discourse of races." 41 But it is a more subtle distinction than [End Page 147] that. What Foucault suggests is that discourses of class have their roots in the war of races, but so, too, does modern racism; what is different is the biological spin put on the concepts. 42 But as well as emphasizing the biological, modern racism puts this another way: to survive, to live, one must be prepared to massacre one's enemies, a relation of war. As a relation of war, this is no different from the earlier war of races that Foucault has spent so much of the course explaining. But when coupled with the mechanisms of mathematics and medicine in bio-power, this can be conceived of in entirely different ways. Bio-power is able to establish, between my life and the death of the other, a relation that is not warlike or confrontational but biological: "The more inferior species tend to disappear, the more abnormal individuals can be eliminated, the less the species will be degenerated, the more I—not as an individual but as a species—will live, will be strong, will be vigorous, will be able to proliferate." The death of the other does not just make me safer personally, but the death of the other, of the bad, inferior race or the degenerate or abnormal, makes life in general healthier and purer (FDS, 227–28). "The existence in question is no longer of sovereignty, juridical; but that of the population, biological. If genocide is truly the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a return today of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population" (VS, 180; WK, 136). "If the power of normalization wishes to exercise the ancient sovereign right of killing, it must pass through racism. And if, inversely, a sovereign power, that is to say a power with the right of life and death, wishes to function with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it must also pass through racism" (FDS, 228). This holds for indirect death—the exposure to death—as much as for direct killing. While not Darwinism, this biological sense of power is based on evolutionism and enables a thinking of colonial relations, the necessity of wars, criminality, phenomena of madness and mental illness, class divisions, and so forth. The link to colonialism is central: This form of modern state racism develops first with colonial genocide. The theme of the political enemy is extrapolated biologically. But what is important in the shift at the end of the nineteenth century is that war is no longer simply a way of securing one race by eliminating the other but of regenerating that race (FDS, 228–30). As Foucault puts it in La volonté de savoir: [End Page 148] Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defended; they are waged on behalf of the existence of all; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the name of life necessity. Massacres have become vital [vitaux—understood in a dual sense, both as essential and biological]. It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. (VS, 180; WK, 136)

<h4>Medicalization is the FRAMEWORK in which thanatopolitics may exert violence -- increasing the power of physicians over life gives justification for the creation of bare life and war </h4><p><u>[makes a causal claim that wars are NOT fought for the existence of the sovereign, which answers THEIR internal link of death control, they are fought based on the biological heirchies medicalized and biologized interps of the world]</p><p></u>Stuart <strong>Elden</strong>, politics at University of Warwick, 2/29/20<strong>02 <u></strong>[“The War of Races and the Constitution of the State: Foucault's «Il faut défendre la société» and the Politics of Calculation,” Boundary, http://boundary2.dukejournals.org/content/29/1/125.full.pdf] </p><p><strong><mark>The reverse side is the power to allow death</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>State racism is a recoding of</u></strong> the old <u><strong>mechanisms</u></strong> of blood <u><strong>through</u></strong> the new procedures of <u><strong>regulation</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Racism, as biologizing</u></strong></mark>, as tied to a state, <u><strong><mark>takes shape where</mark> the procedures of <mark>intervention</u></strong> "<u><strong>at the level of the body</u></strong></mark>, conduct, <u><strong><mark>health</mark>, and everyday life, received their color <mark>and</u></strong></mark> their <u><strong><mark>justification</mark> <mark>from</mark> the mythical <mark>concern with protecting</mark> the <mark>purity of</mark> the <mark>blood</mark> and ensuring the triumph of the race</u></strong>" (VS, 197; WK, 149). 37 For example, the old anti-Semitism based on religion is reused under the new rubric of state racism. The integrity and purity of the race is threatened, and the state apparatuses are introduced against the race that has infiltrated and introduced noxious elements into the body. The Jews are characterized as the race present in the middle of all races (FDS, 76). 38 <u><strong><mark>The use of medical language is important</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Because</mark> certain <mark>groups</u></strong></mark> in society <u><strong><mark>are conceived of in medical terms</mark>, <mark>society is no longer in need of being defended from the outsider but from</mark> the insider: <mark>the abnormal</mark> in behavior, <mark>species</mark>, <mark>or race</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>What is novel is not the mentality of power but the technology of power</u></strong> (FDS, 230). <u><strong>The recoding of </u></strong>old <u><strong>problems is made possible through</u></strong> new <u><strong>techniques</u></strong>. A break or cut (coupure) is fundamental to racism: <u><strong>a division</u></strong> or incision <u><strong>between those who must live and those who must die</u></strong>. <u><strong>The "biological continuum of the human species" is fragmented</u></strong> by the apparition of races, which are seen as distinguished, hierarchized, qualified as good or inferior, and so forth. <u><strong>The species is subdivided into subgroups that are thought of as races. </u></strong>In a sense, then, just as the continuum of geometry becomes divisible in Descartes, 39 the <u><strong>human continuum is divided</u></strong>, that is, <u><strong>made calculable and orderable, two centuries later</u></strong>. As Anderson has persuasively argued, <u><strong>to suggest that racism has its roots in nationalism is a</u></strong> <u><strong>mistake</u></strong>. He suggests that "the dreams of racism actually have their origin in ideologies of class, rather than in those of nation: above all in claims to divinity among rulers and to ‘blue' or ‘white' blood and breeding among aristocracies." 40 As Stoler has noted, for Foucault, it is the other way around: "A discourse of class derives from an earlier discourse of races." 41 But it is a more subtle distinction than [End Page 147] that. What Foucault suggests is that discourses of class have their roots in the war of races, but so, too, does modern racism; what is different is the biological spin put on the concepts. 42 But as well as emphasizing the biological, modern racism puts this another way: to survive, to live, one must be prepared to massacre one's enemies, a relation of war. As a relation of war, this is no different from the earlier war of races that Foucault has spent so much of the course explaining. But when coupled with the mechanisms of mathematics and medicine in bio-power, this can be conceived of in entirely different ways. <u><strong><mark>Bio-power is able to establish</u></strong></mark>, between my life and the death of the other, <u><strong><mark>a relation</u></strong></mark> that is <u><strong><mark>not warlike</u></strong></mark> or confrontational <u><strong><mark>but biological</u></strong></mark>: "The more <u><strong>inferior species</u></strong> tend to <u><strong>disappear</u></strong>, the more abnormal individuals can be eliminated, the less the species will be degenerated, the more I—not as an individual but as a species—will live, will be strong, will be vigorous, will be able to proliferate." The death of the other does not just make me safer personally, but the death of the other, of the bad, inferior race or the degenerate or abnormal, makes life in general healthier and purer (FDS, 227–28). "<u><strong><mark>The existence in question is no longer of sovereignty,</mark> juridical</u></strong>; <u><strong><mark>but</mark> that of the population, <mark>biological</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>If <mark>genocide is</mark> truly the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a return today of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is <mark>situated</mark> and exercised <mark>at the level of life</u></strong></mark>, the species, the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population" (VS, 180; WK, 136). "If the power of normalization wishes to exercise the ancient sovereign right of killing, it must pass through racism. And <u><strong>if</u></strong>, inversely, <u><strong>a</u></strong> <u><strong>sovereign power</u></strong>, that is to say a power with the right of life and death, <u><strong>wishes to function with the instruments, mechanisms, and technology of normalization, it must also pass through racism</u></strong>" (FDS, 228). <u><strong>This holds for indirect death—the exposure to death—as much as for direct killing</u></strong>. While not Darwinism, this biological sense of power is based on evolutionism and enables a thinking of colonial relations, the necessity of wars, criminality, phenomena of madness and mental illness, class divisions, and so forth. The link to colonialism is central: This form of modern state racism develops first with colonial genocide. The <u><strong>theme of the political enemy is extrapolated biologically.</u></strong> But what is important in the shift at the end of the nineteenth century is that war is no longer simply a way of securing one race by eliminating the other but of regenerating that race (FDS, 228–30). As Foucault puts it in La volonté de savoir: [End Page 148] <u><strong><mark>Wars</u></strong> <u><strong>are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign</mark> who must be defended; <mark>they are waged on behalf of the existence of all;</mark> <mark>entire populations</mark> are <mark>mobilized for</mark> the purpose of wholesale <mark>slaughter in the name of life necessity</u></strong></mark>. Massacres have become vital [vitaux—understood in a dual sense, both as essential and biological]. <u><strong>It is as managers of life and survival, of bodies and the race, that so many regimes have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed</u></strong>. (VS, 180; WK, 136)</p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The alternative is non-medicalized suicide

Salem 99

Salem 99

if legalized, physician-assisted suicide as a legitimate practice would become the prerogative of physicians This monopoly leads to the question of why aid in dying should be provided only by a medical practitioner Why, should assistance in suicide be understood as requiring medical authority rather than community of family or friends Assisted suicide does not even require medical skill If freeing up patients is the goal, then assisted suicide's advocates disserve patients when they do not advocate ending the physician's exclusive power to prescribe medication the advocates of patients’ rights end up empowering doctors more than they do patients Placing suicide under the stewardship of medicine is defended as a way of “enhancing public accountability of the practice But inasmuch as cultural preconceptions and loneliness are far from being exclusively medical issues, we must ask why we expect doctors to respond to them. either medicine is moving beyond its proper role, or the scope of medical competence has already been extended beyond appropriate boundaries. ceding monopoly of assistance in suicide to doctors is anchored in an inflation of the physician's role as well as in the extreme idealization of physicians’ character and the relationships they establish with patients. this idealization to delegate to physicians the exclusive right to assist suicide bespeaks the social and symbolic power already conferred on medicine it is not the need for technical expertise that impels us to physician-assisted suicide. our culture, so impregnated by medicalization takes for granted that assisted suicide should fall under the control and supervision of medicine. physician-assisted suicide necessarily involves medicalizing the moral questions surrounding suicide Physician-assisted suicide ultimately is a medical judgment about death or suicide it is a medical evaluation of the fairness and legitimacy of a person's establishing medical guidelines introduces tensions into the value of autonomy in several ways

This leads to the question of why aid in dying should be provided only by a medical practitioner Why should suicide be understood as requiring medical authority rather than community of family or friends Assisted suicide does not require medical skill assisted suicide's advocates disserve patients when they do not advocate ending the physician's power to prescribe medication ceding monopoly of assistance in suicide is anchored in an inflation of the physician's role this idealization delegate to physicians bespeaks symbolic power physician- Physician-assisted suicide is, a medical judgment it is evaluation of the fairness and legitimacy of a person's

Tania, Associate at Hospital Operations & Compliance at The Advisory Group W.L.L, Physician-Assisted Suicide: Promoting Autonomy—Or Medicalizing Suicide? Hastings Center Report, 29: 30–36, AB Medicalizing suicide as professional practice Medicalizing suicide also points to the fact that if legalized, physician-assisted suicide as a legitimate practice would become the prerogative of physicians. Indeed, Jack Kevorkian has seen the exclusive right as the foundation for a new medical subspeciality of “obitiatry.”17 This monopoly leads to the more general question of why aid in dying should be provided only by a medical practitioner. Why, that is, should assistance in suicide be understood as requiring medical authority rather than, for instance, a community of family or friends? The most obvious answer is that physicians—and only physicians—have the necessary technical skills to ensure a “rapid” and “painless” death. But as some critics have noted, “Assisted suicide does not even require medical skill…. If freeing up patients truly is the goal, then assisted suicide's advocates disserve patients when they do not advocate ending the physician's exclusive power to prescribe medication. Ironically, the advocates of patients’ rights end up empowering doctors more than they do patients.”18 Yet even those who maintain that technical knowledge is imperative do not confine their justification of physician-assisted suicide to this reason. Placing suicide under the stewardship of medicine is further defended as a way of “enhancing public accountability of the practice” and “protecting against abuse.”19 From the patient's perspective, the request for aid in dying may mean a “desire for companionship in pursuing a difficult course of action, a wish for confirmation of a decision about which the patient is unsure or simply a cry for help” (pp. 88–89, note 42). Moreover, since suicide is still stigmatized, “seeking a physician's assistance may be a way of trying to remove that stigma.”20 But inasmuch as cultural preconceptions and loneliness (whatever its source) are far from being exclusively medical issues, we must ask why we expect doctors to respond to them. Two possible answers come to mind: either medicine is moving beyond its proper role, or the scope of medical competence has already been extended beyond appropriate boundaries.It seems reasonable to conclude that ceding monopoly of assistance in suicide to doctors is anchored in an inflation of the physician's role, as well as in the extreme idealization of physicians’ character and the relationships they establish with patients. The bond physicians establish with patients is supposedly effective, collaborative, and committed.21 Both this idealization and the willingness to delegate to physicians the exclusive right to assist suicide bespeaks the social and symbolic power already conferred on medicine and medical professionals in our societies. In other words, it is not (or not only) the need for technical expertise that impels us to physician-assisted suicide. Rather, our culture, so impregnated by medicalization, takes for granted that assisted suicide should fall under the control and supervision of medicine. Medicalizing the morality of suicide As a legitimate domain of professional practice, then, physician-assisted suicide necessarily involves medicalizing the moral questions surrounding suicide. Physician-assisted suicide presupposes, and ultimately is, a medical judgment about death or suicide; it is a medical evaluation of the fairness and legitimacy of a person's (not simply a patient's) desire or choice to end his or her life. With some few exceptions, even the most radical advocates of physician-assisted suicide recognize the need to establish protocols and guidelines to prevent abuses, protect the vulnerable, guarantee public accountability, and even to assure the autonomous character of the patient's choice. Surely these aims are respectable and the setting up of criteria just and reasonable. Yet establishing medical guidelines also introduces tensions into the value of autonomy in several ways.

<h4><strong>The alternative is non-medicalized suicide </h4><p>Salem 99</p><p></strong>Tania, Associate at Hospital Operations & Compliance at The Advisory Group W.L.L, Physician-Assisted Suicide: Promoting Autonomy—Or Medicalizing Suicide? Hastings Center Report, 29: 30–36, AB </p><p>Medicalizing suicide as professional practice Medicalizing suicide also points to the fact that <u><strong>if legalized, physician-assisted suicide as a legitimate practice would become the prerogative of physicians</u></strong>. Indeed, Jack Kevorkian has seen the exclusive right as the foundation for a new medical subspeciality of “obitiatry.”17 <u><strong><mark>This</mark> monopoly <mark>leads</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>to</u></strong> <u><strong>the</u></strong></mark> more general <u><strong><mark>question of why aid in dying should be provided only by a medical practitioner</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Why</mark>,</u></strong> that is, <u><strong><mark>should</mark> assistance in <mark>suicide be understood as requiring medical authority</mark> <mark>rather than</u></strong></mark>, for instance, a <u><strong><mark>community of family or friends</u></strong></mark>? The most obvious answer is that physicians—and only physicians—have the necessary technical skills to ensure a “rapid” and “painless” death. But as some critics have noted, “<u><strong><mark>Assisted suicide does not</mark> even <mark>require medical skill</u></strong></mark>…. <u><strong>If freeing up patients</u></strong> truly <u><strong>is the goal, then <mark>assisted suicide's advocates disserve patients</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>when they</mark> <mark>do not advocate</mark> <mark>ending the physician's</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>exclusive</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>power to prescribe medication</u></strong></mark>. Ironically, <u><strong>the advocates of patients’ rights end up empowering doctors more than they do patients</u></strong>.”18 Yet even those who maintain that technical knowledge is imperative do not confine their justification of physician-assisted suicide to this reason. <u><strong>Placing suicide under the stewardship of medicine is</u></strong> further <u><strong>defended as a way of “enhancing public accountability of the practice</u></strong>” and “protecting against abuse.”19 From the patient's perspective, the request for aid in dying may mean a “desire for companionship in pursuing a difficult course of action, a wish for confirmation of a decision about which the patient is unsure or simply a cry for help” (pp. 88–89, note 42). Moreover, since suicide is still stigmatized, “seeking a physician's assistance may be a way of trying to remove that stigma.”20 <u><strong>But inasmuch as cultural preconceptions and loneliness</u></strong> (whatever its source) <u><strong>are far from being exclusively medical issues, we must ask why we expect doctors to respond to them.</u></strong> Two possible answers come to mind: <u><strong>either medicine is moving beyond its proper role, or the scope of medical competence has already been extended beyond appropriate boundaries.</u></strong>It seems reasonable to conclude that <u><strong><mark>ceding monopoly of assistance in suicide</mark> to doctors <mark>is anchored in an inflation of the physician's role</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>as well as in the extreme idealization of physicians’ character and the relationships they establish with patients.</u></strong> The bond physicians establish with patients is supposedly effective, collaborative, and committed.21 Both <u><strong><mark>this idealization</u></strong></mark> and the willingness <u><strong>to <mark>delegate to physicians</mark> the exclusive right to assist suicide <mark>bespeaks </mark>the social and <mark>symbolic power</mark> already conferred on medicine</u></strong> and medical professionals in our societies. In other words, <u><strong>it is not</u></strong> (or not only) <u><strong>the need for technical expertise that impels us to physician-assisted suicide.</u></strong> Rather, <u><strong>our culture, so impregnated by medicalization</u></strong>, <u><strong>takes for granted that assisted suicide should fall under the control and supervision of medicine.</u></strong> Medicalizing the morality of suicide As a legitimate domain of professional practice, then, <u><strong><mark>physician-</mark>assisted suicide necessarily involves medicalizing the moral questions surrounding suicide</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Physician-assisted suicide </u></strong></mark>presupposes, and <u><strong>ultimately <mark>is</u></strong>, <u><strong>a medical judgment</mark> about death or suicide</u></strong>; <u><strong><mark>it is</mark> a medical <mark>evaluation of the fairness and legitimacy of a person's</u></strong></mark> (not simply a patient's) desire or choice to end his or her life. With some few exceptions, even the most radical advocates of physician-assisted suicide recognize the need to establish protocols and guidelines to prevent abuses, protect the vulnerable, guarantee public accountability, and even to assure the autonomous character of the patient's choice. Surely these aims are respectable and the setting up of criteria just and reasonable. Yet <u><strong>establishing medical guidelines</u></strong> also <u><strong>introduces tensions into the value of autonomy in several ways</u></strong>.</p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

WTO is resilient but irrelevant

Drezner 13

Daniel W. Drezner 13 is professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School and a contributing editor to Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, December 3, 2013, "The End of Multilateral Trade?", http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/03/the_end_of_multilateral_trade

even if something is negotiated in Bali it's unlikely the WTO will ever be the focal point for comprehensive trade talks ever again Even getting agreement on the "easy" parts of Doha has been super-hard There's very little upside to making the WTO the focal point of new talks especially given most trade talks have been of the "open regionalism" variety the "slippery slope" argument of the WTO losing relevance is also way overplayed even if there's no further WTO-guided liberalization, the rounds negotiated to date constitute far more liberalization than what can be achieved in the future the WTO rules still govern a lot of trade, and further liberalization won't erode the WTO's bailiwick that much. WTO's Dispute Settlement remains the ne plus ultra of enforcement arrangements in global governance there is zero evidence WTO enforcement has weakened as Doha bogged down That part of the trade system is still working pretty well For decades, trade commentary has implicitly embraced the "bicycle theory" belief unless trade liberalization moves ahead, the entire global trade regime will collapse The last decade suggests there are limits to that rule of thumb It is possible for the WTO to matter less on jump-starting multilateral trade negotiations while still mattering a great deal in enforcing the rules of the game

it's unlikely the WTO will ever be the focal point for talks ever again given talks have been of the "open regionalism" variety the "slippery slope" argument of the WTO losing relevance is way overplayed rounds negotiated to date constitute more liberalization than what can be achieved in the future. there is zero evidence enforcement has weakened It is possible for the WTO to matter less while still mattering a great deal in enforcing the rules of the game.

This kind of story is both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic about the state of the WTO. It's overly optimistic in assuming that, even if something is negotiated in Bali (and the odds aren't great of that happening), it's unlikely that the WTO will ever be the focal point for comprehensive trade talks ever again. Even getting agreement on the "easy" parts of Doha has been super-hard. There's very little upside to making the WTO the focal point of new talks, especially given that most of the regional and bilateral trade talks have been of the "open regionalism" variety. On the other hand, the "slippery slope" argument of the WTO losing relevance is also way overplayed. Such a statement omits two very important facts. First, even if there's no further WTO-guided liberalization, the rounds negotiated to date constitute far more liberalization than what can be achieved in the future. In other words, the WTO rules still govern a lot of trade, and further liberalization won't erode the WTO's bailiwick that much. Second, the WTO's Dispute Settlement Understanding remains the ne plus ultra of enforcement arrangements in global governance. Contrary to the WSJ story, there is zero evidence that WTO enforcement has weakened as Doha bogged down or as protectionism increased after 2008. That part of the trade system is still working pretty well. For decades, trade commentary has implicitly embraced the "bicycle theory" - the belief that unless multilateral trade liberalization moves ahead, the entire global trade regime will collapse because of a lack of forward momentum. The last decade -- and particularly the post-2008 period -- suggests that there are limits to that rule of thumb. It is possible for the WTO to matter less on jump-starting multilateral trade negotiations while still mattering a great deal in enforcing the rules of the game. So Bali might represent the end of multilateral trade negotiations -- but it's not the end of multilateral trade.

<h4><strong>WTO is resilient but irrelevant</h4><p></strong>Daniel W. <strong>Drezner 13 </strong>is professor of international politics at Tufts University's Fletcher School and a contributing editor to Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, December 3, 2013, "The End of Multilateral Trade?", http://www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/12/03/the_end_of_multilateral_trade</p><p>This kind of story is both overly optimistic and overly pessimistic about the state of the WTO. It's overly optimistic in assuming that, <u>even if something is negotiated in Bali</u> (and the odds aren't great of that happening), <u><strong><mark>it's unlikely</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>the WTO will ever be the focal point for</mark> comprehensive trade <mark>talks ever again</u></strong></mark>. <u>Even getting agreement on the "easy" parts of Doha has been</u> <u><strong>super-hard</u></strong>. <u>There's very little upside to making the WTO the focal point of new talks</u>, <u><strong>especially <mark>given</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong>most</u></strong> of the regional and bilateral <u><strong>trade <mark>talks have been of the "open regionalism" variety</u></strong></mark>. On the other hand, <u><strong><mark>the "slippery slope" argument of the WTO losing relevance is</mark> also <mark>way overplayed</u></strong></mark>. Such a statement omits two very important facts. First, <u>even if there's no further WTO-guided liberalization, the <mark>rounds negotiated to date constitute</u></mark> <u><strong>far <mark>more liberalization than what can be achieved in the future</u></strong>.</mark> In other words, <u><strong>the WTO rules still govern a lot of trade, and further liberalization won't erode the WTO's bailiwick that much.</u></strong> Second, the <u>WTO's Dispute Settlement</u> Understanding <u>remains the ne plus ultra of enforcement arrangements in global governance</u>. Contrary to the WSJ story, <u><strong><mark>there is zero evidence</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong>WTO <mark>enforcement has weakened</mark> as Doha bogged down</u></strong> or as protectionism increased after 2008. <u>That part of the trade system is still working pretty well</u>. <u>For decades, trade commentary has implicitly embraced the "bicycle theory"</u> - the <u>belief</u> that <u>unless</u> multilateral <u>trade liberalization moves ahead, the entire global trade regime will collapse</u> because of a lack of forward momentum. <u><strong>The last decade</u></strong> -- and particularly the post-2008 period -- <u><strong>suggests</u></strong> that <u><strong>there are limits to that rule of thumb</u></strong>. <u><mark>It is possible for the WTO to matter less </mark>on jump-starting multilateral trade negotiations</u> <u><strong><mark>while still mattering a great deal in enforcing the rules of the game</u></strong>.</mark> So Bali might represent the end of multilateral trade negotiations -- but it's not the end of multilateral trade. </p>

1NC

Trade

1NC No WTO Impact

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Alt cause – disputes over Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.

Mackenzie 7/18,

Mackenzie 7/18, Emily, 2014, “World Trade Organization Finds United States Violated Global Trade Rules by Imposing Countervailing Duties on Chinese and Indian Products,” American Society of International Law, http://www.asil.org/blogs/world-trade-organization-finds-united-states-violated-global-trade-rules-imposing, Accessed 8/18/14

The WTO concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with global trade rules, and in particular certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, when it imposed countervailing duties on certain products imported into the United States from India and China.

The WTO concluded that the U S acted inconsistently with global trade rules, and certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, when it imposed countervailing duties on products imported from China.

On July 14, 2014, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued two panel reports in the cases United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (India case), and United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (China case). The WTO concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with global trade rules, and in particular certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, when it imposed countervailing duties on certain products imported into the United States from India and China. According to a news article, the United States argued that “it imposed the tariffs to combat artificially low prices on products from India and China's state-subsidised industries,” and has the right to appeal the ruling. Summaries of the key findings are available here (India case) and here (China case). - See more at: http://www.asil.org/blogs/world-trade-organization-finds-united-states-violated-global-trade-rules-imposing#sthash.HDFRC2vg.dpuf

<h4><strong>Alt cause – disputes over Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.</h4><p>Mackenzie 7/18, </strong>Emily, 2014, “World Trade Organization Finds United States Violated Global Trade Rules by Imposing Countervailing Duties on Chinese and Indian Products,” American Society of International Law, http://www.asil.org/blogs/world-trade-organization-finds-united-states-violated-global-trade-rules-imposing, Accessed 8/18/14</p><p>On July 14, 2014, the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued two panel reports in the cases United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India (India case), and United States – Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China (China case). <u><mark>The WTO concluded that the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>acted inconsistently with global trade rules, and</mark> in particular <mark>certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, when it imposed countervailing duties on</mark> certain <mark>products imported</mark> into the United States <mark>from</mark> India and <mark>China.</u></mark> According to a news article, the United States argued that “it imposed the tariffs to combat artificially low prices on products from India and China's state-subsidised industries,” and has the right to appeal the ruling. Summaries of the key findings are available here (India case) and here (China case). - See more at: http://www.asil.org/blogs/world-trade-organization-finds-united-states-violated-global-trade-rules-imposing#sthash.HDFRC2vg.dpuf</p>

1NR

WTO

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

All lives are infinitely valuable, the only ethical option is to maximize the number saved

Cummisky, 96

Cummisky, 96 (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131)

even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing one because dignity cannot be added and summed in this way point still does not justify deontologieal constraints why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons am concerned with the priceless dignity of each is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one. Then 1 cannot claim that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. even if dignity cannot be simply summed up. How is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible? each is priceless thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can

even if one grants saving two with dignity cannot outweigh killing one dignity cannot be summed this does not justify deontologieal constraints why would not killing one be stronger than saving two my reason cannot be the two compensate for the loss of one I can save two of three priceless statutes by destroying one. 1 cannot claim saving two makes up for one. But the loss of the two is not outweighed by one not destroyed. each is priceless I have reason to save as many as I can

Finally, even if one grants that saving two persons with dignity cannot outweigh and compensate for killing one—because dignity cannot be added and summed in this way—this point still does not justify deontologieal constraints. On the extreme interpretation, why would not killing one person be a stronger obligation than saving two persons? If I am concerned with the priceless dignity of each, it would seem that 1 may still saw two; it is just that my reason cannot be that the two compensate for the loss of the one. Consider Hills example of a priceless object: If I can save two of three priceless statutes only by destroying one. Then 1 cannot claim that saving two makes up for the loss of the one. But Similarly, the loss of the two is not outweighed by the one that was not destroyed. Indeed, even if dignity cannot be simply summed up. How is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible? Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the lass of the one, each is priceless: thus, I have good reason to save as many as I can. In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing'letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.*

<h4>All lives are infinitely valuable, the only ethical option is to maximize the number saved </h4><p><strong>Cummisky, 96</strong> (David, professor of philosophy at Bates, Kantian Consequentialism, p. 131)</p><p>Finally, <u><strong><mark>even if one grants</mark> that <mark>saving two</mark> persons <mark>with dignity cannot outweigh</mark> and compensate for <mark>killing one</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong>because <mark>dignity</mark> <mark>cannot be</mark> added and <mark>summed</mark> in this way</u></strong>—<mark>this</mark> <u><strong>point still <mark>does not justify deontologieal constraints</u></strong></mark>. On the extreme interpretation, <u><strong><mark>why would not killing one</mark> person <mark>be</mark> a <mark>stronger</mark> obligation <mark>than saving two</mark> persons</u></strong>? If I <u><strong>am concerned with the priceless dignity of each</u></strong>, it would seem that 1 may still saw two; it <u><strong>is just that <mark>my reason cannot be</mark> that <mark>the two compensate for the loss of</mark> the</u></strong> <mark>one</mark>. Consider Hills example of a priceless object: If <u><strong><mark>I can save two of three priceless statutes </mark>only <mark>by destroying one. </mark>Then <mark>1 cannot claim</mark> that <mark>saving two makes up for</mark> the loss of the <mark>one.</u></strong> But</mark> Similarly, <mark>the loss of the two is not outweighed by</mark> the <mark>one</mark> that was <mark>not destroyed.</mark> Indeed, <u><strong>even if dignity cannot be simply summed up. How is the extreme interpretation inconsistent with the idea that I should save as many priceless objects as possible?</u></strong> Even if two do not simply outweigh and thus compensate for the lass of the one, <u><strong><mark>each is priceless</u></strong></mark>: <u><strong>thus, <mark>I have </mark>good <mark>reason to save as many as I can</u></strong></mark>. In short, it is not clear how the extreme interpretation justifies the ordinary killing'letting-die distinction or even how it conflicts with the conclusion that the more persons with dignity who are saved, the better.*</p>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No impact to trade

Miller 14

Miller 14 (Charles Miller, lecturer at ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, “Globalisation and war,” April 2014) http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/globalisation-and-war/

the trade flows reduc conflict conclusions their model failed to take three things into account it’s quite possible that peace causes trade rather than the other way around—no company wants to start an export business to another country if it anticipates that business linkages will be cut off by war further down the line. Second, conflict behaviour exhibits what’s called ‘network effects’— if France and Germany are at peace, chances are Belgium and Germany will be too. And third, both the likelihood of conflict and the level of trade are influenced by the number of years a pair of countries has already been at peace Take any of these factors into account, and studies have shown that the apparent relationship between trade flows and peace disappears. The statistical evidence certainly doesn’t tell us that globalisation has made war in impossible.

the trade flows reduc conflict conclusions model failed to take three things into account it’s possible peace causes trade rather than the other way around no company wants to export if it anticipates war Second, conflict behaviour exhibits network effects’ third both the likelihood of conflict and the level of trade are influenced by the number of years a pair of countries has been at peace Take any of these into account, and studies have shown the relationship between trade flows and peace disappears The statistical evidence certainly doesn’t tell us that globalisation has made war in impossible

John O’Neal and Bruce Russett’s work is perhaps the best known in this regard—and Steven Pinker cites them approvingly in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Analysing trade and conflict data from the nineteenth to the twenty-first centuries, they found that trade flows do have a significant impact in reducing the chances of conflict, even when taking a variety of other factors into account. But their conclusions have in turn been questioned by other scholars. For one thing, their model failed to take three things into account. First, it’s quite possible that peace causes trade rather than the other way around—no company wants to start an export business to another country if it anticipates that business linkages will be cut off by war further down the line. Second, conflict behaviour exhibits what’s called ‘network effects’— if France and Germany are at peace, chances are Belgium and Germany will be too. And third, both the likelihood of conflict and the level of trade are influenced by the number of years a pair of countries has already been at peace—because prolonged periods of peace increase mutual trust. Take any of these factors into account, and studies have shown (here and here) that the apparent relationship between trade flows and peace disappears. Perhaps, though, conceiving of globalisation solely in terms of trade flows is mistaken. Alternative indicators of globalisation include foreign direct investment, financial openness and the levels of government intervention in economic relations with the rest of the world. Data on those variables is less extensive than on trade flows, usually dating back only to the post World War II period. But some analysts, such as Patrick McDonald and Erik Gartzke, have argued that a significant correlation can be found between them and a reduction in the probability of conflict. Those findings, newer than O’Neal and Russett’s, haven’t yet been subjected to the same intense scrutiny, so may in turn be qualified by future research. What does all that mean for the policy-maker? The statistical evidence certainly doesn’t tell us that globalisation has made war in East Asia impossible. ‘Cromwell’s law’ counsels us that a logically conceivable event should never be assigned a probability of zero. The most we could conclude is that globalisation has made such an occurrence much less likely. There’s some hopeful numerical evidence that globalisation does indeed have that effect, but the evidence isn’t so compelling that we can substitute an economic engagement policy for a security policy. By all means, let’s continue to promote trade in the Asia-Pacific. But we should also continue to be prepared for scenarios which are unlikely but would be hugely damaging if they were to occur.

<h4>No impact to trade</h4><p><strong>Miller 14</strong> (Charles Miller, lecturer at ANU’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, “Globalisation and war,” April 2014) http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/globalisation-and-war/</p><p>John O’Neal and Bruce Russett’s work is perhaps the best known in this regard—and Steven Pinker cites them approvingly in his book The Better Angels of Our Nature. Analysing trade and conflict data from the nineteenth to <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong></mark> twenty-first centuries, they found that<u><strong> <mark>trade flows</mark> </u></strong>do have a significant impact in<u><strong> <mark>reduc</u></strong></mark>ing the chances of<u><strong> <mark>conflict</u></strong></mark>, even when taking a variety of other factors into account. But their <u><strong><mark>conclusions</u></strong></mark> have in turn been questioned by other scholars. For one thing, <u><strong>their <mark>model failed to take three things into account</u></strong></mark>. First, <u><strong><mark>it’s </mark>quite <mark>possible </mark>that <mark>peace causes trade rather than the other way around</mark>—<mark>no company wants to </mark>start an <mark>export </mark>business to another country <mark>if it anticipates </mark>that business linkages will be cut off by <mark>war </mark>further down the line. <mark>Second, conflict behaviour exhibits </mark>what’s called ‘<mark>network effects’</mark>—<mark> </mark>if France and Germany are at peace, chances are Belgium and Germany will be too. And <mark>third</mark>, <mark>both the likelihood of conflict and the level of trade are influenced by the number of years a pair of countries has </mark>already <mark>been at peace</u></strong></mark>—because prolonged periods of peace increase mutual trust. <u><strong><mark>Take any of these </mark>factors <mark>into account, and studies have shown</u></strong> </mark>(here and here) <u><strong>that <mark>the </mark>apparent <mark>relationship between trade flows and peace disappears</mark>. </u></strong>Perhaps, though, conceiving of globalisation solely in terms of trade flows is mistaken. Alternative indicators of globalisation include foreign direct investment, financial openness and the levels of government intervention in economic relations with the rest of the world. Data on those variables is less extensive than on trade flows, usually dating back only to the post World War II period. But some analysts, such as Patrick McDonald and Erik Gartzke, have argued that a significant correlation can be found between them and a reduction in the probability of conflict. Those findings, newer than O’Neal and Russett’s, haven’t yet been subjected to the same intense scrutiny, so may in turn be qualified by future research. What does all that mean for the policy-maker? <u><strong><mark>The statistical evidence certainly doesn’t tell us that globalisation has made war in </u></strong></mark>East Asia <u><strong><mark>impossible</mark>. </u></strong>‘Cromwell’s law’ counsels us that a logically conceivable event should never be assigned a probability of zero. The most we could conclude is that globalisation has made such an occurrence much less likely. There’s some hopeful numerical evidence that globalisation does indeed have that effect, but the evidence isn’t so compelling that we can substitute an economic engagement policy for a security policy. By all means, let’s continue to promote trade in the Asia-Pacific. But we should also continue to be prepared for scenarios which are unlikely but would be hugely damaging if they were to occur.</p>

1NC

Trade

1NC No Trade War

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

US isn’t in compliance with 10 other rulings

Grimmett, Legislative Attornery, 2010 Jeanne, Congressional Research Service “WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases” http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32014.pdf

Grimmett, Legislative Attornery, 2010 Jeanne, Congressional Research Service “WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases” http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32014.pdf

there are 10 cases in which rulings have not yet been implemented or fully resolved The U S has not yet settled long disputes with the EU) regarding a music copyright statute and a statutory trademark provision affecting property confiscated by Cuba unresolved is a dispute with Japan initiated in 1999, over a provision of U.S. antidumping law The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 remains the target of sanctions by complainants EU and Japan due to continued payments to U.S firms Antigua’s challenge of U.S. online gambling a WTO-inconsistent cotton program in Brazil’s complaint programs were successfully challenged and the U S was found not to have fully complied Brazil has continued to pursue sanctions and on November 19, 2009, the WTO authorized Brazil to suspend tariff concessions on U.S. goods Four pending cases involve the U.S. practice of “zeroing,” in calculating dumping margins, disregards non-dumped sales. The practice was successfully challenged by the EU in two cases Japan, and Mexico The U S has yet to fully comply in EU I and in the challenges by Japan and Mexico to the extent that the WTO decisions affect the use of zeroing in other phases of U.S. antidumping With other facets of EU II remaining unaddressed, the EU has indicated that it may request a compliance panel in the proceeding.

there are 10 cases in which rulings have not yet been implemented disputes with the EU a statutory trademark provision affecting property confiscated by Cuba a dispute with Japan over antidumping a WTO-inconsistent cotton program Brazil has continued to pursue sanctions Four pending cases involve zeroing

Although the United States has complied with adverse rulings in many past World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes, there are currently 10 cases in which rulings have not yet been implemented or the United States has taken action and the dispute has not been fully resolved. Under WTO dispute settlement rules, a WTO Member will generally be given a reasonable period of time to comply with an adverse WTO decision. While the Member is expected to remove the offending measure by the end of this period, compensation and temporary retaliation are available if the Member has not acted or taken sufficient action by this time. Either disputing party may request a compliance panel if there is disagreement over whether a Member has complied. The United States has not yet settled long-standing disputes with the European Union (EU) regarding a music copyright statute and a statutory trademark provision affecting property confiscated by Cuba. H.R. 1530, H.R. 1531, H.R. 2272, and S. 1189 would repeal the trademark statute, while H.R. 1103 and S. 1234 would amend the provision. Also unresolved is a dispute with Japan, initiated in 1999, over a provision of U.S. antidumping law. The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), which was held WTO-inconsistent in January 2003 and repealed, effective October 2005, by P.L. 109-171, remains the target of sanctions by complainants EU and Japan due to continued payments to U.S firms under the CDSOA program. In addition, the United States and Antigua have been consulting on the resolution of outstanding issues in Antigua’s challenge of U.S. online gambling restrictions. P.L. 109-171 also repealed a WTO-inconsistent cotton program at issue in Brazil’s 2002 complaint over U.S. cotton subsidies, but other programs were also successfully challenged and the United States was later found not to have fully complied. The United States has since made statutory and administrative changes affecting the export credit guarantee programs faulted in the case. At the same time, Brazil has continued to pursue sanctions and on November 19, 2009, the WTO authorized Brazil to suspend tariff concessions on U.S. goods in an amount of $294.7 million a year, a figure that may vary annually based on actual U.S. export subsidization. In addition, if a variable threshold based on U.S. trade in goods with Brazil is exceeded, Brazil may suspend WTO obligations involving U.S. intellectual property and services. Brazil has published a list of U.S. goods potentially subject to increased tariffs, but will not announce until February 2010 the final list of products and the total value of sanctions that would be imposed. On December 21, 2009, Brazil announced that, based on 2008 data provided by the United States, it is entitled to annual retaliation of $829.3 million. Four pending cases involve the U.S. practice of “zeroing,” under which the Department of Commerce (DOC), in calculating dumping margins, disregards non-dumped sales. The practice was successfully challenged by the EU in two cases (EU I and II), Japan, and Mexico. In response to EU I, DOC discontinued the use of zeroing in the price comparison employed most often in original antidumping investigations and recalculated dumping margins in the cases cited by the EU. The United States has yet to fully comply in EU I and in the challenges by Japan and Mexico to the extent that the WTO decisions affect the use of zeroing in other phases of U.S. antidumping proceedings. Compliance proceedings in EU I and Japan’s challenge, completed in 2009, found against the United States, permitting complainants to pursue sanctions requests. Also, Mexico initiated compliance proceedings in August 2009, and a compliance deadline of December 19, 2009, was established in EU II. The United States stated that it will recalculate dumping margins in four original antidumping investigations cited in EU II and that it is discussing outstanding issues with interested parties. With other facets of EU II remaining unaddressed, however, the EU has indicated that it may request a compliance panel in the proceeding.

<h4>US isn’t in compliance with 10 other rulings </h4><p><strong>Grimmett, Legislative Attornery, 2010<u> Jeanne, Congressional Research Service “WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of U.S. Compliance in Pending Cases” http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RL32014.pdf</p><p></u></strong>Although the United States has complied with adverse rulings in many past World Trade Organization (WTO) disputes, <u><strong><mark>there are</u></strong></mark> currently <u><strong><mark>10 cases in which rulings have not yet been implemented</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>or</u></strong> the United States has taken action and the dispute has not been <u><strong>fully resolved</u></strong>. Under WTO dispute settlement rules, a WTO Member will generally be given a reasonable period of time to comply with an adverse WTO decision. While the Member is expected to remove the offending measure by the end of this period, compensation and temporary retaliation are available if the Member has not acted or taken sufficient action by this time. Either disputing party may request a compliance panel if there is disagreement over whether a Member has complied. <u><strong>The</u></strong> <u><strong>U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has not yet settled long</u></strong>-standing <u><strong><mark>disputes</mark> <mark>with the</u></strong></mark> European Union (<u><strong><mark>EU</mark>)</u></strong> <u><strong>regarding</u></strong> <u><strong>a music copyright statute</u></strong> <u><strong>and <mark>a</u></strong> <u><strong>statutory trademark provision</u></strong> <u><strong>affecting property confiscated by Cuba</u></strong></mark>. H.R. 1530, H.R. 1531, H.R. 2272, and S. 1189 would repeal the trademark statute, while H.R. 1103 and S. 1234 would amend the provision. Also <u><strong>unresolved is <mark>a dispute with Japan</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>initiated in 1999, <mark>over</mark> a provision of U.S. <mark>antidumping</mark> law</u></strong>. <u><strong>The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000</u></strong> (CDSOA), which was held WTO-inconsistent in January 2003 and repealed, effective October 2005, by P.L. 109-171, <u><strong>remains the target of sanctions by complainants EU and Japan due to continued payments to U.S firms</u></strong> under the CDSOA program. In addition, the United States and Antigua have been consulting on the resolution of outstanding issues in <u><strong>Antigua’s challenge of U.S. online gambling</u></strong> restrictions. P.L. 109-171 also repealed <u><strong><mark>a WTO-inconsistent cotton program</u></strong></mark> at issue <u><strong>in Brazil’s</u></strong> 2002 <u><strong>complaint</u></strong> over U.S. cotton subsidies, but other <u><strong>programs were</u></strong> also <u><strong>successfully challenged and the</u></strong> <u><strong>U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>was</u></strong> later <u><strong>found not to have fully complied</u></strong>. The United States has since made statutory and administrative changes affecting the export credit guarantee programs faulted in the case. At the same time, <u><strong><mark>Brazil has continued to pursue sanctions</mark> and on November 19, 2009, the WTO authorized Brazil to suspend tariff concessions on U.S. goods</u></strong> in an amount of $294.7 million a year, a figure that may vary annually based on actual U.S. export subsidization. In addition, if a variable threshold based on U.S. trade in goods with Brazil is exceeded, Brazil may suspend WTO obligations involving U.S. intellectual property and services. Brazil has published a list of U.S. goods potentially subject to increased tariffs, but will not announce until February 2010 the final list of products and the total value of sanctions that would be imposed. On December 21, 2009, Brazil announced that, based on 2008 data provided by the United States, it is entitled to annual retaliation of $829.3 million. <u><strong><mark>Four</u></strong> <u><strong>pending cases involve</mark> the U.S. practice of “<mark>zeroing</mark>,”</u></strong> under which the Department of Commerce (DOC), <u><strong>in calculating dumping margins, disregards non-dumped sales. The practice was successfully challenged by the EU in two cases</u></strong> (EU I and II), <u><strong>Japan, and Mexico</u></strong>. In response to EU I, DOC discontinued the use of zeroing in the price comparison employed most often in original antidumping investigations and recalculated dumping margins in the cases cited by the EU. <u><strong>The</u></strong> <u><strong>U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>has yet to fully comply in EU I and in the challenges by Japan and Mexico to the extent that the WTO decisions affect the use of zeroing in other phases of U.S. antidumping </u></strong>proceedings. Compliance proceedings in EU I and Japan’s challenge, completed in 2009, found against the United States, permitting complainants to pursue sanctions requests. Also, Mexico initiated compliance proceedings in August 2009, and a compliance deadline of December 19, 2009, was established in EU II. The United States stated that it will recalculate dumping margins in four original antidumping investigations cited in EU II and that it is discussing outstanding issues with interested parties. <u><strong>With other facets of EU II remaining unaddressed,</u></strong> however, <u><strong>the EU has indicated that it may request a compliance panel in the proceeding.</p></u></strong>

1NR

WTO

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Fear of deaths inevitable

Etogre ‘7

Etogre ‘7(E.T. Ogre, news website for the advance of the human species, “The Evolution of Religion: Playing on Mankind’s Greed, Hope, and Fears”, NM, http://etogre.com/the-evolution-of-religion-playing-on-mankinds-greed-hope-and-fears/168/)

The fear of death is a survival instinct hard-wired into the majority of living creatures on Earth This fear of death is perhaps best illustrated in a classic psychological example– the fight-or-flight response. This instinctive response occurs because death is essentially the unmitigated antithesis of survival, the key principle of evolution.   To suggest that humans in general naturally desire to exist forever is not exactly an unprecedented claim.

The fear of death is a survival instinct hard-wired This fear of death is illustrated in a psychological fight-or-flight response. death is the unmitigated antithesis of survival the key principle of evolution

The fear of death is a survival instinct hard-wired into the majority of living creatures on Earth. This fear of death is perhaps best illustrated in a classic psychological example– the fight-or-flight response. This is a reaction that can normally be observed by backing an animal into a corner, essentially forcing them into a stressful life or death situation. Adrenaline starts pumping, survival mode takes over, and the animal will either attempt to flee or hold its ground in a battle to the death. This instinctive response occurs because death is essentially the unmitigated antithesis of survival, the key principle of evolution.   To suggest that humans in general naturally desire to exist forever is not exactly an unprecedented claim.

<h4>Fear of deaths inevitable </h4><p><strong>Etogre ‘7<u></strong>(E.T. Ogre, news website for the advance of the human species, “The Evolution of Religion: Playing on Mankind’s Greed, Hope, and Fears”, NM, http://etogre.com/the-evolution-of-religion-playing-on-mankinds-greed-hope-and-fears/168/)</p><p><strong><mark>The fear of death is a survival instinct hard-wired </mark>into the majority of living creatures on Earth</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>This fear of death is </mark>perhaps best <mark>illustrated in a </mark>classic <mark>psychological </mark>example– the <mark>fight-or-flight response.</u></strong></mark> This is a reaction that can normally be observed by backing an animal into a corner, essentially forcing them into a stressful life or death situation. Adrenaline starts pumping, survival mode takes over, and the animal will either attempt to flee or hold its ground in a battle to the death. <u><strong>This instinctive response occurs because <mark>death is</mark> essentially <mark>the unmitigated antithesis of survival</mark>, <mark>the key principle of evolution</mark>.   To suggest that humans in general naturally desire to exist forever is not exactly an unprecedented claim.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No china trade disputes

Ikenson 12

Daniel Ikenson 12, Trade Policy Priority One: Averting a U.S.-China “Trade War”, www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/trade-policy-priority-one-averting-uschina-trade-war

It should not be surprising that increasing exchanges produce frictions on occasion. But the U.S.-China economic relationship has not descended into an existential call to arms. both governments have taken protectionist actions that are legally defensible within the rules of global trade unlike the free-for-all that erupted in the 1930s, these trade “skirmishes” have been prosecuted in respect

It should not be surprising that exchanges produce frictions But the U.S.-China economic relationship has not descended into arms both governments have taken protectionist actions that are legally defensible unlike free-for-all these trade “skirmishes” have been prosecuted in respect

It should not be surprising that the increasing number of commercial exchanges between entities in the world’s largest and second largest economies produce frictions on occasion. But the U.S.-China economic relationship has not descended into an existential call to arms. Rather, both governments have taken protectionist actions that are legally defensible or plausibly justifiable within the rules of global trade. That is not to say that those measures have been advisable or that they would withstand closer legal scrutiny, but to make the distinction that, unlike the free-for-all that erupted in the 1930s, these trade “skirmishes” have been prosecuted in a manner that speaks to a mutual recognition of the primacy of — if not respect for — the rules-based system of trade. And that suggests that the kerfuffle is containable and the recent trend reversible.1

<h4>No china trade disputes </h4><p>Daniel <strong>Ikenson 12</strong>, Trade Policy Priority One: Averting a U.S.-China “Trade War”, www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/trade-policy-priority-one-averting-uschina-trade-war</p><p><u><strong><mark>It should not be surprising that</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong>increasing</u></strong> number of commercial <u><strong><mark>exchanges</u></strong></mark> between entities in the world’s largest and second largest economies <u><strong><mark>produce frictions</mark> on occasion. <mark>But the U.S.-China economic relationship has not descended into</mark> an existential call to <mark>arms</mark>.</u></strong> Rather, <u><strong><mark>both governments have taken protectionist actions that are legally defensible</u></strong></mark> or plausibly justifiable <u><strong>within the rules of global trade</u></strong>. That is not to say that those measures have been advisable or that they would withstand closer legal scrutiny, but to make the distinction that, <u><strong><mark>unlike</mark> the <mark>free-for-all</mark> that erupted in the 1930s, <mark>these trade “skirmishes” have been prosecuted in</u></strong></mark> a manner that speaks to a mutual recognition of the primacy of — if not <u><strong><mark>respect</u></strong></mark> for — the rules-based system of trade. And that suggests that the kerfuffle is containable and the recent trend reversible.1</p>

1NC

Trade

1NC No China Internal

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

AT: Econ – there are a ton of things that affect our economy – also history disproves Knickmeyer 14 – State sponsers/ransom

Knickmeyer 14 – State sponsers/ransom

<h4><strong>AT: Econ – there are a ton of things that affect our economy – also history disproves</h4><p>Knickmeyer 14 – State sponsers/ransom</p></strong>

1NR

Market

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

“No value to life” doesn’t outweigh---prioritize existence

Tännsjö 11

Torbjörn Tännsjö 11, the Kristian Claëson Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University, 2011, “Shalt Thou Sometimes Murder? On the Ethics of Killing,” online: http://people.su.se/~jolso/HS-texter/shaltthou.pdf

if Schopenhauer is right, if life is never worth living, then according to utilitarianism we should all commit suicide and put an end to humanity But this does not mean that, each of us should commit suicide utilitarianism should be applied to collective actions It is a possibility that, even if people lead lives not worth living they believe they do even if some may believe that their lives, up to now, have not been worth living their future lives will be better My strong belief is that most of us live lives worth living for the sake of the argument assume that our lives are not worth living, and let us accept that, if this is so, we should all kill ourselves this does not answer the question what we should do, each one of us we should not commit suicide If I kill myself, many people will suffer Suicide leads to rage, loneliness, and awareness of vulnerability in those left behind The fact that all our lives lack meaning if they do, does not mean that others will follow my example

if Schopenhauer is right, life is never worth living we should end humanity. But It is a possibility even if people lead lives not worth living, they believe they do some may believe their future lives will be better My belief is most live lives worth living for argument assume lives are not worth living, and if so, we should kill ourselves this does not answer what we should do we should not commit suicide If I kill myself, many will suffer Suicide leads to loneliness in those left behind The fact that all our lives lack meaning does not mean others will follow my example

I suppose it is correct to say that, if Schopenhauer is right, if life is never worth living, then according to utilitarianism we should all commit suicide and put an end to humanity. But this does not mean that, each of us should commit suicide. I commented on this in chapter two when I presented the idea that utilitarianism should be applied, not only to individual actions, but to collective actions as well. It is a well-known fact that people rarely commit suicide. Some even claim that no one who is mentally sound commits suicide. Could that be taken as evidence for the claim that people live lives worth living? That would be rash. Many people are not utilitarians. They may avoid suicide because they believe that it is morally wrong to kill oneself. It is also a possibility that, even if people lead lives not worth living, they believe they do. And even if some may believe that their lives, up to now, have not been worth living, their future lives will be better. They may be mistaken about this. They may hold false expectations about the future. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, it is natural to assume that people should rarely commit suicide. If we set old age to one side, it has poor survival value (of one’s genes) to kill oneself. So it should be expected that it is difficult for ordinary people to kill themselves. But then theories about cognitive dissonance, known from psychology, should warn us that we may come to believe that we live better lives than we do. My strong belief is that most of us live lives worth living. However, I do believe that our lives are close to the point where they stop being worth living. But then it is at least not very far-fetched to think that they may be worth not living, after all. My assessment may be too optimistic. Let us just for the sake of the argument assume that our lives are not worth living, and let us accept that, if this is so, we should all kill ourselves. As I noted above, this does not answer the question what we should do, each one of us. My conjecture is that we should not commit suicide. The explanation is simple. If I kill myself, many people will suffer. Here is a rough explanation of how this will happen: ... suicide “survivors” confront a complex array of feelings. Various forms of guilt are quite common, such as that arising from (a) the belief that one contributed to the suicidal person's anguish, or (b) the failure to recognize that anguish, or (c) the inability to prevent the suicidal act itself. Suicide also leads to rage, loneliness, and awareness of vulnerability in those left behind. Indeed, the sense that suicide is an essentially selfish act dominates many popular perceptions of suicide. The fact that all our lives lack meaning, if they do, does not mean that others will follow my example. They will go on with their lives and their false expectations — at least for a while devastated because of my suicide. But then I have an obligation, for their sake, to go on with my life. It is highly likely that, by committing suicide, I create more suffering (in their lives) than I avoid (in my life).

<h4>“No value to life” <u>doesn’t</u> outweigh---prioritize <u>existence</u> </h4><p>Torbjörn <strong>Tännsjö 11</strong>, the Kristian Claëson Professor of Practical Philosophy at Stockholm University, 2011, “Shalt Thou Sometimes Murder? On the Ethics of Killing,” online: http://people.su.se/~jolso/HS-texter/shaltthou.pdf</p><p>I suppose it is correct to say that, <u><strong><mark>if Schopenhauer is right,</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>if <mark>life is never worth living</mark>,</u></strong> <u><strong>then according to utilitarianism <mark>we should</mark> all commit suicide</u></strong> <u><strong>and put an <mark>end</mark> to <mark>humanity</u></strong>. <u><strong>But</mark> this does not mean that, each of us should commit suicide</u></strong>. I commented on this in chapter two when I presented the idea that <u><strong>utilitarianism should be applied</u></strong>, not only to individual actions, but <u><strong>to collective actions</u></strong> as well. It is a well-known fact that people rarely commit suicide. Some even claim that no one who is mentally sound commits suicide. Could that be taken as evidence for the claim that people live lives worth living? That would be rash. Many people are not utilitarians. They may avoid suicide because they believe that it is morally wrong to kill oneself. <u><strong><mark>It is</u></strong></mark> also <u><strong><mark>a possibility</mark> that,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>even if people lead lives not worth living</u></strong>, <u><strong>they believe they do</u></strong></mark>. And <u><strong>even if <mark>some may believe</mark> that their lives, up to now, have not been worth living</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>their future lives will be better</u></strong></mark>. They may be mistaken about this. They may hold false expectations about the future. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, it is natural to assume that people should rarely commit suicide. If we set old age to one side, it has poor survival value (of one’s genes) to kill oneself. So it should be expected that it is difficult for ordinary people to kill themselves. But then theories about cognitive dissonance, known from psychology, should warn us that we may come to believe that we live better lives than we do. <u><strong><mark>My</mark> strong <mark>belief is</mark> that</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>most</mark> of us <mark>live lives worth living</u></strong></mark>. However, I do believe that our lives are close to the point where they stop being worth living. But then it is at least not very far-fetched to think that they may be worth not living, after all. My assessment may be too optimistic. Let us just <u><strong><mark>for</mark> the sake of the <mark>argument assume</mark> that our <mark>lives are not worth living, and</mark> let us accept that, <mark>if</mark> this is <mark>so, we should</mark> all <mark>kill ourselves</u></strong></mark>. As I noted above, <u><strong><mark>this does not answer</mark> the question <mark>what we should do</mark>, each one of us</u></strong>. My conjecture is that <u><strong><mark>we should not commit suicide</u></strong></mark>. The explanation is simple. <u><strong><mark>If I kill myself, many</mark> people <mark>will suffer</u></strong></mark>. Here is a rough explanation of how this will happen: ... suicide “survivors” confront a complex array of feelings. Various forms of guilt are quite common, such as that arising from (a) the belief that one contributed to the suicidal person's anguish, or (b) the failure to recognize that anguish, or (c) the inability to prevent the suicidal act itself. <u><strong><mark>Suicide</u></strong></mark> also <u><strong><mark>leads to</mark> rage, <mark>loneliness</mark>, and awareness of vulnerability <mark>in those left behind</u></strong></mark>. Indeed, the sense that suicide is an essentially selfish act dominates many popular perceptions of suicide. <u><strong><mark>The fact that all our lives lack meaning</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>if they do, <mark>does not mean</mark> that <mark>others will follow my example</u></strong></mark>. They will go on with their lives and their false expectations — at least for a while devastated because of my suicide. But then I have an obligation, for their sake, to go on with my life. It is highly likely that, by committing suicide, I create more suffering (in their lives) than I avoid (in my life).</p>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No China war

Stutter 14 is Professor of Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University, China-US Focus, March 19, 2014, "Why China Avoids Confronting the U.S. in Asia", http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-avoids-confronting-the-u-s-in-asia-2/

Robert Stutter 14 is Professor of Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University, China-US Focus, March 19, 2014, "Why China Avoids Confronting the U.S. in Asia", http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-avoids-confronting-the-u-s-in-asia-2/

Forecasts talk of an inevitable U.S.-China conflict However, enduring circumstances hold back Chinese leaders from confronting America Chinese economic growth and one-party rule require stability protecting Chinese security and sovereignty remains a top concern Though China has regional ambitions domestic concerns get overall priority. Xi is preoccupied with uncertain leadership legitimacy pervasive corruption, widespread mass protests, and unsustainable economic practices. Beijing’s reform agenda requires strong leadership for many years Under these circumstances, Xi was unusually accommodating in meeting Obama Xi also presides over China’s greater assertiveness on territorial issues but Chinese probes avoid direct confrontation with the superpower. Growing economic and other U.S.-China interdependence reinforces constructive relations “Gulliver strategies” tie down aggressive, assertive policy tendencies through interdependence in bilateral relationships Asian stability is essential for China’s economic growth—the lynch pin of Communist rule. Facing formidable American presence and influence and lacking a secure periphery China almost certainly calculates that seriously confronting the U S poses grave dangers.

enduring circumstances hold Chinese leaders from confronting America Chinese growth and party rule require stability Though China has regional ambitions, domestic concerns get priority Xi is preoccupied with leadership legitimacy Beijing’s reform agenda requires strong leadership Under these circumstances, Xi was unusually accommodating in meeting Obama Growing economic interdependence reinforces constructive relations. Gulliver strategies” tie down aggressive tendencies through bilateral relationships Asian stability is essential for China’s growth—the lynch pin of Communist rule China certainly calculates confronting the U S poses grave dangers.

Forecasts talk of U.S. retreat from domineering China or an inevitable U.S.-China conflict. However, enduring circumstances hold back Chinese leaders from confronting America, the regional leader. Domestic preoccupations Chinese economic growth and one-party rule require stability. And protecting Chinese security and sovereignty remains a top concern. Though China also has regional and global ambitions, domestic concerns get overall priority. President Xi Jinping is preoccupied with uncertain leadership legitimacy, pervasive corruption, widespread mass protests, and unsustainable economic practices. Beijing’s reform agenda requires strong leadership for many years. Under these circumstances, Xi was unusually accommodating in meeting President Obama in California in 2013; he seeks a new kind of major power relationship. Xi also presides over China’s greater assertiveness on territorial issues that involve the United States, but thus far Chinese probes avoid direct confrontation with the superpower. Mutual interdependence Growing economic and other U.S.-China interdependence reinforces constructive relations. Respective “Gulliver strategies” tie down aggressive, assertive, or other negative policy tendencies through webs of interdependence in bilateral and multilateral relationships. China’s insecurity in Asia Nearby Asia is China’s top foreign priority. It contains security and sovereignty issues (e.g. Taiwan) of highest importance. It is the main arena of interaction with the United States. Its economic importance far surpasses the rest of world (China is Africa’s biggest trader but it does more trade with South Korea). Asian stability is essential for China’s economic growth—the lynch pin of Communist rule. Facing formidable American presence and influence and lacking a secure periphery, China almost certainly calculates that seriously confronting the United States poses grave dangers.

<h4><strong>No China war </h4><p></strong>Robert <strong>Stutter 14 <u>is Professor of Practice of International Affairs at George Washington University, China-US Focus, March 19, 2014, "Why China Avoids Confronting the U.S. in Asia", http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-avoids-confronting-the-u-s-in-asia-2/</p><p></strong>Forecasts talk of</u> U.S. retreat from domineering China or <u>an inevitable U.S.-China conflict</u>. <u><strong>However, <mark>enduring circumstances hold</mark> back <mark>Chinese leaders from confronting America</u></strong></mark>, the regional leader. Domestic preoccupations <u><mark>Chinese</mark> economic <mark>growth and</mark> one-<mark>party rule require stability</u></mark>. And <u><strong>protecting Chinese security and sovereignty remains a top concern</u></strong>. <u><mark>Though China</u></mark> also <u><mark>has regional</u></mark> and global <u><mark>ambitions</u>, <u><strong>domestic concerns get</mark> overall <mark>priority</mark>. </u></strong>President <u><mark>Xi</u></mark> Jinping <u><mark>is</u> <u><strong>preoccupied with</mark> uncertain <mark>leadership legitimacy</u></strong></mark>, <u>pervasive corruption, widespread mass protests, and unsustainable economic practices. <mark>Beijing’s reform agenda requires strong leadership</mark> for many years</u>. <u><strong><mark>Under these circumstances, Xi was unusually accommodating in meeting</u></strong></mark> President <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> in California in 2013; he seeks a new kind of major power relationship. <u>Xi also presides over China’s greater assertiveness on territorial issues</u> that involve the United States, <u><strong>but</u></strong> thus far <u><strong>Chinese probes avoid direct confrontation with the superpower. </u></strong>Mutual interdependence <u><strong><mark>Growing economic</mark> and other U.S.-China <mark>interdependence reinforces constructive relations</u></strong>.</mark> Respective <u><strong>“<mark>Gulliver strategies” tie down aggressive</mark>, assertive</u></strong>, or other negative <u><strong>policy <mark>tendencies through</u></strong></mark> webs of <u><strong>interdependence in <mark>bilateral</u></strong></mark> and multilateral <u><strong><mark>relationships</u></strong></mark>. China’s insecurity in Asia Nearby Asia is China’s top foreign priority. It contains security and sovereignty issues (e.g. Taiwan) of highest importance. It is the main arena of interaction with the United States. Its economic importance far surpasses the rest of world (China is Africa’s biggest trader but it does more trade with South Korea). <u><strong><mark>Asian stability is essential for China’s</mark> economic <mark>growth—the lynch pin of Communist rule</mark>.</u></strong> <u>Facing formidable American presence and influence and lacking a secure periphery</u>, <u><strong><mark>China</mark> almost <mark>certainly calculates</mark> that seriously <mark>confronting the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates<u><strong> <mark>poses grave dangers.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NC

Trade

1NC No China War

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

European ransom payments are a huge alt cause to terrorist funding

Callimachi 14

Callimachi 14 (Rukmini, correspondent for the nytimes, July 29, 2014, “Paying Ransoms, Europe Bankrolls Qaeda Terror”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html?_r=0///TS)

The cash filled three suitcases: 5 million euros all sides understood that the cash was bound for an obscure group of Islamic extremists who were holding 32 European hostages, according to six senior diplomats directly involved in the exchange. The suitcases were loaded onto pickup trucks and driven hundreds of miles north into the Sahara, where the bearded fighters, who would soon become an official arm of Al Qaeda, counted the money on a blanket thrown on the sand. Eleven years later, the handoff in Bamako has become a well-rehearsed ritual, one of dozens of such transactions repeated all over the world. Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe Al Qaeda and its direct affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008, of which $66 million was paid just last year. These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, who funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid, according to interviews conducted for this article with former hostages, negotiators, diplomats and government officials in 10 countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East In its early years, Al Qaeda received most of its money from deep-pocketed donors, but counterterrorism officials now believe the group finances the bulk of its recruitment, training and arms purchases from ransoms paid to free Europeans. Europe has become an inadvertent underwriter of Al Qaeda. the fact that Europe and its intermediaries continue to pay has set off a vicious cycle. “Kidnapping for ransom has become today’s most significant source of terrorist financing,” Each transaction encourages another transaction.” And business is booming: While in 2003 the kidnappers received around $200,000 per hostage, now they are netting up to $10 million, money that the second in command of Al Qaeda’s central leadership recently described as accounting for as much as half of his operating revenue. “Kidnapping hostages is an easy spoil which I may describe as a profitable trade and a precious treasure The stream of income generated is so significant that internal documents show that as long as five years ago, Al Qaeda’s central command in Pakistan was overseeing negotiations for hostages grabbed as far afield as Africa. three main affiliates of the terrorist group — Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in northern Africa; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen; and the Shabab, in Somalia — are coordinating their efforts and abiding by a common kidnapping protocol. To minimize the risk to their fighters, the terror affiliates have outsourced the seizing of hostages to criminal groups who work on commission Now the group has realized it can advance the cause of jihad by keeping hostages alive and trading them for prisoners and suitcases of cash. Only a handful of countries have resisted paying, led by the United States and Britain. The Europeans have a lot to answer for It’s a completely two-faced policy. They pay ransoms and then deny any was paid.” She added, “The danger of this is not just that it grows the terrorist movement, but it makes all of our citizens vulnerable.”

Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe Al Qaeda and its affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008 Al Qaeda now finances its purchases from ransoms Europe has become an underwriter of Al Qaeda the fact that Europe continue to pay has set off a vicious cycle. “Kidnapping for ransom has become today’s most significant source of terrorist financing The stream of income generated is so significant that documents show that Al Qaeda’s central command was overseeing negotiations for hostages grabbed as far as Africa

BAMAKO, Mali — The cash filled three suitcases: 5 million euros. The German official charged with delivering this cargo arrived here aboard a nearly empty military plane and was whisked away to a secret meeting with the president of Mali, who had offered Europe a face-saving solution to a vexing problem. Officially, Germany had budgeted the money as humanitarian aid for the poor, landlocked nation of Mali. In truth, all sides understood that the cash was bound for an obscure group of Islamic extremists who were holding 32 European hostages, according to six senior diplomats directly involved in the exchange. The suitcases were loaded onto pickup trucks and driven hundreds of miles north into the Sahara, where the bearded fighters, who would soon become an official arm of Al Qaeda, counted the money on a blanket thrown on the sand. The 2003 episode was a learning experience for both sides. Eleven years later, the handoff in Bamako has become a well-rehearsed ritual, one of dozens of such transactions repeated all over the world. Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe. While European governments deny paying ransoms, an investigation by The New York Times found that Al Qaeda and its direct affiliates have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008, of which $66 million was paid just last year. In news releases and statements, the United States Treasury Department has cited ransom amounts that, taken together, put the total at around $165 million over the same period. These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, who funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid, according to interviews conducted for this article with former hostages, negotiators, diplomats and government officials in 10 countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East. The inner workings of the kidnapping business were also revealed in thousands of pages of internal Qaeda documents found by this reporter while on assignment for The Associated Press in northern Mali last year. In its early years, Al Qaeda received most of its money from deep-pocketed donors, but counterterrorism officials now believe the group finances the bulk of its recruitment, training and arms purchases from ransoms paid to free Europeans. Put more bluntly, Europe has become an inadvertent underwriter of Al Qaeda. The foreign ministries of Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland denied in emails or telephone interviews that they had paid the terrorists. “The French authorities have repeatedly stated that France does not pay ransoms,” said Vincent Floreani, deputy director of communication for France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Several senior diplomats involved in past negotiations have described the decision to pay ransom for their countries’ citizens as an agonizing calculation: Accede to the terrorists’ demand, or allow innocent people to be killed, often in a gruesome, public way? Yet the fact that Europe and its intermediaries continue to pay has set off a vicious cycle. “Kidnapping for ransom has become today’s most significant source of terrorist financing,” said David S. Cohen, the Treasury Department’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, in a 2012 speech. “Each transaction encourages another transaction.” And business is booming: While in 2003 the kidnappers received around $200,000 per hostage, now they are netting up to $10 million, money that the second in command of Al Qaeda’s central leadership recently described as accounting for as much as half of his operating revenue. “Kidnapping hostages is an easy spoil,” wrote Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, “which I may describe as a profitable trade and a precious treasure.” The stream of income generated is so significant that internal documents show that as long as five years ago, Al Qaeda’s central command in Pakistan was overseeing negotiations for hostages grabbed as far afield as Africa. Moreover, the accounts of survivors held thousands of miles apart show that the three main affiliates of the terrorist group — Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in northern Africa; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen; and the Shabab, in Somalia — are coordinating their efforts and abiding by a common kidnapping protocol. To minimize the risk to their fighters, the terror affiliates have outsourced the seizing of hostages to criminal groups who work on commission. Negotiators take a reported 10 percent of the ransom, creating an incentive on both sides of the Mediterranean to increase the overall payout, according to former hostages and senior counterterrorism officials. Their business plan includes a step-by-step process for negotiating, starting with long periods of silence aimed at creating panic back home. Hostages are then shown on videos begging their government to negotiate. Although the kidnappers threaten to kill their victims, a review of the known cases revealed that only a small percentage of hostages held by Qaeda affiliates have been executed in the past five years, a marked turnaround from a decade ago, when videos showing beheadings of foreigners held by the group’s franchise in Iraq would regularly turn up online. Now the group has realized it can advance the cause of jihad by keeping hostages alive and trading them for prisoners and suitcases of cash. Only a handful of countries have resisted paying, led by the United States and Britain. Although both these countries have negotiated with extremist groups — evidenced most recently by the United States’ trade of Taliban prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — they have drawn the line when it comes to ransoms. It is a decision that has had dire consequences. While dozens of Europeans have been released unharmed, few American or British nationals have gotten out alive. A lucky few ran away or were rescued by special forces. The rest were executed or are being held indefinitely. “The Europeans have a lot to answer for,” said Vicki Huddleston, the former United States deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, who was the ambassador to Mali in 2003 when Germany paid the first ransom. “It’s a completely two-faced policy. They pay ransoms and then deny any was paid.” She added, “The danger of this is not just that it grows the terrorist movement, but it makes all of our citizens vulnerable.”

<h4>European ransom payments are a huge alt cause to terrorist funding </h4><p><strong>Callimachi 14</strong> (Rukmini, correspondent for the nytimes, July 29, 2014, “Paying Ransoms, Europe Bankrolls Qaeda Terror”, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/world/africa/ransoming-citizens-europe-becomes-al-qaedas-patron.html?_r=0///TS)</p><p>BAMAKO, Mali — <u><strong>The cash filled three suitcases: 5 million euros</u></strong>. The German official charged with delivering this cargo arrived here aboard a nearly empty military plane and was whisked away to a secret meeting with the president of Mali, who had offered Europe a face-saving solution to a vexing problem. Officially, Germany had budgeted the money as humanitarian aid for the poor, landlocked nation of Mali. In truth, <u><strong>all sides understood that the cash was bound for an obscure group of Islamic extremists who were holding 32 European hostages, according to six senior diplomats directly involved in the exchange. The suitcases were loaded onto pickup trucks and driven hundreds of miles north into the Sahara, where the bearded fighters, who would soon become an official arm of Al Qaeda, counted the money on a blanket thrown on the sand.</u></strong> The 2003 episode was a learning experience for both sides. <u><strong>Eleven years later, the handoff in Bamako has become a well-rehearsed ritual, one of dozens of such transactions repeated all over the world. <mark>Kidnapping Europeans for ransom has become a global business for Al Qaeda, bankrolling its operations across the globe</u></strong></mark>. While European governments deny paying ransoms, an investigation by The New York Times found that <u><strong><mark>Al Qaeda and its</mark> direct <mark>affiliates</mark> <mark>have taken in at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008</mark>, of which $66 million was paid just last year.</u></strong> In news releases and statements, the United States Treasury Department has cited ransom amounts that, taken together, put the total at around $165 million over the same period. <u><strong>These payments were made almost exclusively by European governments, who funneled the money through a network of proxies, sometimes masking it as development aid, according to interviews conducted for this article with former hostages, negotiators, diplomats and government officials in 10 countries in Europe, Africa and the Middle East</u></strong>. The inner workings of the kidnapping business were also revealed in thousands of pages of internal Qaeda documents found by this reporter while on assignment for The Associated Press in northern Mali last year. <u><strong>In its early years,<mark> Al Qaeda </mark>received most of its money from deep-pocketed donors, but counterterrorism officials <mark>now </mark>believe the group <mark>finances </mark>the bulk of<mark> its </mark>recruitment, training and arms <mark>purchases from ransoms </mark>paid to free Europeans.</u></strong> Put more bluntly, <u><strong><mark>Europe has become an</mark> inadvertent <mark>underwriter of Al Qaeda</mark>.</u></strong> The foreign ministries of Austria, France, Germany, Italy and Switzerland denied in emails or telephone interviews that they had paid the terrorists. “The French authorities have repeatedly stated that France does not pay ransoms,” said Vincent Floreani, deputy director of communication for France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Several senior diplomats involved in past negotiations have described the decision to pay ransom for their countries’ citizens as an agonizing calculation: Accede to the terrorists’ demand, or allow innocent people to be killed, often in a gruesome, public way? Yet <u><strong><mark>the fact that Europe</mark> and its intermediaries <mark>continue to pay has set off a vicious cycle. “Kidnapping for ransom has become today’s most significant source of terrorist financing</mark>,”</u></strong> said David S. Cohen, the Treasury Department’s under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, in a 2012 speech. “<u><strong>Each transaction encourages another transaction.” And business is booming: While in 2003 the kidnappers received around $200,000 per hostage, now they are netting up to $10 million, money that the second in command of Al Qaeda’s central leadership recently described as accounting for as much as half of his operating revenue. “Kidnapping hostages is an easy spoil</u></strong>,” wrote Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, “<u><strong>which I may describe as a profitable trade and a precious treasure</u></strong>.” <u><strong><mark>The stream of income generated is so significant that</mark> internal <mark>documents show that</mark> as long as five years ago, <mark>Al Qaeda’s central command</mark> in Pakistan <mark>was overseeing negotiations for hostages grabbed as far</mark> afield <mark>as Africa</mark>.</u></strong> Moreover, the accounts of survivors held thousands of miles apart show that the <u><strong>three main affiliates of the terrorist group — Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, in northern Africa; Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, in Yemen; and the Shabab, in Somalia — are coordinating their efforts and abiding by a common kidnapping protocol. To minimize the risk to their fighters, the terror affiliates have outsourced the seizing of hostages to criminal groups who work on commission</u></strong>. Negotiators take a reported 10 percent of the ransom, creating an incentive on both sides of the Mediterranean to increase the overall payout, according to former hostages and senior counterterrorism officials. Their business plan includes a step-by-step process for negotiating, starting with long periods of silence aimed at creating panic back home. Hostages are then shown on videos begging their government to negotiate. Although the kidnappers threaten to kill their victims, a review of the known cases revealed that only a small percentage of hostages held by Qaeda affiliates have been executed in the past five years, a marked turnaround from a decade ago, when videos showing beheadings of foreigners held by the group’s franchise in Iraq would regularly turn up online. <u><strong>Now the group has realized it can advance the cause of jihad by keeping hostages alive and trading them for prisoners and suitcases of cash. Only a handful of countries have resisted paying, led by the United States and Britain. </u></strong>Although both these countries have negotiated with extremist groups — evidenced most recently by the United States’ trade of Taliban prisoners for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl — they have drawn the line when it comes to ransoms. It is a decision that has had dire consequences. While dozens of Europeans have been released unharmed, few American or British nationals have gotten out alive. A lucky few ran away or were rescued by special forces. The rest were executed or are being held indefinitely. “<u><strong>The Europeans have a lot to answer for</u></strong>,” said Vicki Huddleston, the former United States deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, who was the ambassador to Mali in 2003 when Germany paid the first ransom. “<u><strong>It’s a completely two-faced policy. They pay ransoms and then deny any was paid.” She added, “The danger of this is not just that it grows the terrorist movement, but it makes all of our citizens vulnerable.”</u></strong> </p>

1NR

Market

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The plan doesn’t legalize PMs---they’re not online gambling

Ozimek 14

Adam Ozimek 14, Director of Research and Senior Economist, Econsult Solutions, Inc, March 2014, “THE REGULATION AND VALUE OF PREDICTION MARKETS,” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Ozimek_PredictionMarkets_v1.pdf

Prediction markets have long operated under a restrictive legal environment as a result of both explicit regulation and legal uncertainty. The regulation of real-money prediction markets is complicated because they resemble, but are not equivalent to gambling

Prediction markets have long operated under a restrictive legal environment real-money prediction markets resemble, but are not equivalent to gambling

Prediction markets have long operated under a restrictive legal environment as a result of both explicit regulation and legal uncertainty. To understand this legal context, a natural first question is: why do these markets raise any legal issues to begin with? In fact, as long as there is no cash or prize offered, a prediction market would likely raise no legal issues. As a noncommercial means of reporting on opinions, it would likely be protected by the First Amendment as free expression rather than free enterprise (Bell 2011). The regulation of real-money prediction markets, on the other hand, is complicated because they resemble, but are not equivalent to, two other highly regulated goods: commodity futures and gambling. As a result, prediction markets have historically been affected by laws and regulatory bodies targeted at these industries.

<h4>The plan doesn’t legalize PMs---they’re not online gambling </h4><p>Adam <strong>Ozimek 14</strong>, Director of Research and Senior Economist, Econsult Solutions, Inc, March 2014, “THE REGULATION AND VALUE OF PREDICTION MARKETS,” http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Ozimek_PredictionMarkets_v1.pdf</p><p><u><strong><mark>Prediction markets have</u></strong> <u><strong>long operated under a restrictive legal environment</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>as a result of both explicit regulation and legal uncertainty.</u></strong> To understand this legal context, a natural first question is: why do these markets raise any legal issues to begin with? In fact, as long as there is no cash or prize offered, a prediction market would likely raise no legal issues. As a noncommercial means of reporting on opinions, it would likely be protected by the First Amendment as free expression rather than free enterprise (Bell 2011). <u><strong>The regulation of</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>real-money prediction markets</u></strong></mark>, on the other hand, <u><strong>is complicated because they</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>resemble, but are not equivalent to</u></strong></mark>, two other highly regulated goods: commodity futures and <u><strong><mark>gambling</u></strong></mark>. As a result, prediction markets have historically been affected by laws and regulatory bodies targeted at these industries.</p>

2NC

2NC CP

AT PM

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

N

Wake

3

Michigan KK

Logan Gramzinski

1AC OG Laundering Trade Econ 1NC Security K Iran Politics Econ DA Ban CP TRIPS CP 2NC Security K Case 1NR Iran Politics 2NR Iran Politics Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Wake-Round3.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Fear of death is a pre-requisite to death’s symbolic value

Kalnow 9 A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MPhil at the University of St. Andrews “WHY DEATH CAN BE BAD AND IMMORTALITY IS WORSE” https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/724/3/Cara%20Kalnow%20MPhil%20thesis.PDF

Cara Kalnow 9 A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MPhil at the University of St. Andrews “WHY DEATH CAN BE BAD AND IMMORTALITY IS WORSE” https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/724/3/Cara%20Kalnow%20MPhil%20thesis.PDF

our lives accumulate value through the satisfaction of our desires beyond the boundaries of the natural termination of life. But finitude is a necessary condition for the value of life as such and our human values rely on the finite temporal structure of life the finitude of life is instrumentally good as it provides the recognition that life itself is valuable. Although the finitude of life cannot be an evil, this conclusion was not reached from the Epicurean arguments against the badness of death my position still negotiates a middle ground between the Epicureans and Williams it is rational to fear death and regard it as an evil to be avoided we can rationally fear our future deaths, as categorical desires provide a disutility by which the prospect of death is rationally held as an evil to be avoided Epicureans were right: death—when it occurs—is nothing to us it is rational to fear death not because death is bad, but rather because the prospect of our deaths may be presented to us as bad for us if our deaths would prevent the satisfaction of our categorical desires. Though we have good reasons to rationally regard the prospect of our own death as an evil for us, the fact that life is finite cannot be an evil and is in fact instrumentally good, because it takes the threat of losing life to recognize that life as such is valuable even though death cannot be of any moral worth for us once it occurs, we can attach two distinct values to death while we are alive: we can attach a value of disutility (or utility) to the prospect of our deaths, and we must attach an instrumentally good value to the fact of death as such. How to decide on the balance of those values is a matter for psychological judgment.

our lives accumulate value through satisfaction of our desires finitude is a necessary condition for the value of life finitude provides recognition that life itself is valuable this conclusion was not reached from arguments against the badness of death it is rational to fear death and regard it as an evil to be avoided categorical desires provide a disutility by which the prospect is rationally held as an evil to be avoided it is rational to fear death not because death is bad, but because the prospect may be presented as bad for us if our deaths would prevent the satisfaction of our categorical desires it takes the threat of losing life to recognize that life as such is valuable we can attach distinct values to death while we are alive: we can attach a value of disutility (or utility) to the prospect How to decide those values is a matter for judgment

(PA) also provided us with good reason to reject the Epicurean claim that the finitude of life cannot be bad for us. With (PA), we saw that our lives could accumulate value through the satisfaction of our desires beyond the boundaries of the natural termination of life. But Chapter Four determined that the finitude of life is a necessary condition for the value of life as such and that many of our human values rely on the finite temporal structure of life. I therefore argued that an indefinite life cannot present a desirable alternative to our finite life, because life as such would not be recognized as valuable. In this chapter, I have argued that the finitude of life is instrumentally good as it provides the recognition that life itself is valuable. Although I ultimately agree with the Epicureans that the finitude of life cannot be an evil, this conclusion was not reached from the Epicurean arguments against the badness of death, and I maintain that (HA) and (EA) are insufficient to justify changing our attitudes towards our future deaths and the finitude of life. Nonetheless, the instrumental good of the finitude of life that we arrived at through the consideration of immortality should make us realize that the finitude of life cannot be an evil; it is a necessary condition for the recognition that life as such is valuable. Although my arguments pertaining to the nature of death and its moral implications have yielded several of the Epicurean conclusions, my position still negotiates a middle ground between the Epicureans and Williams, as (PA) accounts for the intuition that it is rational to fear death and regard it as an evil to be avoided. I have therefore reached three of the Epicurean conclusions pertaining to the moral worth of the nature of death: (1) that the state of being dead is nothing to us, (2) death simpliciter is nothing to us, and (3) the finitude of life is a matter for contentment. But against the Epicureans, I have argued that we can rationally fear our future deaths, as categorical desires provide a disutility by which the prospect of death is rationally held as an evil to be avoided. Finally, I also claimed against the Epicureans, that the prospect of death can rationally be regarded as morally good for one if one no longer desires to continue living. 5.3 Conclusion I began this thesis with the suggestion that in part, the Epicureans were right: death—when it occurs—is nothing to us. I went on to defend the Epicurean position against the objections raised by the deprivation theorists and Williams. I argued that the state of being dead, and death simpliciter, cannot be an evil of deprivation or prevention for the person who dies because (once dead), the person—and the grounds for any misfortune—cease to exist. I accounted for the anti-Epicurean intuition 115 that it is rational to fear death and to regard death as an evil to be avoided, not because death simpliciter is bad, but rather because the prospect of our deaths may be presented to us as bad for us if our deaths would prevent the satisfaction of our categorical desires. Though we have good reasons to rationally regard the prospect of our own death as an evil for us, the fact that life is finite cannot be an evil and is in fact instrumentally good, because it takes the threat of losing life to recognize that life as such is valuable. In this chapter, I concluded that even though death cannot be of any moral worth for us once it occurs, we can attach two distinct values to death while we are alive: we can attach a value of disutility (or utility) to the prospect of our own individual deaths, and we must attach an instrumentally good value to the fact of death as such. How to decide on the balance of those values is a matter for psychological judgment.

<h4>Fear of death is a pre-requisite to death’s symbolic value </h4><p>Cara <strong>Kalnow 9<u> A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of MPhil at the University of St. Andrews “WHY DEATH CAN BE BAD AND IMMORTALITY IS WORSE” https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/724/3/Cara%20Kalnow%20MPhil%20thesis.PDF</p><p></u></strong>(PA) also provided us with good reason to reject the Epicurean claim that the finitude of life cannot be bad for us. With (PA), we saw that <u><strong><mark>our lives</u></strong></mark> could <u><strong><mark>accumulate value through</mark> the <mark>satisfaction of our desires</mark> beyond the boundaries of the natural termination of life. But </u></strong>Chapter Four determined that the <u><strong><mark>finitude</u></strong></mark> of life <u><strong><mark>is a necessary condition for the value of life</mark> as such and</u></strong> that many of <u><strong>our human values rely on the finite temporal structure of life</u></strong>. I therefore argued that an indefinite life cannot present a desirable alternative to our finite life, because life as such would not be recognized as valuable. In this chapter, I have argued that <u><strong>the <mark>finitude</mark> of life is instrumentally good as it <mark>provides</mark> the <mark>recognition that life itself is valuable</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>Although</u></strong> I ultimately agree with the Epicureans that <u><strong>the finitude of life cannot be an evil, <mark>this conclusion was not reached from</mark> the Epicurean <mark>arguments against the badness of death</u></strong></mark>, and I maintain that (HA) and (EA) are insufficient to justify changing our attitudes towards our future deaths and the finitude of life. Nonetheless, the instrumental good of the finitude of life that we arrived at through the consideration of immortality should make us realize that the finitude of life cannot be an evil; it is a necessary condition for the recognition that life as such is valuable. Although my arguments pertaining to the nature of death and its moral implications have yielded several of the Epicurean conclusions, <u><strong>my position still negotiates a middle ground between the Epicureans and Williams</u></strong>, as (PA) accounts for the intuition that <u><strong><mark>it is rational to fear death and regard it as an evil to be avoided</u></strong></mark>. I have therefore reached three of the Epicurean conclusions pertaining to the moral worth of the nature of death: (1) that the state of being dead is nothing to us, (2) death simpliciter is nothing to us, and (3) the finitude of life is a matter for contentment. But against the Epicureans, I have argued that <u><strong>we can rationally fear our future deaths, as <mark>categorical desires provide a disutility by which the prospect</mark> of death <mark>is rationally held as an evil to be avoided</u></strong></mark>. Finally, I also claimed against the Epicureans, that the prospect of death can rationally be regarded as morally good for one if one no longer desires to continue living. 5.3 Conclusion I began this thesis with the suggestion that in part, the <u><strong>Epicureans were right: death—when it occurs—is nothing to us</u></strong>. I went on to defend the Epicurean position against the objections raised by the deprivation theorists and Williams. I argued that the state of being dead, and death simpliciter, cannot be an evil of deprivation or prevention for the person who dies because (once dead), the person—and the grounds for any misfortune—cease to exist. I accounted for the anti-Epicurean intuition 115 that <u><strong><mark>it is rational to fear death</u></strong></mark> and to regard death as an evil to be avoided, <u><strong><mark>not because death</u></mark> </strong>simpliciter <u><strong><mark>is bad, but</mark> rather <mark>because the prospect</mark> of our deaths <mark>may be presented</mark> to us <mark>as bad for us if our deaths would prevent the satisfaction of our categorical desires</mark>. Though we have good reasons to rationally regard the prospect of our own death as an evil for us, the fact that life is finite cannot be an evil and is in fact instrumentally good, because <mark>it takes the threat of losing life to recognize that life as such is valuable</u></strong></mark>. In this chapter, I concluded that <u><strong>even though death cannot be of any moral worth for us once it occurs, <mark>we can attach</mark> two <mark>distinct values to death while we are alive: we can attach a value of disutility (or utility) to the prospect</mark> of our</u></strong> own individual <u><strong>deaths, and we must attach an instrumentally good value to the fact of death as such. <mark>How to decide</mark> on the balance of <mark>those values is a matter for</mark> psychological <mark>judgment</mark>.</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Comprehensive review of technology concludes it can’t be stopped

Thackston 13 >#SPS

Thackston 13 <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf>#SPS

a terror organization could use fifty five money mule accounts to move approximately $240,000 per month from the United States to Europe in a way invisible to poker website countermeasures including anti-collusion and geo-location systems. My technology includes a software component that strategically selects which accounts should play in a series of games designed to move money in a particular direction. Gaming industry advocates and regulators promote the idea that the huge volumes of data collected including every card dealt to a player and every bet made as an advantage to law enforcement and regulators. it is easy for money launderers to use similar, publically available information to develop software algorithms and employ skilled players to present normal patterns to defeat any anti-collusion system.

technology includes a software component that strategically selects which accounts should play in a series of games designed to move money in a particular direction. Gaming industry advocates and regulators promote the idea that the huge volumes of data collected including every card dealt to a player and every bet made as an advantage to law enforcement and regulators it is easy for money launderers to use similar, publically available information to develop software algorithms and employ skilled players to present normal patterns to defeat any anti-collusion system.

On June 25th, 2009, I briefed two representatives of the FBI's Congressional Affairs Office, two representatives from the Treasury Department, and a representative from the Department of Justice Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Office. In the briefing, I explained how a terror organization could use fifty five money mule accounts to move approximately $240,000 per month from the United States to Europe in a way invisible to poker website countermeasures including anti-collusion and geo-location systems. For those unfamiliar, the term ‘money mule’ refers to a person hired by a terror or criminal organization to open a bank account and internet poker account under a legitimate identity. In my briefing example, the fifty five legitimate accounts would be played in groups of four at nine-seat virtual poker tables. Two colluding accounts are designated winners and two are designated losers. The other five players are innocent bystanders. My technology includes a software component that strategically selects which accounts should play in a series of games designed to move money in a particular direction. For the fifty five accounts, a maximum of 341,055 different four-player account combinations can be presented to a poker website’s anticollusion system. Increase the number of mule accounts to 100 and the number of combinations increases to 3,921,225. Gaming industry advocates and regulators promote the idea that the huge volumes of data collected including every card dealt to a player and every bet made as an advantage to law enforcement and regulators. As my system clearly demonstrates, it is easy for money launderers to use similar, publically available information to develop software algorithms and employ skilled players to present normal patterns to defeat any anti-collusion system.

<h4>Comprehensive review of technology concludes it can’t be stopped</h4><p><strong>Thackston 13</strong> <Jim, Independent Software Engineer, “FOR THE RECORD, HOUSE SUBCOMMITEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE HEARING,” December 13, http://www.undetectablelaundering.com/docs/WRITTEN_REMARKS_OF_JIM_THACKSTON_120413.pdf<u><strong>>#SPS</p><p></u></strong>On June 25th, 2009, I briefed two representatives of the FBI's Congressional Affairs Office, two representatives from the Treasury Department, and a representative from the Department of Justice Money Laundering and Asset Forfeiture Office. In the briefing, I explained how <u><strong>a terror organization could use fifty five money mule accounts to move approximately $240,000 per month from the United States to Europe in a way invisible to poker website countermeasures including anti-collusion and geo-location systems.</u></strong> For those unfamiliar, the term ‘money mule’ refers to a person hired by a terror or criminal organization to open a bank account and internet poker account under a legitimate identity. In my briefing example, the fifty five legitimate accounts would be played in groups of four at nine-seat virtual poker tables. Two colluding accounts are designated winners and two are designated losers. The other five players are innocent bystanders. <u><strong>My <mark>technology includes a software component that strategically selects which accounts should play in a series of games designed to move money in a particular direction.</u></strong></mark> For the fifty five accounts, a maximum of 341,055 different four-player account combinations can be presented to a poker website’s anticollusion system. Increase the number of mule accounts to 100 and the number of combinations increases to 3,921,225. <u><strong><mark>Gaming industry advocates and regulators promote the idea that the huge volumes of data collected including every card dealt to a player and every bet made as an advantage to law enforcement and regulators</mark>.</u></strong> As my system clearly demonstrates, <u><strong><mark>it is easy for money launderers to use similar, publically available information to develop software algorithms and employ skilled players to present normal patterns to defeat any anti-collusion system.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NR

Market

2NC AT: Extinction Different

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

N

Kentucky

7

Georgetown EK

Box, Brian

1AC - Online Gambling Econ Laundering WTO 1NC - Death K Risk K China Reps K Fiat K 2NC - Death K 1NR - Risk K Fiat K Case 2NR - Death K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-Kentucky-Round7.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Suicide doesn’t solve thanatopolitics

Michelsen 11

Michelsen 11

. Suicide can never be an effective biopolitical response, only forming a political rejection to sovereign logics It is only in the perennial resurgence of sovereign discourses (through racial exclusion) that death again becomes again relevant to power. Suicide-bombing, therefore, leaves the zeitgeist, biopower, untouched. If we desire to investigate how suicide-bombing might represent a fundamental engagement with the structures of contemporary global order we can against Ojakangas Foucault explicitly argued that biopower and sovereign have always existed in some form of “hideous” historical combination. This refuses to firmly divide history into a progression of discrete forms of power Agamben’s reading of Foucault seems far more useful. Agamben argues that a conception of biopower (life-order) as a separate discourse entering into sovereignty (death-order) is deeply problematic sovereignty and biopower are intrinsically linked The nexus exposure to death, is an ontological feature of all political praxis (Agamben 1995). It is the fact that it is a politics of death that constitutes this link between the two diagrams of power that is crucial Every political order draws a definitive line of ‘political life’, in which the ability to decide on death is always the operative exercise. The “bios” of the political community, where life is pursued and administered, are necessarily and always predicated on the construction of thanatopolitical spaces. discourses of ‘human rights’ are so often mobilised in opposition to the deathly logics of sovereign power, precisely in these ‘biopolitically produced’ thanato-spaces that the concept of ‘life-itself’ – as a life that is fundamentally exposed to death – is originally  developed

Suicide can never be an effective biopolitical response, only forming a political rejection to sovereign logics Suicide leaves biopower, untouched. Foucault argued biopower and sovereign have always existed in combination This refuses to divide history into discrete forms of power a conception of biopower as a separate discourse entering into sovereignty is deeply problematic sovereignty and biopower are intrinsically linked. The nexus exposure to death, is an ontological feature of all political praxis a politics of death constitutes this link Every political order draws a definitive line of ‘political life’ The “bios” of the political community, are necessarily and always predicated on the construction of thanatopolitical spaces urses of ‘human rights’ are mobilised in opposition to the deathly sovereign power in these ‘biopolitically produced’ thanato-spaces life-itself’ – as a life that is fundamentally exposed to death

[Nicholas, "Suicide Terrorism, Biopolitics And Death", International Studies Association, MA International Conflict Studies From King's College London, Histories Of Suicidal Violence, Jihadism Terrorism, Complexity Theory , Poststructuralism/Continental Philosophy, The Internet] In such a case the ‘biopolitics of suicide’ is indeed a ‘dead end’. Suicide can never be an effective biopolitical response, only forming a political rejection to sovereign logics (Seery 1996). As sovereignty fades, so does the political role of death. It is only in the perennial resurgence of sovereign discourses (through racial exclusion) that death again becomes again relevant to power. Suicide-bombing, therefore, leaves the zeitgeist, biopower, untouched. If we desire to investigate how suicide-bombing might represent a fundamental engagement with the structures of contemporary global order we can however, and against Ojakangas, follow Foucault (2004) himself inasmuch as he explicitly argued that biopower and sovereign have always existed in some form of “hideous” historical combination. This refuses to firmly divide history into a progression of discrete forms of power. In this context, Giorgio Agamben’s (1995) reading of Foucault, which Ojakangas (2005) explicitly rejects, seems far more useful. Agamben argues that a conception of biopower (life-order) as a separate discourse entering into sovereignty (death-order) is deeply problematic. He feels that Foucault fails to sufficiently develop the essential relationship between biopolitical subjectivization and objectivizing sovereign power that circulates around understanding there to be a nexus or foundational intersection around the decision on ‘where death should be’ that is immanent to life-politics. Agamben breaks down the already not-so- firm distinction between sovereignty and biopower in Foucault, by arguing that the two not only cross-over, but are intrinsically linked. The nexus between biopower and sovereignty, political life and exposure to death, is an ontological feature of all political praxis (Agamben 1995). It is the fact that it is a politics of death that constitutes this link between the two diagrams of power that is the crucial point for the argument being made here. Agamben argues, following Schmitt, that political sovereignty has always functioned through making an exception - deciding who is under the law and who lies outside of it, but that this legal exception has always been tied to the question of ‘life itself’. Every political order draws a definitive line of ‘political life’, in which the ability to decide on death is always the operative exercise. The “bios” of the political community, where life is pursued and administered, are necessarily and always predicated on the construction of thanatopolitical spaces. Indeed it is, ironically given that discourses of ‘human rights’ are so often mobilised in opposition to the deathly logics of sovereign power, precisely in these ‘biopolitically produced’ thanato-spaces that the concept of ‘life-itself’ – as a life that is fundamentally exposed to death – is originally  developed (Agamben 1995, p83).

<h4><strong>Suicide doesn’t solve thanatopolitics</h4><p>Michelsen 11</p><p></strong>[Nicholas, "Suicide Terrorism, Biopolitics And Death", International Studies Association, MA International Conflict Studies From King's College London, Histories Of Suicidal Violence, Jihadism Terrorism, Complexity Theory , Poststructuralism/Continental Philosophy, The Internet]</p><p>In such a case the ‘biopolitics of suicide’ is indeed a ‘dead end’<u><strong>. <mark>Suicide can never be an effective biopolitical response, only forming a political rejection to sovereign logics</mark> </u></strong>(Seery 1996). As sovereignty fades, so does the political role of death. <u><strong>It is only in the perennial resurgence of sovereign discourses (through racial exclusion) that death again becomes again relevant to power. <mark>Suicide</mark>-bombing, therefore, <mark>leaves</mark> the zeitgeist, <mark>biopower, untouched.</mark> If we desire to investigate how suicide-bombing might represent a fundamental engagement with the structures of contemporary global order we can </u></strong>however, and <u><strong>against Ojakangas</u></strong>, follow <u><strong><mark>Foucault</u></strong></mark> (2004) himself inasmuch as he <u><strong>explicitly <mark>argued</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>that <mark>biopower and sovereign have always</mark> <mark>existed in</mark> some form of “hideous” historical <mark>combination</mark>. <mark>This refuses to</mark> firmly <mark>divide history into</mark> a progression of <mark>discrete forms of power</u></strong></mark>. In this context, Giorgio <u><strong>Agamben’s </u></strong>(1995) <u><strong>reading of Foucault</u></strong>, which Ojakangas (2005) explicitly rejects, <u><strong>seems far more useful. Agamben argues that <mark>a conception of biopower</mark> (life-order) <mark>as a separate discourse entering into sovereignty</mark> (death-order) <mark>is deeply problematic</u></strong></mark>. He feels that Foucault fails to sufficiently develop the essential relationship between biopolitical subjectivization and objectivizing sovereign power that circulates around understanding there to be a nexus or foundational intersection around the decision on ‘where death should be’ that is immanent to life-politics. Agamben breaks down the already not-so- firm distinction between <u><strong><mark>sovereignty and biopower</mark> </u></strong>in Foucault, by arguing that the two not only cross-over, but <u><strong><mark>are intrinsically linked</u></strong>. <u><strong>The nexus</mark> </u></strong>between biopower and sovereignty, political life and <u><strong><mark>exposure to death,</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>is an ontological feature of all political praxis</mark> (Agamben 1995). It is the fact that it is <mark>a politics of death</mark> that <mark>constitutes this link</mark> between the two diagrams of power that is </u></strong>the <u><strong>crucial </u></strong>point for the argument being made here. Agamben argues, following Schmitt, that political sovereignty has always functioned through making an exception - deciding who is under the law and who lies outside of it, but that this legal exception has always been tied to the question of ‘life itself’. <u><strong><mark>Every political order draws a definitive line of ‘political life’</mark>, in which the ability to decide on death is always the operative exercise. <mark>The “bios” of the political community,</mark> where life is pursued and administered, <mark>are necessarily and always predicated on the construction of thanatopolitical spaces</mark>.</u></strong> Indeed it is, ironically given that <u><strong>disco<mark>urses of ‘human rights’ are</mark> so often <mark>mobilised in opposition to the deathly</mark> logics of <mark>sovereign power</mark>, precisely <mark>in these ‘biopolitically produced’ thanato-spaces</mark> that the concept of ‘<mark>life-itself’ – as a life that is fundamentally exposed to death</mark> – is originally  developed </u></strong>(Agamben 1995, p83).</p>

1NC

1NC Case

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

N

UNLV

Quarters

Texas KS

Cheek, Ryan Paul, Amy Cram, Travis

1AC - PAS Death Control 1NC - T-Regs Medicalization K Pallative Care CP Euthanasia DA Midterms DA (Dems Good - RAPA) 2NC - T-Regs Case 1NR - Midterms DA 2NR - Midterms DA Case

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Quarters.docx

BaSh