Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 4

High amounts of uncertainty and your methods of calculating winners is wrong

Wang 10/15

Wang 10/15 <Sam, PEC, No, Republicans Aren't Guaranteed to Win the Senate. Here's Why., http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119844/2014-midterm-predictions-republicans-not-guaranteed-win-senate>#SPS

Ernst leads Braley by a narrow margin Half a dozen other Senate races are equally likely to come down to the wire. control of the chamber is still uncertain this unanimous agreement among election forecasters conceals an Achilles heel: We all rely on the same poll data. A Few Front-Runners in Close Elections Will Lose on Election Day if the election is three weeks away and the front-runner leads by 3 percent or less, that candidate will still lose 38 percent of the time as of Tuesday, such narrow margins existed in six races: Four more races—Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Hampshire—are within 4 or 5 percentage points. So the potential exists for many close outcomes. history tells us to expect two or three of the current leaders to lose. Some races are less likely to reverse than polls would indicate. Voters in these six closely-fought states are disproportionately powerful When errors occur, the outcome tends to be more favorable to the Democrat. Pollsters as a group underestimate Democratic performance by an average of 1.2 percent. in four out of eight cases, Democrats surpassed polls by 2.4 to 3.7 percentage points. This bias was even larger in Colorado Instead of Probability, Estimate How Much Swing Is Needed The introduction of new survey methods may have changed the accuracy of polls— —and partisan polls are more frequent this year, the probabilities offered by poll aggregators might not even be the best way to think about this year's Senate forecasts, in part because we tend to mentally round probabilities up to 100 percent. The Senate Meta-Margin is defined as how much the final vote would have to differ from polls in key states to create an exact toss-up for control of the chamber. neither side can breathe easier until the Meta-Margin gets to at least 3 percent in their direction Democrats' track record of outperforming polls works

Half a dozen Senate races are likely to come down to the wire control of the chamber is still uncertain A Few Front-Runners in Close Elections Will Lose on Election Day the potential exists for many close outcomes. history tells us to expect two or three of the current leaders to lose. When errors occur, the outcome tends to be more favorable to the Democrat. Pollsters as a group underestimate Democratic performance by an average of 1.2 percent. in four out of eight cases, Democrats surpassed polls by 2.4 to 3.7 percentage points. Instead of Probability, Estimate How Much Swing Is Needed the probabilities offered by poll aggregators might not even be the best way to think about this year's Senate forecasts neither side can breathe easier until the Meta-Margin gets to at least 3 percent in their direction Democrats' track record of outperforming polls works

On Monday, the Libertarian candidate for Senate in Iowa, Doug Butzier, died in a plane crash. Butzier, an emergency room physician, was polling at only 2 percent. But Republican candidate Joni Ernst leads the Democratic candidate, Bruce Braley, by an even narrower margin. How Butzier's supporters eventually vote is a question of national significance. Half a dozen other Senate races are equally likely to come down to the wire. That's why control of the chamber is still uncertain, even though the election is less than three weeks away. Such uncertainty is apparently belied by the fact that the major aggregators of Senate polls are pointing in the same direction, with probabilities ranging from 60 percent and up for Republican control. This includes my own site, the Princeton Election Consortium, which recently switched away from a Democratic advantage in early October. Indeed, Republicans hold the lead in key states, but this unanimous agreement among election forecasters conceals an Achilles heel: We all rely on the same poll data. What if that data is off? A Few Front-Runners in Close Elections Will Lose on Election Day Josh Katz at The New York Times' The Upshot has analyzed the performance of Senate polls since 2004. He found that the predictive accuracy of polls depends on how soon the election is and the size of the front-runner's lead. For instance, if the election is three weeks away and the front-runner leads by 3 percent or less, that candidate will still lose 38 percent of the time—nearly two times out of five. In the period Katz analyzed, only three or four Senate races in each election were decided by 3 percentage points or less. But as of Tuesday, such narrow margins existed in six races: Data as of Tuesday, October 14, via the Princeton Election Consortium. Four more races—Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Hampshire—are within 4 or 5 percentage points. So the potential exists for many close outcomes. For election nerds like me, this is Christmas. If every front-runner today were to win, the Senate outcome would be 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats and independents. But history tells us to expect two or three of the current leaders to lose. Democratic wins in the key states of Iowa and Colorado would give a 50-50 split, with Vice President Joe Biden breaking Senate ties in his party's favor. (This assumes that Kansas independent Greg Orman would caucus with Democrats and the other independents, which is not a sure bet.) Of course, if the opposite were to happen North Carolina—with Republican Thom Tillis defeating Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, who leads narrowly—the GOP would end up with a convincing 53-47 majority. Some races are less likely to reverse than polls would indicate. In polls spanning the last two weeks, Georgia Republican David Perdue's median lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn dropped to 1 percent after he proclaimed last week to be "proud" about outsourcing jobs as an executive at now-defunct Pillowtex Corp. To avoid a runoff, Nunn must exceed 50 percent of the vote. Turnout tends to decrease in Georgia runoff elections, so current polls are of little help in predicting the outcome of a runoff. Voters in these six closely-fought states are disproportionately powerful, which accounts for the concentration of advertising and get-out-the-vote activity in the battleground states. Measured in terms of their ability to influence Senate control, a vote cast in Iowa is about 110 times as powerful as that of a vote cast in Minnesota. Similarly, a Colorado voter is over 30 times as powerful as that of an Oregon voter. And my vote in New Jersey, a populous state where Senator Cory Booker has a 12-percentage-point lead, is worth less than even an Oregon or Minnesota vote. Democrats Tend To Perform Better Than Polls Predict Even in the week before the election, polls are not perfect. For example, in two out of ten close Senate races in 2010 and 2012. In those two cases, both in 2010, the eventual winner was the Democrat (Harry Reid in Nevada and Michael Bennet in Colorado). This reflects a broader pattern: When errors occur, the outcome tends to be more favorable to the Democrat. Let's examine the percentage difference between polls and election results: The presidential findings come from comparing the final Meta-Margin with the eventual margin of victory in the tipping-point state, i.e. the state that pushed the winner just over the electoral-vote threshold for victory. The above table, calculated for state-level presidential and Senate contests, shows the difference between Election Eve polls with actual election results, using the median across all races decided by less than a 10-percent margin. Overall, these numbers set a range for how wrong we would expect a poll-based view to be. Pollsters as a group underestimate Democratic performance by an average of 1.2 percent. This bias is asymmetric: When Republicans outperformed, they did so by 1.2 percentage points or less. But in four out of eight cases, Democrats surpassed polls by 2.4 to 3.7 percentage points. This bias was even larger in Colorado, where Democrats outperformed polls by at least 4 percentage points in the 2010 and 2012 elections. Instead of Probability, Estimate How Much Swing Is Needed What if this year's polls are off by 2 percentage points in one direction or the other? A 2-point advantage for Democrats would make the most likely outcome a split of 50 Democrats/independents to 50 Republicans. And a 2-point advantage for Republicans would propel them to a 53-47 majority. These outcomes match the "what if two races flip" scenarios I outlined above. Neither extreme is guaranteed. The introduction of new survey methods may have changed the accuracy of polls—for better or for worse—and partisan polls are more frequent this year, creating another source of uncertainty. In fact, the probabilities offered by poll aggregators might not even be the best way to think about this year's Senate forecasts, in part because we tend to mentally round probabilities up to 100 percent. The Princeton Election Consortium, for instance, gives Republicans a 69 percent chance of taking the Senate; if that fails to happen, many will claim that PEC was wrong. But a loaded coin that's biased to come up heads 69 percent of the time would still come up tails three times out of ten. Or think of it like a weather forecast: If there's a 69 percent chance of rain, you'd be well-advised to bring an umbrella, but you might end up not using it. Instead of probability, I prefer a statistic I developed in 2004, the Meta-Margin. The Senate Meta-Margin is defined as how much the final vote would have to differ from polls in key states to create an exact toss-up for control of the chamber. Given the polling errors I have analyzed in this article, neither side can breathe easier until the Meta-Margin gets to at least 3 percent in their direction. Only at that point can we predict a winner with high confidence. As of Wednesday, the Senate Meta-Margin shows a Republican lead of 1.3 percent—too close to call. So although Republicans have the advantage in polls, Democrats' track record of outperforming polls works in the other direction. For the moment, there's a decent probability that polling nerds will be surprised on November 4.

<h4>High amounts of uncertainty and your methods of calculating winners is wrong </h4><p><strong>Wang 10/15 </strong><Sam, PEC, No, Republicans Aren't Guaranteed to Win the Senate. Here's Why., http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119844/2014-midterm-predictions-republicans-not-guaranteed-win-senate>#SPS</p><p>On Monday, the Libertarian candidate for Senate in Iowa, Doug Butzier, died in a plane crash. Butzier, an emergency room physician, was polling at only 2 percent. But Republican candidate Joni <u><strong>Ernst</u></strong> <u><strong>leads</u></strong> the Democratic candidate, Bruce <u><strong>Braley</u></strong>, <u><strong>by</u></strong> <u><strong>a</u></strong>n even <u><strong>narrow</u></strong>er <u><strong>margin</u></strong>. How Butzier's supporters eventually vote is a question of national significance. <u><strong><mark>Half a dozen</mark> other <mark>Senate races are</mark> equally <mark>likely to come down to the wire</mark>.</u></strong> That's why <u><strong><mark>control of the chamber is still uncertain</u></strong></mark>, even though the election is less than three weeks away. Such uncertainty is apparently belied by the fact that the major aggregators of Senate polls are pointing in the same direction, with probabilities ranging from 60 percent and up for Republican control. This includes my own site, the Princeton Election Consortium, which recently switched away from a Democratic advantage in early October. Indeed, Republicans hold the lead in key states, but <u><strong>this unanimous agreement among election forecasters conceals an Achilles heel: We all rely on the same poll data.</u></strong> What if that data is off? <u><strong><mark>A Few Front-Runners in Close Elections Will Lose on Election Day</u></strong></mark> Josh Katz at The New York Times' The Upshot has analyzed the performance of Senate polls since 2004. He found that the predictive accuracy of polls depends on how soon the election is and the size of the front-runner's lead. For instance, <u><strong>if the election is three weeks away and the front-runner leads by 3 percent or less, that candidate will still lose 38 percent of the time</u></strong>—nearly two times out of five. In the period Katz analyzed, only three or four Senate races in each election were decided by 3 percentage points or less. But <u><strong>as of Tuesday, such narrow margins existed in six races:</u></strong> Data as of Tuesday, October 14, via the Princeton Election Consortium. <u><strong>Four more races—Alaska, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New Hampshire—are within 4 or 5 percentage points.</u></strong> <u><strong>So <mark>the potential exists for many close outcomes.</u></strong></mark> For election nerds like me, this is Christmas. If every front-runner today were to win, the Senate outcome would be 52 Republicans and 48 Democrats and independents. But <u><strong><mark>history tells us to expect two or three of the current leaders to lose.</u></strong></mark> Democratic wins in the key states of Iowa and Colorado would give a 50-50 split, with Vice President Joe Biden breaking Senate ties in his party's favor. (This assumes that Kansas independent Greg Orman would caucus with Democrats and the other independents, which is not a sure bet.) Of course, if the opposite were to happen North Carolina—with Republican Thom Tillis defeating Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, who leads narrowly—the GOP would end up with a convincing 53-47 majority. <u><strong>Some races are less likely to reverse than polls would indicate.</u></strong> In polls spanning the last two weeks, Georgia Republican David Perdue's median lead over Democrat Michelle Nunn dropped to 1 percent after he proclaimed last week to be "proud" about outsourcing jobs as an executive at now-defunct Pillowtex Corp. To avoid a runoff, Nunn must exceed 50 percent of the vote. Turnout tends to decrease in Georgia runoff elections, so current polls are of little help in predicting the outcome of a runoff. <u><strong>Voters in these six closely-fought states are disproportionately powerful</u></strong>, which accounts for the concentration of advertising and get-out-the-vote activity in the battleground states. Measured in terms of their ability to influence Senate control, a vote cast in Iowa is about 110 times as powerful as that of a vote cast in Minnesota. Similarly, a Colorado voter is over 30 times as powerful as that of an Oregon voter. And my vote in New Jersey, a populous state where Senator Cory Booker has a 12-percentage-point lead, is worth less than even an Oregon or Minnesota vote. Democrats Tend To Perform Better Than Polls Predict Even in the week before the election, polls are not perfect. For example, in two out of ten close Senate races in 2010 and 2012. In those two cases, both in 2010, the eventual winner was the Democrat (Harry Reid in Nevada and Michael Bennet in Colorado). This reflects a broader pattern: <u><strong><mark>When errors occur, the outcome tends to be more favorable to the Democrat.</u></strong></mark> Let's examine the percentage difference between polls and election results: The presidential findings come from comparing the final Meta-Margin with the eventual margin of victory in the tipping-point state, i.e. the state that pushed the winner just over the electoral-vote threshold for victory. The above table, calculated for state-level presidential and Senate contests, shows the difference between Election Eve polls with actual election results, using the median across all races decided by less than a 10-percent margin. Overall, these numbers set a range for how wrong we would expect a poll-based view to be. <u><strong><mark>Pollsters as a group underestimate Democratic performance by an average of 1.2 percent.</u></strong></mark> This bias is asymmetric: When Republicans outperformed, they did so by 1.2 percentage points or less. But <u><strong><mark>in four out of eight cases, Democrats surpassed polls by 2.4 to 3.7 percentage points.</mark> This bias was even larger in Colorado</u></strong>, where Democrats outperformed polls by at least 4 percentage points in the 2010 and 2012 elections. <u><strong><mark>Instead of Probability, Estimate How Much Swing Is Needed</u></strong></mark> What if this year's polls are off by 2 percentage points in one direction or the other? A 2-point advantage for Democrats would make the most likely outcome a split of 50 Democrats/independents to 50 Republicans. And a 2-point advantage for Republicans would propel them to a 53-47 majority. These outcomes match the "what if two races flip" scenarios I outlined above. Neither extreme is guaranteed. <u><strong>The introduction of new survey methods may have changed the accuracy of polls—</u></strong>for better or for worse<u><strong>—and partisan polls are more frequent this year,</u></strong> creating another source of uncertainty. In fact, <u><strong><mark>the probabilities offered by poll aggregators might not even be the best way to think about this year's Senate forecasts</mark>, in part because we tend to mentally round probabilities up to 100 percent.</u></strong> The Princeton Election Consortium, for instance, gives Republicans a 69 percent chance of taking the Senate; if that fails to happen, many will claim that PEC was wrong. But a loaded coin that's biased to come up heads 69 percent of the time would still come up tails three times out of ten. Or think of it like a weather forecast: If there's a 69 percent chance of rain, you'd be well-advised to bring an umbrella, but you might end up not using it. Instead of probability, I prefer a statistic I developed in 2004, the Meta-Margin. <u><strong>The Senate Meta-Margin is defined as how much the final vote would have to differ from polls in key states to create an exact toss-up for control of the chamber.</u></strong> Given the polling errors I have analyzed in this article, <u><strong><mark>neither side can breathe easier until the Meta-Margin gets to at least 3 percent in their direction</u></strong></mark>. Only at that point can we predict a winner with high confidence. As of Wednesday, the Senate Meta-Margin shows a Republican lead of 1.3 percent—too close to call. So although Republicans have the advantage in polls, <u><strong><mark>Democrats' track record of outperforming polls works</mark> </u></strong>in the other direction. For the moment, there's a decent probability that polling nerds will be surprised on November 4.</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Laundering hasn’t been happening through online gambling

Stewart 11

David Stewart 11, American Gaming Association White Paper, Ropes&Gray LLP, "Online Gambling Five Years After the UIGEA"

fears about potential money laundering through¶ online gambling sites have generally not been realized the risk of money laundering with currency is eliminated for online gambling sites that do not accept currency. every financial transaction with an online website is recorded and therefore subject to audit and questioning by both the operator and regulators.

the risk of laundering is eliminated for online gambling sites that do not accept currency every financial transaction with an online website is recorded and subject to audit and questioning by the operator and regulators.

Anti-Money Laundering Programs — Although DOJ has charged that¶ the payments processing systems set up by offshore operators represent a¶ form of money laundering, fears about potential money laundering through¶ online gambling sites have generally not been realized. As a threshold¶ matter, of course, the risk of money laundering with currency is eliminated for online gambling sites that do not accept currency. Moreover, every financial transaction with an online website is recorded and therefore subject to audit and questioning by both the operator and regulators. Nevertheless, the potential for money laundering through online¶ transactions has drawn regulatory attention.

<h4>Laundering hasn’t been happening through online gambling</h4><p>David <strong>Stewart 11</strong>, American Gaming Association White Paper, Ropes&Gray LLP, "Online Gambling Five Years After the UIGEA" </p><p>Anti-Money Laundering Programs — Although DOJ has charged that¶ the payments processing systems set up by offshore operators represent a¶ form of money laundering, <u><strong>fears about potential money laundering through¶ online gambling sites have generally not been realized</u></strong>. As a threshold¶ matter, of course, <u><strong><mark>the risk of </mark>money <mark>laundering </mark>with currency <mark>is eliminated for online gambling sites that do not accept currency</mark>. </u></strong>Moreover, <u><strong><mark>every financial transaction with an online website is recorded and </mark>therefore <mark>subject to audit and questioning by</mark> both <mark>the operator and regulators.</u></strong></mark> Nevertheless, the potential for money laundering through online¶ transactions has drawn regulatory attention.</p>

2NC

2NC Case -- Regulations

2NC 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

Status quo prohibitions on marijuana decimate relations with Mexico

Duke 13

Duke 13 (Steven, Professor of Law @ Yale Law School, “The Future of Marijuana in the United States”, OREGON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 91, 1301, AB)

Prohibited drugs are produced in different countries The consumer countries blame the producer and bully the producer to enforce its drug laws more effectively The United States takes such a position with Mexico, whose cartels supply a large portion of the marijuana and other illicit drugs that Americans consume Mexico attributes its internal violence to the U.S. appetite for Mexico’s drugs The United States pressures other countries to more aggressively punish producers of drugs for export the United States intervenes and objects when any country considers liberalizing its prohibition laws. Not only would the creation of legal drug markets throughout the world allow for enormous drug prohibition resources to be spent productively on something else and would reduce international crime, it would also greatly diminish the international blame game and help rid the United States of its reputation as an international bully.

consumer countries bully the producer to enforce drug laws . The U S takes such a position with Mexico The U S pressures other countries to more aggressively punish producers , the U S intervenes and objects when any country considers liberalizing its prohibition the creation of legal drug markets world allow for prohibition resources to be spent productively and would diminish the international blame game and rid the U S of its reputation as an international bully.

Prohibited drugs are typically produced in different countries than they are consumed. The consumer countries blame the producer country and often bully or bribe the producer to enforce its drug laws more effectively. The United States takes such a position with Mexico, whose cartels supply a large portion of the marijuana and other illicit drugs that Americans consume. Mexico, on the other hand, attributes its internal violence to the U.S. appetite for Mexico’s drugs. The United States repeatedly pressures other countries to more aggressively punish producers of drugs for export. Indeed, the United States customarily intervenes and objects when any country, even one as small as Jamaica, considers liberalizing its prohibition laws.68 Not only would the creation of legal drug markets throughout the world allow for enormous drug prohibition resources to be spent productively on something else and would reduce international crime, it would also greatly diminish the international blame game and help rid the United States of its reputation as an international bully.69

<h4><strong>Status quo prohibitions on marijuana decimate relations with Mexico</h4><p>Duke 13</strong> (Steven, Professor of Law @ Yale Law School, “The Future of Marijuana in the United States”, OREGON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 91, 1301, AB)</p><p><u><strong>Prohibited drugs are</u></strong> typically <u><strong>produced in different countries</u></strong> than they are consumed. <u><strong>The</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>consumer</u></strong> <u><strong>countries</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>blame the producer</u></strong> country <u><strong>and</u></strong> often <u><strong><mark>bully</u></strong> </mark>or bribe <u><strong><mark>the producer</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>to enforce </mark>its <mark>drug laws </mark>more effectively</u></strong><mark>. <u><strong>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>takes such a position with Mexico</mark>, whose cartels supply a large portion of the marijuana and other illicit drugs that Americans consume</u></strong>. <u><strong>Mexico</u></strong>, on the other hand, <u><strong>attributes its internal violence to the U.S. appetite for Mexico’s drugs</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong> repeatedly <u><strong><mark>pressures other countries to more aggressively punish producers </mark>of drugs for export</u></strong>. Indeed<mark>, <u><strong>the U</mark>nited</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong> customarily <u><strong><mark>intervenes and objects when any country</u></strong></mark>, even one as small as Jamaica, <u><strong><mark>considers liberalizing its</mark> <mark>prohibition </mark>laws.</u></strong>68 <u><strong>Not only would <mark>the creation of legal drug markets </mark>throughout the <mark>world allow for </mark>enormous drug <mark>prohibition resources to be spent productively </mark>on something else <mark>and</mark> <mark>would </mark>reduce international crime, it would also greatly <mark>diminish the international blame game and </mark>help <mark>rid the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>of its reputation as an international bully.</u></strong></mark>69</p>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Here’s some of those states

Plotkin, 10.16.14

Plotkin, 10.16.14 – political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics (Mark, The Hill, “Some possible midterm suprises” http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/220883-some-possible-midterm-surprises) jb

Some scenarios might just take place that could save the day for the Democrats. No. 1 is Kansas Independent Greg Ormond beating Republican Sen. Pat Roberts No. 2 is South Dakota. There is a former three-term Republican senator, the irrepressible Larry Pressler, who very well may be a godsend for the Democrats. He is pulling votes away from the Republican candidate, former Gov. Mike Rounds South Dakota has sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate A candidate can win this race with as little as 33 percent. There is no runoff — it's just a simple plurality. And there is even a fourth candidate, Gordon Howie. Another nontraditional candidate is helping Democratic candidate Michelle Nunn in Georgia. Libertarian Party nominee Amanda Swafford is viewed as taking votes away from Republican David Perdue. North Carolina is the only state where an endangered Democrat seems to be leading There, the savior for the Democrats is again a libertarian. He is a pizza delivery man. His name is Sean Haugh. Republican candidate Thom Tillis wishes his name was not on the ballot this is an ominous development for the Republican Party they deliver close races to the Democrats. Their 5 percent to 10 percent is taking votes from the GOP. These so-called fringe players might be soon getting thank-you notes from Senater Majority Leader Harry Reid

Some scenarios might just take place that could save the day for Democrats Kansas Independent Greg Ormond beating Republican Roberts South Dakota. There is a former three-term Republican senator who very well may be a godsend for the Democrats. He is pulling votes away from the Republican South Dakota has sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate A candidate can win this race with as little as 33 percent Another candidate is helping Democratic candidate Nunn in Georgia Amanda Swafford is viewed as taking votes away from Perdue North Carolina the savior for the Democrats is again a libertarian this is an ominous development for the Republican Party they deliver close races to the Democrats. Their 5 percent to 10 percent is taking votes from the GOP

If either Udall or Braley loses, the game is then over. Republicans are in charge. But wait a minute: Some very unlikely scenarios might just take place that could save the day for the Democrats. No. 1 is Kansas, which I wrote about last week (Independent Greg Ormond beating Republican Sen. Pat Roberts.) No. 2, of all places, is South Dakota. There is a former three-term Republican senator, the irrepressible Larry Pressler, who very well may be a godsend for the Democrats. He is pulling votes away from the Republican candidate, former Gov. Mike Rounds. Now-Independent Pressler is definitely aiding Democrat Rick Weiland. Remember, South Dakota has sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate — James Abourezk, Tom Daschle and the retiring Tim Johnson. And, of course, George McGovern. A candidate can win this race with as little as 33 percent. There is no runoff — it's just a simple plurality. And there is even a fourth candidate, Gordon Howie. He's a conservative and probably is pulling votes away from Republican Rounds. Another nontraditional candidate is helping Democratic candidate Michelle Nunn in Georgia. Libertarian Party nominee Amanda Swafford is viewed as taking votes away from Republican David Perdue. We haven't talked about North Carolina. This is the only state where an endangered Democrat (Kay Hagan) seems to be leading in the polls. There, the savior for the Democrats is again a libertarian. He is a pizza delivery man. His name is Sean Haugh. Republican candidate Thom Tillis wishes his name was not on the ballot. If third party libertarians continue to get their names on the ballot, this is an ominous development for the Republican Party in the future. I firmly believe that they deliver close races to the Democrats. Their 5 percent to 10 percent is taking votes from the GOP. So on Tuesday, Nov. 4, you very well might pay attention to former no-names — Larry Pressler, Gordon Howie, Amanda Swafford and Sean Haugh. These so-called fringe players might be soon getting thank-you notes from Senater Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

<h4>Here’s some of those states </h4><p><strong>Plotkin, 10.16.14 </strong>– political analyst and contributor to the BBC on American politics (Mark, The Hill, “Some possible midterm suprises” http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/220883-some-possible-midterm-surprises) jb</p><p>If either Udall or Braley loses, the game is then over. Republicans are in charge. But wait a minute: <u><strong><mark>Some</u></strong></mark> very unlikely <u><strong><mark>scenarios might just take place that could save the day for</mark> the <mark>Democrats</mark>. No. 1 is <mark>Kansas</u></strong></mark>, which I wrote about last week (<u><strong><mark>Independent Greg Ormond beating Republican</mark> Sen. Pat <mark>Roberts</u></strong></mark>.) <u><strong>No. 2</u></strong>, of all places, <u><strong>is <mark>South Dakota. There is a former three-term Republican senator</mark>, the irrepressible Larry Pressler, <mark>who very well may be a godsend for the Democrats. He is pulling votes away from the Republican</mark> candidate, former Gov. Mike Rounds</u></strong>. Now-Independent Pressler is definitely aiding Democrat Rick Weiland. Remember, <u><strong><mark>South Dakota has sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate</u></strong></mark> — James Abourezk, Tom Daschle and the retiring Tim Johnson. And, of course, George McGovern. <u><strong><mark>A candidate can win this race with as little as 33 percent</mark>. There is no runoff — it's just a simple plurality. And there is even a fourth candidate, Gordon Howie.</u></strong> He's a conservative and probably is pulling votes away from Republican Rounds. <u><strong><mark>Another</mark> nontraditional <mark>candidate is helping Democratic candidate</mark> Michelle <mark>Nunn in Georgia</mark>. Libertarian Party nominee <mark>Amanda Swafford is viewed as taking votes away from</mark> Republican David <mark>Perdue</mark>. </u></strong>We haven't talked about <u><strong><mark>North Carolina</u></strong></mark>. This <u><strong>is the only state where an endangered Democrat</u></strong> (Kay Hagan) <u><strong>seems to be leading</u></strong> in the polls. <u><strong>There, <mark>the savior for the Democrats is again a libertarian</mark>. He is a pizza delivery man. His name is Sean Haugh. Republican candidate Thom Tillis wishes his name was not on the ballot</u></strong>. If third party libertarians continue to get their names on the ballot, <u><strong><mark>this is an ominous development for the Republican Party</mark> </u></strong>in the future. I firmly believe that <u><strong><mark>they deliver close races to the Democrats. Their 5 percent to 10 percent is taking votes from the GOP</mark>.</u></strong> So on Tuesday, Nov. 4, you very well might pay attention to former no-names — Larry Pressler, Gordon Howie, Amanda Swafford and Sean Haugh. <u><strong>These so-called fringe players might be soon getting thank-you notes from Senater Majority Leader Harry Reid</u></strong> (D-Nev.).</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Ikenson 13 -- Bryd, anti-dumping, meat labeling are all against GATT

<h4>Ikenson 13 -- Bryd, anti-dumping, meat labeling are all against GATT </h4>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

Prostitution does nothing to change the material conditions that make exploitation possible -- the aff only plays into the patriarchal capitalist system that demand bodies be sold as commodities in the neoliberal market

Pateman 99

Pateman 99

marriage is now only one of the socially acceptable way for men to gain access to women’s bodies Casual sexual liasons no longer carry the social sanctions of thirty years ago there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism men can buy sexual access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Prostitutes are available at all levels of the market as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is seen a private enterprise and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise Prostitution was seen as a necessary evil that protected young women from rape and shielded the family from the ravages of men’s sexual appetites As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers are paid in return the prostitute has clients who pay her by the piece feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer Prostitutes should have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry - one can argue for trade union rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist wage labor - but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in many feminist discussions is that the appropriate conclusion might be that there is nothing wrong with prostitution Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property who contracts out part of that property in her market A prostitute does not sell herself but contracts out the use of sexual services Defenders of prostitution insist that “sound prostitution” is possible Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require prostitution be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes To argue that there is something wrong with prostitution does not necessarily imply any adverse judgment on the women who engage in the work. When socialists criticize capitalism they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions To reduce the question of capitalism to deficiencies in workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist, the other participant in the employment contract prostitution can be seen as a problem about men prostitution becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand that women’s bodies are sold as commodities in the capitalist market prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right one of the ways in which men are ensured access to women’s bodies. There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a group of wage laborers who specialize in work The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession" but on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge There is a universal natural (masculine) impulse that requires the outlet provided by prostitution Prostitution is not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but the unilateral use of a woman’s body by a man in exchange for money That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse and sex ” can be equated with the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because an important question is begged: why do men demand that satisfaction must take the form of public access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market in exchange for money

marriage is now the socially acceptable way to access women’s bodies Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism men buy access to bodies in the capitalist market. Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is a private enterprise Prostitution was seen as a necessary evil that protected women from rape and the family from men’s sexual appetites one can argue for rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist labor but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in feminist discussions is that the conclusion might be there is nothing wrong with prostitution To argue there is something wrong with prostitution does not imply judgment on women To reduce capitalism to workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist prostitution becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand bodies are sold as commodities prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right, one of the ways men are ensured access to women’s bodies. There is a universal masculine) impulse that requires prostitution Prostitution is the use of a body for money the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because men demand access to women’s bodies in exchange for money

Carole, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science @ University of California Los Angeles and Honorary Professor @ Cardiff University, “What's Wrong with Prostitution?”, Women's Studies Quarterly, Volume 27, Number 1/2, Spring - Summer, pp. 53-64, AB In modern patriarchy, a variety of means are available through which men can uphold the terms of the sexual contract. The marriage contract is still fundamental to patriarchal right, but marriage is now only one of the socially acceptable ways for men to gain access to women’s bodies. Casual sexual liasons and “living together” no longer carry the social sanctions of twenty or thirty years ago, and, in addition to private arrangements, there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies. Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism. Wives are no longer put up for public auction (although in Australia, the United States, and Britain, they can be bought by mail order from the Philippines), but men can buy sexual access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market. Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.” Prostitutes are readily available at all levels of the market for any man who can afford one, and they are frequently provide as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions. Yet the public character of prostitution is less obvious than it might be. Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is seen as private enterprise, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as a private arrangement between a buyer and a seller. Moreover, prostitution is shrouded in secrecy despite the scale of the industry. In Birmingham, a British city of about 1 million people, some eight hundred women work either as street prostitutes or from their homes or hotels, from “saunas,” “massage parlors,” or “escort agencies.” Nearly 14 thousand men each week buy their services, that is, about seventeen men for each prostitute. A similar level of demand has been recorded in the United States and the total number of customers each week across the country has been conservatively estimated at 1.5 million. The sexual subjection of wives has never lacked defenders, but until very recently an unqualified defense of prostitution has been hard to find. Prostitution was seen, for example, as a necessary evil that protected young women from rape and shielded marriage and the family from the ravages of men’s sexual appetites; or as an unfortunate outcome of poverty and the economic constraints facing women who had to support themselves; or prostitution was seen as no worse, and as more honest, than "legal prostitution," as Mary Wollstonecraft called marriage in 1790. As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers (but unlike a wife), are paid in return. So, for Emma Goldman, "it is merely a question of degree whether [a woman] sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men." Simone de Beauvoir sees the wife as "hired for life by one man; the prostitute has several clients who pay her by the piece. The one is protected by one male against all the others; the other is defended by all against the exclusive tyranny of each."4 Cicely Hamilton noted in 1909 that although women were prevented from bargaining freely in the only trade, marriage, legitimately open to them, they could exercise this freedom in their illegitimate trade; "the prostitute class . . . has pushed to its logical conclusion the principle that woman exists by virtue of a wage paid her in return for the possession of her person. A radical change has now taken place in arguments about prostitution. Many recent feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer. Prostitutes should, therefore, have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry. To argue in this fashion is not necessarily to defend prostitution - one can argue for trade union rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist wage labor - but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in many feminist discussions is that, if the prostitute is merely one worker among others, the appropriate conclusion might be that there is nothing wrong with prostitution. At the very least, the argument implies that there is nothing wrong with prostitution that is not also wrong with other forms of work. This conclusion depends on the same assumptions as another defense of prostitution. Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money. There is a free exchange between prostitute and customer, and the prostitution contract is exactly like - or is one example of - the employment contact. From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property in her person who contracts out part of that property in her market. A prostitute does not sell herself, as is commonly alleged, or even sell her sexual parts, but contracts out the use of sexual services. There is no difference between a prostitute and any other worker or seller of services. The prostitute, like other “individuals,” stands in an external relation to the property in her person. Contract theory thus appears to offer a convincing reply to well-known criticism of and objections to prostitution. For example, for contractarians, the objection that the prostitute is harmed or degraded by her trade misunderstands the nature of what is traded. The body and the self of the prostitute are not offered in the market; she can contact out the use of her services without detriment to herself. Feminists who argue that the prostitute epitomizes women’s subjection to men can now also be told that such a view is a reflection of outmoded attitudes to sex, fostered by men’s propaganda and the old world of women’s subordination. Defenders of prostitution admit that some reforms are necessary in the industry as it exists at present in order for a properly free market in sexual services to operate. Nevertheless, they insist that “sound prostitution” is possible. The idea of sound prostitution illustrates the dramatic shift that has taken place in arguments over prostitution. The new, contractarian defense is a universal argument. Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require that prostitution should be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services in the market. Anyone who needs a sexual service should have access to the market, whether male or female, young or old, black or white, ugly or beautiful, deformed or handicapped. Prostitution will then come into its own as a form of therapy - “the role of a prostitute as a kind of therapist is a natural one” - or as a form of social work or nursing (taking care “of the intimate hygiene of disabled patients”). No one will be left out because of inappropriate attitudes to sex. The female hunchback as well as the male hunchback will be able to find a seller of services. Any discussion of prostitution is replete with difficulties. Although contractarians now deny any political significance to the fact that (most) prostitutes are women, one major difficulty is that, in other discussions, prostitution is invariably seen as a problem about the prostitute, as a problem about women. The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is so deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation that contemporary contractarians bring against feminists, that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes. To argue that there is something wrong with prostitution does not necessarily imply any adverse judgment on the women who engage in the work. When socialists criticize capitalism and the employment contract, they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions. Nevertheless, appeals to the idea of false consciousness, popular a few years ago, suggested that the problem about capitalism was a problem about workers. To reduce the question of capitalism to deficiencies in workers’ consciousness diverts attention from the capitalist, the other participant in the employment contract. Similarly, the patriarchal assumption that prostitution is a problem about women ensures that the other participant in the prostitution contract escapes scrutiny. Once the story of the sexual contract has been told, prostitution can be seen as a problem about men. The problem of prostitution then becomes encapsulated in the question why men demand that women’s bodies are sold as commodities in the capitalist market. The story of the sexual contract also supplies the answer; prostitution is part of the exercise of the law of male sex right, one of the ways in which men are ensured access to women’s bodies. Feminist criticism of prostitution is now sometimes rejected on the grounds that prostitutes exploit or cheat their male clients; men are presented as the injured parties, not women. To be sure, prostitutes are often able to obtain control over the transaction with their customers by various stratagems and tricks of the trade. However, just as arguments about marriage that appeal to the example of benevolent husbands fail to distinguish between the relation of one particular husband and wife and the structure of the institution of marriage, so particular instances of the prostitution contract, in which a prostitute exploits a male customers, should be distinguished from prostitution as a social institution. Within the structure of the institution of prostitution, “prostitutes” are subject to “clients,” just as “wives” are subordinate to “husbands” within the structure of marriage. There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a discrete group of wage laborers who specialize in a particular line of work, or about prostitution as a specialized occupation or profession within the patriarchal capitalist division of labor. The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession" but also on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge. There is a universal natural (masculine) impulse that, it is assumed, requires, and always require, the outlet provided by prostitution. Now that arguments that extramarital sex is immoral have lost their social force, defenders of prostitution often present prostitution as one example of "sex without love," as an example of the satisfaction of natural appetites. 12 The argument, however, is a non sequitur. Defenders of sex without love and advocates of what once was called free love always supposed that the relationship was based on mutual sexual attraction between a man and a woman and involved mutual physical satisfaction. There is no desire or satisfaction on the part of the prostitute. Prostitution is not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but the unilateral use of a woman’s body by a man in exchange for money. That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse, and that “sex without love” can be equated with the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because an important question is begged: why do men demand that satisfaction of a natural appetite must take the form of public access to women’s bodies in the capitalist market in exchange for money?

<h4>Prostitution does nothing to change the material conditions that make exploitation possible -- the aff<strong> only plays into the patriarchal capitalist system that demand bodies be sold as commodities in the neoliberal market </h4><p>Pateman 99</p><p></strong>Carole, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Political Science @ University of California Los Angeles and Honorary Professor @ Cardiff University, “What's Wrong with Prostitution?”, Women's Studies Quarterly, Volume 27, Number 1/2, Spring - Summer, pp. 53-64, AB </p><p>In modern patriarchy, a variety of means are available through which men can uphold the terms of the sexual contract. The marriage contract is still fundamental to patriarchal right, but <u><strong><mark>marriage is now</mark> only one of <mark>the</mark> <mark>socially acceptable way</u></strong></mark>s<u><strong> for men <mark>to</mark> gain <mark>access</mark> to <mark>women’s bodies</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Casual sexual liasons</u></strong> and “living together” <u><strong>no longer carry the social sanctions of</u></strong> twenty or <u><strong>thirty years ago</u></strong>, and, in addition to private arrangements, <u><strong>there is a huge, multimillion dollar trade in women’s bodies</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution is an integral part of patriarchal capitalism</u></strong></mark>. Wives are no longer put up for public auction (although in Australia, the United States, and Britain, they can be bought by mail order from the Philippines), but <u><strong><mark>men</mark> can <mark>buy</mark> sexual <mark>access to</mark> women’s <mark>bodies</mark> <mark>in the capitalist market</u></strong>. <u><strong>Patriarchal right is explicitly embodied in “freedom of contract.”</mark> Prostitutes are</u></strong> readily <u><strong>available at all levels of the market</u></strong> for any man who can afford one, and they are frequently provide <u><strong>as part of business, political, and diplomatic transactions</u></strong>. Yet the public character of prostitution is less obvious than it might be. <u><strong><mark>Like other forms of capitalist enterprise, prostitution is</mark> seen <mark>a</u></strong></mark>s <u><strong><mark>private enterprise</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as private enterprise</u></strong>, and the contract between client and prostitute is seen as a private arrangement between a buyer and a seller. Moreover, prostitution is shrouded in secrecy despite the scale of the industry. In Birmingham, a British city of about 1 million people, some eight hundred women work either as street prostitutes or from their homes or hotels, from “saunas,” “massage parlors,” or “escort agencies.” Nearly 14 thousand men each week buy their services, that is, about seventeen men for each prostitute. A similar level of demand has been recorded in the United States and the total number of customers each week across the country has been conservatively estimated at 1.5 million. The sexual subjection of wives has never lacked defenders, but until very recently an unqualified defense of prostitution has been hard to find. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution was seen</u></strong></mark>, for example, <u><strong><mark>as a necessary evil that protected</mark> young <mark>women from rape and</mark> shielded</u></strong> marriage and <u><strong><mark>the family from</mark> the ravages of <mark>men’s sexual appetites</u></strong></mark>; or as an unfortunate outcome of poverty and the economic constraints facing women who had to support themselves; or prostitution was seen as no worse, and as more honest, than "legal prostitution," as Mary Wollstonecraft called marriage in 1790. <u><strong>As prostitutes, women openly trade their bodies and, like workers</u></strong> (but unlike a wife), <u><strong>are paid in return</u></strong>. So, for Emma Goldman, "it is merely a question of degree whether [a woman] sells herself to one man, in or out of marriage, or to many men." Simone de Beauvoir sees the wife as "hired for life by one man; <u><strong>the prostitute has</u></strong> several <u><strong>clients who pay her by the piece</u></strong>. The one is protected by one male against all the others; the other is defended by all against the exclusive tyranny of each."4 Cicely Hamilton noted in 1909 that although women were prevented from bargaining freely in the only trade, marriage, legitimately open to them, they could exercise this freedom in their illegitimate trade; "the prostitute class . . . has pushed to its logical conclusion the principle that woman exists by virtue of a wage paid her in return for the possession of her person. A radical change has now taken place in arguments about prostitution. Many recent <u><strong>feminist discussions have argued that prostitution is merely a job of work and the prostitute is a worker like any other wage laborer</u></strong>. <u><strong>Prostitutes should</u></strong>, therefore, <u><strong>have trade union rights, and feminists often put forward proposals for workers’ control of the industry</u></strong>. To argue in this fashion is not necessarily to defend prostitution <u><strong>- <mark>one can argue for</mark> trade union <mark>rights while calling for the abolition of capitalist</mark> wage <mark>labor</mark> - <mark>but in the absence of argument to the contrary, the implicit suggestion in</mark> many <mark>feminist discussions is that</u></strong></mark>, if the prostitute is merely one worker among others, <u><strong><mark>the</mark> appropriate <mark>conclusion might be</mark> that <mark>there is nothing wrong with prostitution</u></strong></mark>. At the very least, the argument implies that there is nothing wrong with prostitution that is not also wrong with other forms of work. This conclusion depends on the same assumptions as another defense of prostitution. <u><strong>Contract theorists argue that a prostitute contracts out a certain form of labor power for a given period in exchange for money</u></strong>. There is a free exchange between prostitute and customer, and the prostitution contract is exactly like - or is one example of - the employment contact. <u><strong>From the standpoint of contract, the prostitute is an owner of property</u></strong> in her person <u><strong>who contracts out part of that property in her market</u></strong>. <u><strong>A prostitute does not sell herself</u></strong>, as is commonly alleged, or even sell her sexual parts, <u><strong>but contracts out the use of sexual services</u></strong>. There is no difference between a prostitute and any other worker or seller of services. The prostitute, like other “individuals,” stands in an external relation to the property in her person. Contract theory thus appears to offer a convincing reply to well-known criticism of and objections to prostitution. For example, for contractarians, the objection that the prostitute is harmed or degraded by her trade misunderstands the nature of what is traded. The body and the self of the prostitute are not offered in the market; she can contact out the use of her services without detriment to herself. Feminists who argue that the prostitute epitomizes women’s subjection to men can now also be told that such a view is a reflection of outmoded attitudes to sex, fostered by men’s propaganda and the old world of women’s subordination. <u><strong>Defenders of prostitution</u></strong> admit that some reforms are necessary in the industry as it exists at present in order for a properly free market in sexual services to operate. Nevertheless, they<u><strong> insist that “sound prostitution” is possible</u></strong>. The idea of sound prostitution illustrates the dramatic shift that has taken place in arguments over prostitution. The new, contractarian defense is a universal argument. <u><strong>Prostitution is defended as a trade fit for anyone to enter. Freedom of contract and equality of opportunity require</u></strong> that <u><strong>prostitution</u></strong> should <u><strong>be open to everyone and that any individual should be able to buy or sell services</u></strong> in the market. Anyone who needs a sexual service should have access to the market, whether male or female, young or old, black or white, ugly or beautiful, deformed or handicapped. Prostitution will then come into its own as a form of therapy - “the role of a prostitute as a kind of therapist is a natural one” - or as a form of social work or nursing (taking care “of the intimate hygiene of disabled patients”). No one will be left out because of inappropriate attitudes to sex. The female hunchback as well as the male hunchback will be able to find a seller of services. Any discussion of prostitution is replete with difficulties. Although contractarians now deny any political significance to the fact that (most) prostitutes are women, one major difficulty is that, in other discussions, prostitution is invariably seen as a problem about the prostitute, as a problem about women. <u><strong>The perception of prostitution as a problem about women is</u></strong> so <u><strong>deep-seated that any criticism of prostitution is likely to provoke the accusation </u></strong>that contemporary contractarians bring against feminists,<u><strong> that criticism of prostitution shows contempt for prostitutes</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>To argue</mark> that <mark>there is something wrong with prostitution does not</mark> necessarily <mark>imply</mark> any adverse <mark>judgment on</mark> the <mark>women</mark> who engage in the work.</u></strong> <u><strong>When socialists criticize capitalism</u></strong> and the employment contract, <u><strong>they do not do so because they are contemptuous of workers but because they are the worker champions</u></strong>. Nevertheless, appeals to the idea of false consciousness, popular a few years ago, suggested that the problem about capitalism was a problem about workers. <u><strong><mark>To reduce</mark> the question of <mark>capitalism to</mark> deficiencies in <mark>workers’</mark> <mark>consciousness</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>diverts attention from the capitalist</mark>, the other participant in the employment contract</u></strong>. Similarly, the patriarchal assumption that prostitution is a problem about women ensures that the other participant in the prostitution contract escapes scrutiny. Once the story of the sexual contract has been told, <u><strong>prostitution can be seen as a problem about men</u></strong>. The problem of <u><strong><mark>prostitution</u></strong></mark> then <u><strong><mark>becomes</u></strong> <u><strong>encapsulated in the question why men demand</mark> that women’s <mark>bodies are sold as commodities</mark> in the capitalist market</u></strong>. The story of the sexual contract also supplies the answer; <u><strong><mark>prostitution is part of</mark> <mark>the exercise of the law of male sex right</u></strong>,</mark> <u><strong><mark>one of the ways</mark> in which <mark>men are ensured access to women’s bodies. </u></strong></mark>Feminist criticism of prostitution is now sometimes rejected on the grounds that prostitutes exploit or cheat their male clients; men are presented as the injured parties, not women. To be sure, prostitutes are often able to obtain control over the transaction with their customers by various stratagems and tricks of the trade. However, just as arguments about marriage that appeal to the example of benevolent husbands fail to distinguish between the relation of one particular husband and wife and the structure of the institution of marriage, so particular instances of the prostitution contract, in which a prostitute exploits a male customers, should be distinguished from prostitution as a social institution. Within the structure of the institution of prostitution, “prostitutes” are subject to “clients,” just as “wives” are subordinate to “husbands” within the structure of marriage. <u><strong>There is nothing universal about prostitutes as a</u></strong> discrete <u><strong>group of wage laborers who specialize in</u></strong> a particular line of <u><strong>work</u></strong>, or about prostitution as a specialized occupation or profession within the patriarchal capitalist division of labor. <u><strong>The claim that prostitution is a universal feature of human society relies not only on the cliché of the "oldest profession"</u></strong> <u><strong>but</u></strong> also <u><strong>on the widely held assumption that prostitution originates in men's natural sexual urge</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>There is a</mark> <mark>universal</mark> natural (<mark>masculine) impulse that</u></strong></mark>, it is assumed, <u><strong><mark>requires</u></strong></mark>, and always require, <u><strong>the outlet provided by <mark>prostitution</u></strong></mark>. Now that arguments that extramarital sex is immoral have lost their social force, defenders of prostitution often present prostitution as one example of "sex without love," as an example of the satisfaction of natural appetites. 12 The argument, however, is a non sequitur. Defenders of sex without love and advocates of what once was called free love always supposed that the relationship was based on mutual sexual attraction between a man and a woman and involved mutual physical satisfaction. There is no desire or satisfaction on the part of the prostitute. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution is</mark> not a mutual, pleasurable exchange of the use of bodies, but <mark>the</mark> unilateral <mark>use</mark> <mark>of a</mark> woman’s <mark>body</mark> by a man in exchange <mark>for</mark> <mark>money</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>That the institution of prostitution can be presented by a natural extension of a human impulse</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> that “<u><strong>sex</u></strong> without love<u><strong>” can be equated with <mark>the sale of women’s bodies in the capitalist market, is possible only because</mark> an important question is begged:</u></strong> <u><strong>why do <mark>men demand </mark>that satisfaction</u></strong> of a natural appetite <u><strong>must take the form of public <mark>access to women’s bodies</mark> in the capitalist market <mark>in exchange for money</u></strong></mark>? </p>

1NC

1NC

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

It’s the largest internal link and overcomes barriers to cooperation with Mexico

Hakim 14 , AB)

Hakim 14 (Peter, Professor @ MIT and Columbia and president emeritus and senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank on Western Hemisphere affairs, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3496, “Why the U.S. should legalize marijuana”, January 26th, AB)

Legalizing cannabis is the only way out particularly after President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a federal ban Legalization should contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to the south on issues of public security. keeping marijuana illegal carries a high price tag Particularly devastating are the human costs of arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year. Cannabis legalization would lift an unneeded burden from U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, where Washington’s drug war has long strained diplomatic relations. Most governments concluded that U.S. anti-drug policies are just not working and are actually contributing to crime, violence and corruption. Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the United States in its continuing efforts to eradicate drug crops and interrupt drug flows A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana would be a bold step toward breaking today’s bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the way for a genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies.

Legalizing cannabis is the only way out Legalization contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to the south keeping marijuana illegal carries a high price tag legalization would lift an unneeded burden from U.S. policy in Latin America where Washington’s drug war has long strained relations Most governments concluded U.S. anti-drug policies are not working and contribut to crime violence and corruption. Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the U S A decision to legalize marijuana would be a bold step toward breaking inertia and opening the way for a genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies.

Legalizing cannabis, a step most Americans now favor, is the only way out of this jumble, particularly after President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a federal ban on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. “We have other fish to fry,” he said. In another interview, he said marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol. Legalization should also contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to the south on issues of public security. To be sure, legal marijuana comes with costs and risks. The American Medical Association considers cannabis a “ dangerous drug” while the American Psychiatric Association asserts that its use impedes neurological development in adolescents and can cause the “onset of psychiatric disorders.” Some studies suggest it interferes with learning and motivation. It should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use, at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the cultural and social stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke. Abuse and addiction — including among juveniles — will rise as well. But keeping marijuana illegal also carries a high price tag. Particularly devastating are the human costs of arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year. Roughly one-third of all U.S. citizens are arrested by age 23. Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable. African-American marijuana users are over three times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels. With cannabis accounting for roughly half of total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this egregious disparity. It would also save money by reducing the U.S. prison population. A half a million people were incarcerated for drug offenses in 2011, a ten-fold jump since 1980 — at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a minimum-security federal facility. Cannabis legalization would also help to lift an unneeded burden from U.S. foreign policy in Latin America, where Washington’s drug war has long strained diplomatic relations. Most governments in the hemisphere have concluded that U.S. anti-drug policies are just not working and, in many places, are actually contributing to mounting levels of crime, violence and corruption. Colombia has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become far more secure in the past dozen years. Yet Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president and arguably Washington’s closest ally in the region, is now a leading advocate of alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year, prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of alternative policy approaches, including cannabis legalization. Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization a la uruguaya. But many have stopped arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay. Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the United States in its continuing efforts to eradicate drug crops and interrupt drug flows. A decision by the U.S. government to legalize marijuana would be a bold step toward breaking today’s bureaucratic and political inertia and opening the way for a genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies.

<h4>It’s the largest internal link and overcomes barriers to cooperation with Mexico</h4><p><strong>Hakim 14</strong> (Peter, Professor @ MIT and Columbia and president emeritus and senior fellow of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based think tank on Western Hemisphere affairs, http://www.thedialogue.org/page.cfm?pageID=32&pubID=3496, “Why the U.S. should legalize marijuana”, January 26th<u><strong><mark>, AB) </p><p>Legalizing cannabis</u></strong></mark>, a step most Americans now favor, <u><strong><mark>is the only way out</u></strong></mark> of this jumble, <u>particularly after President Obama made clear that he would not enforce a federal ban</u> on marijuana use in those states where it was now lawful. “We have other fish to fry,” he said. In another interview, he said marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol. <u><strong><mark>Legalization </mark>should</u></strong> also <u><strong><mark>contribute to easier relations with Mexico and other neighbors to the south</mark> on issues of public security. </u></strong>To be sure, legal marijuana comes with costs and risks. The American Medical Association considers cannabis a “ dangerous drug” while the American Psychiatric Association asserts that its use impedes neurological development in adolescents and can cause the “onset of psychiatric disorders.” Some studies suggest it interferes with learning and motivation. It should be anticipated that legalization will lead to greater use, at all ages, as marijuana becomes more accessible and less expensive, and the cultural and social stigmas surrounding its consumption literally go up in smoke. Abuse and addiction — including among juveniles — will rise as well. But <u><mark>keeping marijuana illegal</u> </mark>also <u><mark>carries a high price tag</u></mark>. <u>Particularly devastating are the human costs</u> <u>of arresting and jailing thousands upon thousands of young Americans each year.</u> Roughly one-third of all U.S. citizens are arrested by age 23. Racial and ethnic minorities are most vulnerable. African-American marijuana users are over three times more likely to be arrested and imprisoned than whites, even though the two groups consume the drug at virtually the same levels. With cannabis<u> </u>accounting for roughly half of total drug arrests, legalization would sharply reduce this egregious disparity. It would also save money by reducing the U.S. prison population. A half a million people were incarcerated for drug offenses in 2011, a ten-fold jump since 1980 — at an average annual cost per prisoner of more than $20,000 in a minimum-security federal facility. <u>Cannabis <mark>legalization would</u> </mark>also help to <u><mark>lift an <strong>unneeded burden</strong> from <strong>U.S. </mark>foreign <mark>policy in Latin America</mark>,</u></strong> <u><mark>where <strong>Washington’s drug war has long strained </mark>diplomatic <mark>relations</strong></mark>. <mark>Most governments</u> </mark>in the hemisphere have <u><mark>concluded </mark>that <mark>U.S. anti-drug policies are </mark>just <mark>not working and</u></mark>, in many places, <u>are actually <mark>contribut</mark>ing <mark>to</u> </mark>mounting levels of <u><mark>crime</mark>, <mark>violence and corruption.</u></mark> Colombia has been a notable exception. With U.S. support of nearly $10 billion, the country has become far more secure in the past dozen years. Yet Juan Manuel Santos, Colombia’s president and arguably Washington’s closest ally in the region, is now a leading advocate of alternative drug strategies. In an exhaustive report last year, prompted by President Santos, the Organization of American States analyzed a range of alternative policy approaches, including cannabis legalization. <u>Few Latin American countries are actively contemplating legalization</u> a la uruguaya. But many have stopped arrests for use and possession of marijuana, and virtually all are keeping a close watch on developments in Uruguay. <u><strong><mark>Nowhere is there much enthusiasm for cooperating with the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</strong> in its continuing efforts to eradicate drug crops and interrupt drug flows</u>. <u><mark>A decision </mark>by the U.S. government <mark>to legalize marijuana would be a <strong>bold step</strong> toward breaking </mark>today’s bureaucratic and political <mark>inertia and opening the way for a <strong>genuine hemisphere-wide search for alternative strategies.</p></u></strong></mark>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The impact is global violence

Zizek and Daly 04

Zizek and Daly 04 [Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix

our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. in order to create a universal system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a gentrification of that system. the gentrification of global liberal capitalism reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and social exclusion remains mystified and nameless this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. universalism would not attempt to conceal or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation. Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

<h4><strong>The impact is global violence </h4><p>Zizek and Daly 04 </p><p></strong>[Slavoj Zizek and Glyn Daly, Conversations with Zizek, 2004, p. 14-16]</p><p>For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that <u><strong><mark>our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the</mark> constitutive <mark>violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization</mark> / anonymization <mark>of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world.</u></strong></mark> Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety. For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears). This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that <u><strong><mark>in order to create a universal</mark> global <mark>system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a</mark> kind of <mark>gentrification of that system.</mark> </u></strong>What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that <u><strong><mark>the gentrification of global liberal capitalism</u></strong></mark> is one whose ‘universalism’ <u><strong>fundamentally <mark>reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations.</u></strong></mark> In this way, <u><strong><mark>neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by presenting its outcomes</mark> of winning and losing <mark>as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place.</mark> </u></strong>Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, <u><strong><mark>the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and</mark>,</u></strong> in consequence, <u><strong><mark>social exclusion remains mystified and nameless</u></strong></mark> (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that <u><strong><mark>this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity: to redirect</u></strong></mark> (or misdirect) <u><strong><mark>social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation.</u></strong></mark> Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle. Against this <u><strong>Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that <mark>our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale.</u></strong></mark> While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), <u><strong>what is novel about Zizek’s <mark>universalism</mark> is that it <mark>would not attempt to conceal</mark> this fact <mark>or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix</u></strong>.</mark> </p>

1NC

1NC

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Money goes Dem

Angle 10/16

Angle 10/16 <Jim, Fox, “Democrats outraising Republicans as election nears,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/16/democrats-outraising-republicans-as-election-nears/>#SPS

Democrats are outraising Republicans this election season. "the Democratic senatorial campaign committee has raised $111 million compared to $82 million for their Republican counterpart." Even when you take all sources of money, from all donors for all races, the Democrats still lead. "It's about $595 million for the Democrats, and about $450 million for the Republicans," Although the Democrats have enjoyed a money lead for some time everyone kind of likes to play the underdog role. And so it's been very interesting to see fundraising ads, particularly related to Senate races where Democrats are claiming that, you know, they're losing the race." Democratic Senate candidates, while happy to get the money, sometimes try to avoid being seen with an unpopular president. as you're getting three weeks out, you've got to spend your money in the places where it will do the most good." But not all money goes into ads. Some is reserved for voter turnout efforts TV ads accounted for about 50 percent and then that pool of the remaining 50 percent, you can kind of split between get out the vote, mailers, phone calls."

Democrats are outraising Republicans this election season. Even when you take all sources of money, from all donors for all races, the Democrats still lead. Democrats have enjoyed a money lead for some time not all money goes into ads. Some is reserved for voter turnout efforts

Despite outrage from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats about billionaires like the Koch brothers donating to the GOP, statistics show Democrats are outraising Republicans this election season. Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics estimated, "the Democratic senatorial campaign committee has raised $111 million compared to $82 million for their Republican counterpart." Even when you take all sources of money, from all donors for all races, the Democrats still lead. "It's about $595 million for the Democrats, and about $450 million for the Republicans," Krumholz said. In the run-up to the Nov. 4 election, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee made a last minute push and just announced it raised $15.5 million in September, its best month ever. Political analyst Michael Barone of the American Enterprise Institute said, "that's a change and it says that Republican contributors big and small are martialing to the cause." Although the Democrats have enjoyed a money lead for some time, they still are asking for more cash. A Democratic campaign group on October 7 urged, "Today's ad buy deadline is the most critical of the election. This is our last chance to rescue Democrats drowning in Koch-funded attacks. Can you chip in $5 or more?" Ben Wieder of the Center for Public Integrity, another watchdog group, noted, "everyone kind of likes to play the underdog role. And so it's been very interesting to see fundraising ads, particularly related to Senate races where Democrats are claiming that, you know, they're losing the race." Much of the Democratic party's money comes from the president's non-stop efforts to raise cash, having done more than 50 fundraisers, seven just last week, all closed to the media, including one at the home of real estate baron Rich Richman -- a name Democrats would likely ridicule if he were giving to Republicans. Democratic Senate candidates, while happy to get the money, sometimes try to avoid being seen with an unpopular president. According to Barone, that's "because these candidates are running in states where President Obama's job performance rating is negative, in many cases highly negative." In some recent polls, his personal approval rating stands at only 40 percent. Democrats recently pulled money from 11 marginal races, and the Republicans just poured another $6.5 million into the Senate race in North Carolina after internal polls showed Republican Thom Tillis in a position to win. Wieder explained,"as you're getting three weeks out, you've got to spend your money in the places where it will do the most good." But not all money goes into ads. Some is reserved for voter turnout efforts, because fewer people vote in mid-term elections. Wieder noted that "TV ads accounted for about 50 percent and then that pool of the remaining 50 percent, you can kind of split between get out the vote, mailers, phone calls." Low turnout elections tend to favor the angriest and most energized voters, and these days, that tends to be Republicans. “There's a close correlation between how voters approve of the president, whether it's this president or the previous one, and how they vote in Senate elections," Barone explained.

<h4>Money goes Dem</h4><p><strong>Angle 10/16 </strong><Jim, Fox, “Democrats outraising Republicans as election nears,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/16/democrats-outraising-republicans-as-election-nears/>#SPS </p><p>Despite outrage from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats about billionaires like the Koch brothers donating to the GOP, statistics show <u><strong><mark>Democrats are outraising Republicans this election season.</u></strong></mark> Sheila Krumholz of the Center for Responsive Politics estimated, <u><strong>"the Democratic senatorial campaign committee has raised $111 million compared to $82 million for their Republican counterpart."</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Even when you take all sources of money, from all donors for all races, the Democrats still lead.</mark> "It's about $595 million for the Democrats, and about $450 million for the Republicans,"</u></strong> Krumholz said. In the run-up to the Nov. 4 election, the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee made a last minute push and just announced it raised $15.5 million in September, its best month ever. Political analyst Michael Barone of the American Enterprise Institute said, "that's a change and it says that Republican contributors big and small are martialing to the cause." <u><strong>Although the <mark>Democrats have enjoyed a money lead for some time</u></strong></mark>, they still are asking for more cash. A Democratic campaign group on October 7 urged, "Today's ad buy deadline is the most critical of the election. This is our last chance to rescue Democrats drowning in Koch-funded attacks. Can you chip in $5 or more?" Ben Wieder of the Center for Public Integrity, another watchdog group, noted, "<u><strong>everyone kind of likes to play the underdog role. And so it's been very interesting to see fundraising ads, particularly related to Senate races where Democrats are claiming that, you know, they're losing the race."</u></strong> Much of the Democratic party's money comes from the president's non-stop efforts to raise cash, having done more than 50 fundraisers, seven just last week, all closed to the media, including one at the home of real estate baron Rich Richman -- a name Democrats would likely ridicule if he were giving to Republicans. <u><strong>Democratic Senate candidates, while happy to get the money, sometimes try to avoid being seen with an unpopular president.</u></strong> According to Barone, that's "because these candidates are running in states where President Obama's job performance rating is negative, in many cases highly negative." In some recent polls, his personal approval rating stands at only 40 percent. Democrats recently pulled money from 11 marginal races, and the Republicans just poured another $6.5 million into the Senate race in North Carolina after internal polls showed Republican Thom Tillis in a position to win. Wieder explained,"<u><strong>as you're getting three weeks out, you've got to spend your money in the places where it will do the most good." But <mark>not all money goes into ads. Some is reserved for voter turnout efforts</u></strong></mark>, because fewer people vote in mid-term elections. Wieder noted that "<u><strong>TV ads accounted for about 50 percent and then that pool of the remaining 50 percent, you can kind of split between get out the vote, mailers, phone calls." </u></strong>Low turnout elections tend to favor the angriest and most energized voters, and these days, that tends to be Republicans. “There's a close correlation between how voters approve of the president, whether it's this president or the previous one, and how they vote in Senate elections," Barone explained.</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Those have triggered retaliation and set precedent -- they involved the DSB as well so their specific internal link is thumped as well

Ikenson 5

Daniel Ikenson 5, trade policy analyst @ Center for Trade Policy Studies, “America’s Credibility Goes ‘Timber!’” Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.freetrade.org/node/84

Intransigence on lumber is the latest instance in an emerging pattern of U.S. antipathy for the rules of trade. The United States has failed to comply with several other verdicts of the WTO dispute settlement body in recent years, including Byrd Despite the ruling, the U S failed to repeal Byrd, and the WTO authorized retaliation Thus far, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Mexico have begun or announced that they will begin imposing retaliatory tariffs against various U.S. exports U.S. willingness to blatantly ignore the outcomes in two major dispute settlement cases is being driven by the crassest of political considerations at the expense of the global trade rules So intent are some members of Congress to ensure preservation of the lumber restrictions America's growing disdain for its international trade commitments is a troubling development. It will now be that much easier for U.S. trade partners to break the rules while citing U.S. precedents U.S. credibility on trade issues is waning

The U S has failed to comply with several other verdicts of the d s b in recent years, including Byrd Thus far, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Mexico will begin imposing retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports U.S. willingness to blatantly ignore the outcomes in two major dispute cases is at the expense of the global trade rules America's growing disdain for its international trade commitments is troubling It will now be easier for trade partners to break the rules citing U.S. precedents U.S. credibility on trade is waning

Intransigence on lumber is the latest instance in an emerging pattern of U.S. antipathy for the rules of trade. The United States has failed to comply with several other verdicts of the WTO dispute settlement body in recent years, including a 2003 indictment of the so-called Byrd Amendment. A little digging reveals a scandalous relationship between the U.S. positions on Byrd and lumber. The Byrd Amendment, formally known as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, became law in 2000.10 It mandates distribution of antidumping and countervailing duties collected at the border to the domestic industries that filed or supported the original petitions in the underlying cases. Previously, duties collected were commingled with funds in the general treasury. Byrd was quickly challenged by several trade partners in the WTO and was ultimately found to violate U.S. trade obligations because it punishes foreign exporters twice--first, by imposing the duties as a remedy to dumping or subsidization (which is acceptable), and then by using those funds to directly subsidize the U.S. producers (which is not). Despite the ruling, the United States failed to repeal Byrd, and last year the WTO authorized retaliation by the complainants. Thus far, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Mexico have begun or announced that they will begin imposing retaliatory tariffs against various U.S. exports. Still, Byrd enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress. And why shouldn't it? Members have been able to dole out $1 billion to their corporate constituents between 2001 and 2004 without having to fight for the disbursements, as the funding is automatic and doesn't come directly from U.S. taxpayers. According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office, however, most of those funds went to a select few companies in a few industries. That $1 billion is modest relative to the $5 billion at stake in the lumber case. And there are many companies, geographically dispersed, lined up to receive Byrd lumber money. If the United States were to comply with the lumber rulings and refund the duties, Congress would lose the opportunity to bestow those massive subsidies on its constituents. Thus, U.S. willingness to blatantly ignore the outcomes in two major dispute settlement cases is being driven by the crassest of political considerations at the expense of the global trade rules that the United States coauthored to protect U.S. national interests. So intent are some members of Congress to ensure preservation of the lumber restrictions that the issue became a central point of discussion in the confirmation hearings of Franklin Lavin, nominee for undersecretary of commerce, International Trade Administration. Lavin testified before the Senate that he would find a way to keep the countervailing duties in place, and that officials at DOC have assured him that there are ways to recalculate the duties to produce a rate above de minimis.11 About Lavin's assertion there should be little doubt. The DOC has vast discretion to mix and match methodologies in order to find or inflate dumping and subsidy margins.12 Likewise, a group of Senators submitted a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on October 20 urging him to preserve the duties. Reflecting total disregard for the purpose and legitimacy of the NAFTA dispute settlement system, the Senators opined that "NAFTA panel decisions cannot and should not force the Department to deny legitimate relief under U.S. law to the domestic lumber industry and its workers."13 Conclusion America's growing disdain for its international trade commitments is a troubling development. It will now be that much easier for U.S. trade partners to break the rules while citing U.S. precedents. Members of Congress who grandstand over "unfair" Chinese trade practices, for example, no longer preach from the moral high ground. U.S. credibility on trade issues is waning at a time when strong leadership is desperately needed. With the Doha Round of WTO talks fast approaching what experts believe to be a do-or-die meeting in Hong Kong in December, U.S. mockery of the rules could not come at a worse time. There was already a perception in many countries that the rules of trade are stacked in favor of the larger economies. When the world's largest economy ignores those rules, perceptions can quickly become entrenched wisdom.

<h4>Those have triggered retaliation and set precedent -- they involved the DSB as well so their specific internal link is thumped as well </h4><p>Daniel <strong>Ikenson 5</strong>, trade policy analyst @ Center for Trade Policy Studies, “America’s Credibility Goes ‘Timber!’” Center for Trade Policy Studies, http://www.freetrade.org/node/84</p><p><u><strong> Intransigence on lumber is the latest instance in an emerging pattern of U.S. antipathy for the rules of trade. <mark>The U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>has failed to comply with several other verdicts of the </mark>WTO <mark>d</mark>ispute <mark>s</mark>ettlement <mark>b</mark>ody <mark>in recent years, including</u></strong></mark> a 2003 indictment of the so-called <u><strong><mark>Byrd</u></strong></mark> Amendment. A little digging reveals a scandalous relationship between the U.S. positions on Byrd and lumber. The Byrd Amendment, formally known as the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, became law in 2000.10 It mandates distribution of antidumping and countervailing duties collected at the border to the domestic industries that filed or supported the original petitions in the underlying cases. Previously, duties collected were commingled with funds in the general treasury. Byrd was quickly challenged by several trade partners in the WTO and was ultimately found to violate U.S. trade obligations because it punishes foreign exporters twice--first, by imposing the duties as a remedy to dumping or subsidization (which is acceptable), and then by using those funds to directly subsidize the U.S. producers (which is not). <u><strong>Despite the ruling, the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates <u><strong>failed to repeal Byrd, and</u></strong> last year <u><strong>the WTO authorized retaliation</u></strong> by the complainants. <u><strong><mark>Thus far, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Mexico </mark>have begun or announced that they <mark>will begin imposing retaliatory tariffs against </mark>various <mark>U.S. exports</u></strong></mark>. Still, Byrd enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress. And why shouldn't it? Members have been able to dole out $1 billion to their corporate constituents between 2001 and 2004 without having to fight for the disbursements, as the funding is automatic and doesn't come directly from U.S. taxpayers. According to a recent study by the Government Accountability Office, however, most of those funds went to a select few companies in a few industries. That $1 billion is modest relative to the $5 billion at stake in the lumber case. And there are many companies, geographically dispersed, lined up to receive Byrd lumber money. If the United States were to comply with the lumber rulings and refund the duties, Congress would lose the opportunity to bestow those massive subsidies on its constituents. Thus, <u><strong><mark>U.S. willingness to blatantly ignore the outcomes in two major dispute </mark>settlement <mark>cases is </mark>being driven by the crassest of political considerations <mark>at the expense of the global trade rules</u></strong></mark> that the United States coauthored to protect U.S. national interests. <u><strong>So intent are some members of Congress to ensure preservation of the lumber restrictions</u></strong> that the issue became a central point of discussion in the confirmation hearings of Franklin Lavin, nominee for undersecretary of commerce, International Trade Administration. Lavin testified before the Senate that he would find a way to keep the countervailing duties in place, and that officials at DOC have assured him that there are ways to recalculate the duties to produce a rate above de minimis.11 About Lavin's assertion there should be little doubt. The DOC has vast discretion to mix and match methodologies in order to find or inflate dumping and subsidy margins.12 Likewise, a group of Senators submitted a letter to Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez on October 20 urging him to preserve the duties. Reflecting total disregard for the purpose and legitimacy of the NAFTA dispute settlement system, the Senators opined that "NAFTA panel decisions cannot and should not force the Department to deny legitimate relief under U.S. law to the domestic lumber industry and its workers."13 Conclusion <u><strong><mark>America's growing disdain for its international trade commitments is </mark>a <mark>troubling </mark>development. <mark>It</mark> <mark>will now be</mark> that much <mark>easier for</mark> U.S. <mark>trade partners to break the rules</mark> while <mark>citing U.S. precedents</u></strong></mark>. Members of Congress who grandstand over "unfair" Chinese trade practices, for example, no longer preach from the moral high ground. <u><strong><mark>U.S. credibility on trade</mark> issues <mark>is waning</u></strong></mark> at a time when strong leadership is desperately needed. With the Doha Round of WTO talks fast approaching what experts believe to be a do-or-die meeting in Hong Kong in December, U.S. mockery of the rules could not come at a worse time. There was already a perception in many countries that the rules of trade are stacked in favor of the larger economies. When the world's largest economy ignores those rules, perceptions can quickly become entrenched wisdom.</p>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

US-Mexico relations spill over to border biodiversity communication

Bonner and Rozental 9

Bonner and Rozental 9 (Robert C., Former Commissioner – U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former Administrator – Drug Enforcement Administration, and Andrѐs, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico; Former President and Founder – Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, “Managing the United States-Mexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Problems,” Pacific Council on International Policy, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/admin/document.doc?id=31)

The Mexico-U.S. border is unique Millions of people legally cross the frontier annually many do so several times a week No other major national boundary sees anything like this volume of traffic The pacific nature of relations between the United States and Mexico also sets the border apart from most other long land boundaries Interdependence is an abiding feature of the U.S.-Mexico relationship Interdependence raises the stakes for both countries Because trade flows are so immense misguided policies can impose costs Poor coordination along the frontier could prove deadly and even in the case of a serious terrorist threat disastrous Sound joint management of shared resources can lead to sustained and ecologically sustainable development in the whereas mismanagement of these resources will produce scarcity and environmental degradation we urge both governments to confront the challenges of border management directly and immediately We identify the policies they should adopt now to manage shared resources, and foster economic development This new system would expedite trade of tural resources Management of this shared boundary should serve as a model for binational collaboration in confronting shared challenges misperception and misunderstanding of the situation at the border create a major public relations challenge Significant cooperation between Mexico and the United States already exists along the border, but it is incomplete, uneven, and unsystematic

The Mexico-U.S. border is unique Poor coordination could prove deadly in the case of a terrorist threat Sound joint management lead to sustainable development whereas mismanagement will produce environmental degradation Significant cooperation exists , but it is incomplete

The 1,952-mile Mexico-U.S. border is unique. Only nine international land boundaries are longer, and only the longest of these (Canada’s border with the United States) can claim the same flow of legal commerce and travel – almost $300 billion in trade each year. Millions of people legally cross the frontier annually; because many of them do so several times a week, the total number of crossings into the United States from Mexico exceeds 200 million per year. No other major national boundary sees anything like this volume of traffic. The pacific nature of relations between the United States and Mexico also sets the border apart from most other long land boundaries. It has been nearly a century since the last hostile action (U.S. raids in search of Pancho Villa after his attacks on Columbus, New Mexico during the Mexican Revolution), decades more since the last major rectification of the frontier (the Gadsden Purchase of 1853-4) and 161 years since a forcible seizure of territory (at the conclusion of the U.S.-Mexican War in 1848). The border is policed – and where the boundary is not a river, often fenced – but it remains demilitarized. Interdependence is an abiding feature of the U.S.-Mexico relationship, and this interdependence is particularly pronounced along the border itself, where most communities are twin cities. In the case of Nogales, the towns on each side of the border share the same name; in the case of Calexico and Mexicali, they are simply different combinations of the same words (Mexico and California). Hundreds of thousands of people from these communities commute across the border for work, shopping, and visits with friends or relatives. Interdependence raises the stakes for both countries. Because trade flows are so immense, misguided policies can impose tens of billions of dollars of costs each year on consumers. Poor security coordination along the frontier could prove deadly and even, in the case of a serious terrorist threat, disastrous. Sound joint management of shared resources can lead to sustained and ecologically sustainable development in the border region, whereas mismanagement of these same resources by either government will produce scarcity and environmental degradation. Finally, federal policies in both countries that ignore interdependence or reflexively promote sovereignty over other considerations split border communities. In this report, we urge both governments to confront the challenges of border management directly and immediately. We identify the policies they should adopt now to secure the border, expedite legitimate crossings, manage shared resources, and foster economic development. We also articulate the ultimate goal to which they should aspire, offering a conception of border management that can guide them as they adopt specific policies. Full Report 9 We envision a system of border management that moves people and goods between the United States and Mexico far more quickly and efficiently than the present arrangement but that also makes both nations more secure. This new system would expedite trade, encourage the emergence of regional economic clusters, promote wise stewardship of shared natural resources, enhance efforts to preserve ecosystems that cross the national boundary, and invite communities that dot and span the frontier to exploit opportunities for mutual benefit. Ultimately, the border should be as “thin” as technologically and politically possible for those engaged in legitimate travel or commerce while remaining difficult to penetrate for those engaged in criminal activity or unauthorized transit. Management of this shared boundary should serve as a model for binational collaboration in confronting shared challenges. Few policymakers, legislators and opinion leaders fully understand the border. Indeed, misperception and misunderstanding of the situation at the border create a major public relations challenge. Those seeking to improve management of this shared boundary and the region around it must inform policymakers by describing the situation on the ground before their recommendations will make sense. In the next section of this report, therefore, we offer our diagnosis of the situation on the ground today. We emphasize not only the deficiencies in border management but also the “bright spots” along the frontier where cooperation has been exemplary. Significant cooperation between Mexico and the United States already exists along the border, but it is incomplete, uneven, and unsystematic.

<h4><strong>US-Mexico relations spill over to border biodiversity communication </h4><p>Bonner and Rozental 9</strong> (Robert C., Former Commissioner – U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Former Administrator – Drug Enforcement Administration, and Andrѐs, Former Deputy Foreign Minister of Mexico; Former President and Founder – Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, “Managing the United States-Mexico Border: Cooperative Solutions to Common Problems,” Pacific Council on International Policy, http://www.pacificcouncil.org/admin/document.doc?id=31) </p><p><u><strong><mark>The</u></strong> </mark>1,952-mile <u><strong><mark>Mexico-U.S. border is unique</u></strong></mark>. Only nine international land boundaries are longer, and only the longest of these (Canada’s border with the United States) can claim the same flow of legal commerce and travel – almost $300 billion in trade each year. <u><strong>Millions of people legally cross the frontier annually</u></strong>; because <u><strong>many</u></strong> of them <u><strong>do so</u></strong> <u><strong>several times a week</u></strong>, the total number of crossings into the United States from Mexico exceeds 200 million per year. <u><strong>No other major national boundary sees anything like this</u></strong> <u><strong>volume of traffic</u></strong>. <u><strong>The pacific nature of relations between the United States and Mexico also sets the border apart from most other long land boundaries</u></strong>. It has been nearly a century since the last hostile action (U.S. raids in search of Pancho Villa after his attacks on Columbus, New Mexico during the Mexican Revolution), decades more since the last major rectification of the frontier (the Gadsden Purchase of 1853-4) and 161 years since a forcible seizure of territory (at the conclusion of the U.S.-Mexican War in 1848). The border is policed – and where the boundary is not a river, often fenced – but it remains demilitarized. <u><strong>Interdependence is an abiding feature of the U.S.-Mexico relationship</u></strong>, and this interdependence is particularly pronounced along the border itself, where most communities are twin cities. In the case of Nogales, the towns on each side of the border share the same name; in the case of Calexico and Mexicali, they are simply different combinations of the same words (Mexico and California). Hundreds of thousands of people from these communities commute across the border for work, shopping, and visits with friends or relatives. <u><strong>Interdependence raises the stakes for both countries</u></strong>. <u><strong>Because trade flows are so</u></strong> <u><strong>immense</u></strong>, <u><strong>misguided policies can impose</u></strong> tens of billions of dollars of <u><strong>costs</u></strong> each year on consumers. <u><strong><mark>Poor</u></strong> </mark>security <u><strong><mark>coordination </mark>along the frontier <mark>could prove deadly </mark>and even</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>in the case of a </mark>serious <mark>terrorist threat</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>disastrous</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Sound joint management </mark>of shared resources can <mark>lead to </mark>sustained and ecologically <mark>sustainable development </mark>in the </u></strong>border region, <u><strong><mark>whereas mismanagement </mark>of these</u></strong> same <u><strong>resources</u></strong> by either government <u><strong><mark>will produce </mark>scarcity and <mark>environmental degradation</u></strong></mark>. Finally, federal policies in both countries that ignore interdependence or reflexively promote sovereignty over other considerations split border communities. In this report, <u><strong>we urge both governments to confront the challenges of border</u></strong> <u><strong>management directly and immediately</u></strong>. <u><strong>We identify the policies they should adopt now</u></strong> <u><strong>to</u></strong> secure the border, expedite legitimate crossings, <u><strong>manage shared resources, and foster economic development</u></strong>. We also articulate the ultimate goal to which they should aspire, offering a conception of border management that can guide them as they adopt specific policies. Full Report 9 We envision a system of border management that moves people and goods between the United States and Mexico far more quickly and efficiently than the present arrangement but that also makes both nations more secure. <u><strong>This new system would</u></strong> <u><strong>expedite trade</u></strong>, encourage the emergence of regional economic clusters, promote wise stewardship <u><strong>of</u></strong> shared na<u><strong>tural resources</u></strong>, enhance efforts to preserve ecosystems that cross the national boundary, and invite communities that dot and span the frontier to exploit opportunities for mutual benefit. Ultimately, the border should be as “thin” as technologically and politically possible for those engaged in legitimate travel or commerce while remaining difficult to penetrate for those engaged in criminal activity or unauthorized transit. <u><strong>Management of this shared boundary should serve as a model</u></strong> <u><strong>for binational collaboration in confronting shared challenges</u></strong>. Few policymakers, legislators and opinion leaders fully understand the border. Indeed, <u>misperception and misunderstanding of the situation at the border create a major public relations challenge</u>. Those seeking to improve management of this shared boundary and the region around it must inform policymakers by describing the situation on the ground before their recommendations will make sense. In the next section of this report, therefore, we offer our diagnosis of the situation on the ground today. We emphasize not only the deficiencies in border management but also the “bright spots” along the frontier where cooperation has been exemplary. <u><strong><mark>Significant cooperation</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>between Mexico and the United States already <mark>exists </mark>along the border<mark>, but it is incomplete</mark>, uneven, and unsystematic</u>.</p></strong>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Money influences key senate races – history proves.

Edgar ’10

Edgar, ’10 [Bob, President of Common Cause, “How Money Influences Elections”, The New York Times, 10-20-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/l21brooks.html, RSR]

Brooks argues that because big-spending candidates often lose to lesser-funded challengers His analysis fails on two levels it’s clear that money counts in our elections Since 2000, the average winner in contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by at least $310,000, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute In races for open Senate seats, winners outspent losers, on average, in every year except 2002. Far more important than who wins is the difference that big contributions make after the election.

it’s clear that money counts in our elections In races for open Senate seats, winners outspent losers, on average, in every year except 2002. Far more important than who wins is the difference that big contributions make after the election.

In “Don’t Follow the Money” (column, Oct. 19), David Brooks argues that because big-spending candidates often lose to lesser-funded challengers, there’s no reason to be concerned about the flood of large donations, many of them secret, flowing into Congressional contests this fall. His analysis fails on two levels. First, it’s clear that money counts in our elections. Since 2000, the average winner in contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by at least $310,000, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. In races for open Senate seats, winners outspent losers, on average, in every year except 2002. Far more important than who wins — and not mentioned by Mr. Brooks — is the difference that big contributions make after the election. The individuals, corporations, trade groups and unions writing record-sized checks this fall will want a return on their investments; winning candidates, outspent or not, will have a powerful incentive to provide it. These are building blocks for scandal.

<h4>Money influences key senate races – history proves.</h4><p><strong>Edgar</strong>, <strong>’10</strong> [Bob, President of Common Cause, “How Money Influences Elections”, The New York Times, 10-20-10, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/opinion/l21brooks.html, RSR]</p><p>In “Don’t Follow the Money” (column, Oct. 19), David <u><strong>Brooks argues that because big-spending candidates often lose to lesser-funded challengers</u></strong>, there’s no reason to be concerned about the flood of large donations, many of them secret, flowing into Congressional contests this fall. <u><strong>His analysis fails on two levels</u></strong>. First, <u><strong><mark>it’s clear that money counts in our elections</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Since 2000, the average winner in contests for open House seats has outspent the average loser by at least $310,000, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>In races for open Senate seats, winners outspent losers, on average, in every year except 2002.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>Far more important than who wins</u></strong></mark> — and not mentioned by Mr. Brooks — <u><strong><mark>is the difference that big contributions make after the election.</u></strong></mark> The individuals, corporations, trade groups and unions writing record-sized checks this fall will want a return on their investments; winning candidates, outspent or not, will have a powerful incentive to provide it. These are building blocks for scandal.</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Our alternative is to organize politics around unconditional resistance to capitalism & refuse the 1AC’s evacuation of universalism. This is a question of non-permutable starting points; only prior critical interrogation of economic relations lays the groundwork for radical politics

McLaren ‘06 )

McLaren ‘06 (Peter, University of California, “Slavoj Žižek's Naked Politics: Opting for the Impossible, A Secondary Elaboration”, JAC, http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V21_I3_McLaren.htm, jj)

class antagonism or struggle is not simply one in a series of social antagonisms—race, class, gender, and so on—but rather constitutes the part of this series that sustains the horizon of the series itself. class struggle is the specific antagonism that assigns rank to and modifies the particularities of the other antagonisms in the series Žižek militantly refuses to evacuate reference to historical structures of totality and universality class struggle structures "in advance" the very terrain of political antagonisms. In his terms, class struggle sets the ground for the empty place of universality, enabling it to be filled variously with contents of different sorts (ecology, feminism, anti-racism post-Marxists have done an excellent job in uncovering the fantasy of capital but have done little to uncover its reality. Those post-Marxists who are advocates of new social movements want revolution without revolution; His strategic focus on capitalist exploitation rather than on racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual identity is a salutary one The problem is how to oppose global capitalism at an even more radical level; the problem is to oppose it universally, not on a particular level An experience or argument that cannot be universalized is "always and by definition a conservative political gesture: ultimately everyone can evoke his unique experience in order to justify his reprehensible acts capitalism is "not just another specific oppression alongside many others but an all-embracing compulsion that imposes itself on all our social relations All experiences need to be interrogated for their ideological assumptions and effects, regardless of who articulates them or from where they are lived or spoken The critical pedagogical act is not to pander to the autonomous subject or to individualistic practices but to see those experiences in relationship to the structure of social antagonisms and class struggle History has not discharged the educator from the mission of grasping the "truth of the present" by interrogating all the existing structures of exploitation present within the capitalist system where, at the point of production, material relations characterize relations between people and social relations characterize relations between things. The critical educator asks: How are individuals historically located in systematic structures of economic relations? How can these structures—these lawless laws of capital—be overcome and transformed through revolutionary praxis into acts of freely associated labor where the free development of each is the condi-tion for the free development of all?

class antagonism is not simply one in a series of social antagonisms—race, gender, and so on—but rather constitutes the part of this series that sustains the horizon of the series itself class struggle is the specific antagonism that assigns rank to and modifies the particularities of the other antagonisms in the series Žižek militantly refuses to evacuate reference to historical structures of totality and universality class struggle sets the ground for the empty place of universality, enabling it to be filled variously with contents of different sorts (ecology, feminism, anti-racism post-Marxists who are advocates of new social movements want revolution without revolution strategic focus on capitalist exploitation rather than on racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual identity is a salutary one The problem is how to oppose global capitalism at an even more radical level; the problem is to oppose it universally, not on a particular level All experiences need to be interrogated for their ideological assumptions regardless of who articulates them or from where they are lived or spoken The critical pedagogical act is not to pander to the autonomous subject or to individualistic practices but to see those experiences in relationship to the structure of social antagonisms and class struggle The critical educator asks: How are individuals historically located in systematic structures of economic relations? How can these structures be overcome and transformed through revolutionary praxis

Žižek challenges the relativism of the gender-race-class grid of reflexive positionality when he claims that class antagonism or struggle is not simply one in a series of social antagonisms—race, class, gender, and so on—but rather constitutes the part of this series that sustains the horizon of the series itself. In other words, class struggle is the specific antagonism that assigns rank to and modifies the particularities of the other antagonisms in the series. He notes that "the economy is at one and the same time the genus and one of its own species" (Totalitarianism 193). In what I consider to be his most important work to date, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (coauthored with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau), Žižek militantly refuses to evacuate reference to historical structures of totality and universality and argues that class struggle itself enables the proliferation of new political subjectivities (albeit subjectivities that ironically relegate class struggle to a secondary role). As Marx argued, class struggle structures "in advance" the very terrain of political antagonisms. Thus, according to Žižek, class struggle is not "the last horizon of meaning, the last signified of all social phenomena, but the formal generative matrix of the different ideological horizons of understanding" ("Repeating" 16-17). In his terms, class struggle sets the ground for the empty place of universality, enabling it to be filled variously with contents of different sorts (ecology, feminism, anti-racism). He further argues that the split between the classes is even more radical today than during the times of industrial class divisions. He takes the position that post-Marxists have done an excellent job in uncovering the fantasy of capital (vis-à-vis the endless deferral of pleasure) but have done little to uncover its reality. Those post-Marxists who are advocates of new social movements (such as Laclau and Mouffe) want revolution without revolution; in contrast, Žižek calls for movements that relate to the larger totality of capitalist social relations and that challenge the very matter and antimatter of capital's social universe. His strategic focus on capitalist exploitation (while often confusing and inconsistent) rather than on racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual identity is a salutary one: "The problem is not how our precious particular identity should be kept safe from global capitalism. The problem is how to oppose global capitalism at an even more radical level; the problem is to oppose it universally, not on a particular level. This whole problematic is a false one" (Olson and Worsham 281). What Žižek sets himself against is the particular experience or political argument. An experience or argument that cannot be universalized is "always and by definition a conservative political gesture: ultimately everyone can evoke his unique experience in order to justify his reprehensible acts" ("Repeating" 4-5). Here he echoes Wood, who argues that capitalism is "not just another specific oppression alongside many others but an all-embracing compulsion that imposes itself on all our social relations" ("Identity" 29). He also echoes critical educators such as Paulo Freire, who argues against the position that experiences of the oppressed speak for themselves. All experiences need to be interrogated for their ideological assumptions and effects, regardless of who articulates them or from where they are lived or spoken. They are to be read with, against, and upon the scientific concepts produced by the revolutionary Marxist tradition. The critical pedagogical act of interro-gating experiences is not to pander to the autonomous subject or to individualistic practices but to see those experiences in relationship to the structure of social antagonisms and class struggle. History has not discharged the educator from the mission of grasping the "truth of the present" by interrogating all the existing structures of exploitation present within the capitalist system where, at the point of production, material relations characterize relations between people and social relations characterize relations between things. The critical educator asks: How are individuals historically located in systematic structures of economic relations? How can these structures—these lawless laws of capital—be overcome and transformed through revolutionary praxis into acts of freely associated labor where the free development of each is the condi-tion for the free development of all?

<h4>Our alternative is to organize politics around unconditional resistance to capitalism & refuse the 1AC’s evacuation of universalism. This is a question of non-permutable starting points; only prior critical interrogation of economic relations lays the groundwork for radical politics </h4><p><u><strong><mark>McLaren ‘06</u></strong></mark> (Peter, University of California, “Slavoj Žižek's Naked Politics: Opting for the Impossible, A Secondary Elaboration”, JAC, http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V21_I3_McLaren.htm, jj<u><strong>)</p><p></u></strong>Žižek challenges the relativism of the gender-race-class grid of reflexive positionality when he claims that <u><strong><mark>class antagonism</mark> or struggle <mark>is not simply one in a series of social antagonisms—race,</mark> class, <mark>gender, and so on—but rather constitutes the part of this series that sustains the horizon of the series itself</mark>.</u></strong> In other words, <u><strong><mark>class struggle is the specific antagonism that assigns rank to and modifies the particularities of the other antagonisms in the series</u></strong></mark>. He notes that "the economy is at one and the same time the genus and one of its own species" (Totalitarianism 193). In what I consider to be his most important work to date, Contingency, Hegemony, Universality (coauthored with Judith Butler and Ernesto Laclau), <u><strong><mark>Žižek militantly refuses to evacuate reference to historical structures of totality and universality</u></strong></mark> and argues that class struggle itself enables the proliferation of new political subjectivities (albeit subjectivities that ironically relegate class struggle to a secondary role). As Marx argued, <u><strong>class struggle structures "in advance" the very terrain of political antagonisms.</u></strong> Thus, according to Žižek, class struggle is not "the last horizon of meaning, the last signified of all social phenomena, but the formal generative matrix of the different ideological horizons of understanding" ("Repeating" 16-17). <u><strong>In his terms, <mark>class struggle sets the ground for the empty place of universality, enabling it to be filled variously with contents of different sorts (ecology, feminism, anti-racism</u></strong></mark>). He further argues that the split between the classes is even more radical today than during the times of industrial class divisions. He takes the position that <u><strong>post-Marxists have done an excellent job in uncovering the fantasy of capital</u></strong> (vis-à-vis the endless deferral of pleasure) <u><strong>but have done little to uncover its reality.</u></strong> <u><strong>Those <mark>post-Marxists who are advocates of new social movements</u></strong></mark> (such as Laclau and Mouffe) <u><strong><mark>want revolution without revolution</mark>;</u></strong> in contrast, Žižek calls for movements that relate to the larger totality of capitalist social relations and that challenge the very matter and antimatter of capital's social universe. <u><strong>His <mark>strategic focus on capitalist exploitation</u></strong></mark> (while often confusing and inconsistent) <u><strong><mark>rather than on racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual identity is a salutary one</u></strong></mark>: "The problem is not how our precious particular identity should be kept safe from global capitalism. <u><strong><mark>The problem is how to oppose global capitalism at an even more radical level; the problem is to oppose it universally, not on a particular level</u></strong></mark>. This whole problematic is a false one" (Olson and Worsham 281). What Žižek sets himself against is the particular experience or political argument. <u><strong>An experience or argument that cannot be universalized is "always and by definition a conservative political gesture: ultimately everyone can evoke his unique experience in order to justify his reprehensible acts</u></strong>" ("Repeating" 4-5). Here he echoes Wood, who argues that <u><strong>capitalism is "not just another specific oppression alongside many others but an all-embracing compulsion that imposes itself on all our social relations</u></strong>" ("Identity" 29). He also echoes critical educators such as Paulo Freire, who argues against the position that experiences of the oppressed speak for themselves. <u><strong><mark>All experiences need to be interrogated for their ideological assumptions</mark> and effects, <mark>regardless of who articulates them or from where they are lived or spoken</u></strong></mark>. They are to be read with, against, and upon the scientific concepts produced by the revolutionary Marxist tradition. <u><strong><mark>The critical pedagogical act</u></strong></mark> of interro-gating experiences <u><strong><mark>is not to pander to the autonomous subject or to individualistic practices but to see those experiences in relationship to the structure of social antagonisms and class struggle</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>History has not discharged the educator from the mission of grasping the "truth of the present" by interrogating all the existing structures of exploitation present within the capitalist system where, at the point of production, material relations characterize relations between people and social relations characterize relations between things. <mark>The critical educator asks: How are individuals historically located in systematic structures of economic relations?</mark> <mark>How can these structures</mark>—these lawless laws of capital—<mark>be overcome and transformed through revolutionary praxis</mark> into acts of freely associated labor where the free development of each is the condi-tion for the free development of all?</p></u></strong>

1NC

1NC

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

They can’t account for the future wave of ag litigation will wreck the DSM—countries were holding off because of Doha, but Doha stalemate means they’re going to flood the DSM with complaints

Meltzer 11

Joshua Meltzer 11, Fellow Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2011, “The Challenges to the World Trade Organization: It’s All About Legitimacy” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/4/19%20world%20trade%20organization%20meltzer/0419_world_trade_organization_meltzer.pdf

The WTO's d s m is the most widely used and effective international tribunal today. Since its inception 405 complaints have been filed, leading to approximately 130 decisions, of which about half have been appealed Most of these decisions have also been complied with. Under the WTO's d s m governments can challenge whether another member has breached its commitments the mechanism was not designed to resolve issues that should be subject to international negotiations. Nevertheless, many countries are using the d s m to do that countries agreed to exercise restraint in litigating ag subsidies at the WTO since these issues were still subject to negotiations in Doha However, the failure to conclude Doha has led countries to use the d s m to challenge subsidies, like the subsidy on sugar Increased use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism also highlights the binding nature of decisions and the limited flexibility that members have to alter a decision that is politically unsustainable the WTO's so-called negative consensus rule requires all WTO members to agree to overturn an appellate body decision.

The d s m is the most widely used and effective international tribunal today. 405 complaints have been filed, leading to 130 decisions, half have been appealed the mechanism was not designed to resolve issues subject to international negotiations. Nevertheless, many are using the d s m to do that countries agreed to exercise restraint in litigating ag subsidies since these were subject to negotiations in Doha However, the failure to conclude Doha has led countries to use the d s m

The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism is arguably the most widely used and effective international tribunal today. Since its inception in 1995, 405 complaints have been filed, leading to approximately 130 panel decisions, of which about half have been appealed to the WTO appellate body. Most of these decisions have also been complied with. Under the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, governments can challenge whether another member has breached its WTO commitments. The decisions of a panel or the appellate body are in effect automatically binding on the disputing parties as these decisions are adopted by the WTO unless all members (including the winning party) vote against it. While the WTO dispute settlement mechanism was established to allow trade disputes to be settled accord- ing to the rule of law, it was not designed to resolve issues that should be subject to international negotiations. Nevertheless, many countries are using the dispute settlement mechanism to do exactly that. For example, under the so-called peace clause, WTO member countries agreed to exercise restraint in litigating agricultural subsidies cases at the WTO since these issues were still subject to negotiations in the Doha Round. However, the failure to conclude the Doha Round has led many countries to use the WTO dispute settlement mechanism to challenge subsidies, like the U.S. subsidy on cotton and the European Union subsidy on sugar. Increased use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism also highlights the binding nature of decisions and the limited flexibility that members have to alter a decision that is politically unsustainable. When compared with domestic systems, where judicial decisions can be overturned by legislation, the WTO's so-called negative consensus rule requires all WTO members (including the winning party) to agree to overturn an appellate body decision.

<h4>They can’t account for the future wave of ag litigation will wreck the DSM—countries were holding off because of Doha, but Doha stalemate means they’re going to flood the DSM with complaints</h4><p>Joshua<strong> Meltzer 11</strong>, Fellow Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2011, “The Challenges to the World Trade Organization: It’s All About Legitimacy” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/4/19%20world%20trade%20organization%20meltzer/0419_world_trade_organization_meltzer.pdf</p><p><u><strong><mark>The</mark> WTO's</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>d</u></strong></mark>ispute <u><strong><mark>s</u></strong></mark>ettlement <u><strong><mark>m</u></strong></mark>echanism <u><strong><mark>is</mark> </u></strong>arguably<u><strong> <mark>the most widely used and effective international tribunal today.</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>Since its inception</u></strong> in 1995, <u><strong><mark>405 complaints have been filed, leading to </mark>approximately <mark>130</u></strong> </mark>panel <u><strong><mark>decisions, </mark>of which about <mark>half have been appealed</u></strong> </mark>to the WTO appellate body. <u><strong>Most of these decisions have also been complied with. Under the WTO's</u></strong> <u><strong>d</u></strong>ispute <u><strong>s</u></strong>ettlement <u><strong>m</u></strong>echanism, <u><strong>governments can challenge whether another member has breached its</u></strong> WTO <u><strong>commitments</u></strong>. The decisions of a panel or the appellate body are in effect automatically binding on the disputing parties as these decisions are adopted by the WTO unless all members (including the winning party) vote against it. While <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong> </mark>WTO dispute settlement <u><strong><mark>mechanism</u></strong> </mark>was established to allow trade disputes to be settled accord- ing to the rule of law, it <u><strong><mark>was not designed to resolve issues </mark>that should be <mark>subject to international negotiations. Nevertheless, many </mark>countries <mark>are using the</u></strong> <u><strong>d</u></strong></mark>ispute <u><strong><mark>s</u></strong></mark>ettlement <u><strong><mark>m</u></strong></mark>echanism <u><strong><mark>to do</u></strong> </mark>exactly <u><strong><mark>that</u></strong></mark>. For example, under the so-called peace clause, WTO member <u><strong><mark>countries agreed to exercise restraint in litigating ag</u></strong></mark>ricultural <u><strong><mark>subsidies</u></strong></mark> cases <u><strong>at the WTO <mark>since these </mark>issues <mark>were </mark>still <mark>subject to negotiations in</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>Doha</u></strong></mark> Round. <u><strong><mark>However, the failure to conclude</u></strong></mark> the <u><strong><mark>Doha</u></strong></mark> Round <u><strong><mark>has led</u></strong></mark> many <u><strong><mark>countries to use the</u></strong></mark> WTO <u><strong><mark>d</u></strong></mark>ispute <u><strong><mark>s</u></strong></mark>ettlement <u><strong><mark>m</u></strong></mark>echanism <u><strong>to challenge subsidies, like</u></strong> the U.S. subsidy on cotton and <u><strong>the</u></strong> European Union <u><strong>subsidy on sugar</u></strong>. <u><strong>Increased use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism also highlights the binding nature of decisions and the limited flexibility that members have to alter a decision that is politically unsustainable</u></strong>. When compared with domestic systems, where judicial decisions can be overturned by legislation, <u><strong>the WTO's so-called negative consensus rule requires all WTO members</u></strong> (including the winning party) <u><strong>to agree to overturn an appellate body decision. </p></u></strong>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

Sustaining the border region’s environment is key to overall biodiversity

BGC 9

BGC 9 (Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of the U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic-guidelines-for-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-the-us-mexico)

the U.S.-Mexico border region encompasses diverse ecosystems Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems deserts, rangelands, and several forest types constitute invaluable natural features the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation of any desert in the world These ranges contribute to the biodiversity of the border territory Big waterways traverse the international border and support millions of people All rely on it for irrigation the Rio Grande sustains a diversity of critical ecosystems and is crucial for wildlife The Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries The coastal habitats at the mouth of the Rio Grande are particularly important as breeding grounds and maturation areas for commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico The reserve is home to eight threatened and endangered species

the U.S.-Mexico encompasses diverse ecosystems several constitute invaluable natural features the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation of any desert the Rio Grande sustains a diversity of critical ecosystems coastal habitats are important breeding grounds and maturation areas for fisheries The reserve is home to endangered species

Due to its vastness the U.S.-Mexico border region encompasses an important wealth of natural resources and diverse ecosystems. Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems, deserts, rangelands, and several forest types constitute sensitive and invaluable natural features. For example, the Chihuahuan Desert supports 350 of the 1 500 known species of cacti in the world. Many of these species are found only in single valleys. In the western region, the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation of any desert in the world. A prominent feature of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts is the occurrence of mountain ranges separated by extended valleys. These ranges provide habitats not present in the valleys and host species that contribute to the biodiversity of the border territory. Urban settlements, along with agriculture and cattle ranches, generally occupy the valleys. Big waterways, like the Rio Grande or the Colorado River, traverse the international border and support millions of people in large cities and rural towns. The Rio Grande or Río Bravo, as it is known in Mexico, flows through five Mexican states and three U.S. states, and a dozen Native American nations. All rely on it for irrigation. From the headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, through the semi-arid Colorado Plateau and the arid Chihuahuan Desert, to its final subtropical ending in the Gulf of Mexico, the Rio Grande sustains a diversity of critical ecosystems and is crucial for wildlife, including animals as diverse as beavers, bears, kangaroo rats, and migratory birds. The Colorado River also sustains a very biodiverse region encompassing six U.S. states and two Mexican states. The ecosystems along the Colorado are facing unprecedented pressure from economic activities. The ecosystem’s water needs are rarely considered as agricultural production, industry, and a rapidly growing urban population use all but a trickle of the river’s water. The Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries, which are largely dependent on the estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and freshwater inflows from the Rio Grande. The coastal habitats at the mouth of the Rio Grande are particularly important as breeding grounds and maturation areas for commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Pacific coastal area, a saltwater lagoon and slough mark the seaward end of the Tijuana River within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR). Established in 1982 to restore and preserve the integrity of the estuary as a functioning ecosystem supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife resources, this protected area encompasses 2 500 acres of beach, dune, mudflat, saltmarsh, riparian, coastal sage, and upland habitats. The reserve is home to eight threatened and endangered species, including the light-footed clapper rail and the California least tern among others.

<h4><strong>Sustaining the border region’s environment is key to overall biodiversity</h4><p>BGC 9</strong> (Border Governors Conference, “Strategic Guidelines for the Competitive and Sustainable Development of the U.S.-Mexico Transborder Region,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, September, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/strategic-guidelines-for-the-competitive-and-sustainable-development-the-us-mexico)</p><p>Due to its vastness <u><strong><mark>the U.S.-Mexico </mark>border region <mark>encompasses</u></strong> </mark>an important wealth of natural resources and <u><strong><mark>diverse ecosystems</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Freshwater, marine, and wetland ecosystems</u></strong>, <u><strong>deserts, rangelands, and <mark>several </mark>forest types <mark>constitute</u></strong> </mark>sensitive and <u><strong><mark>invaluable natural features</u></strong></mark>. For example, the Chihuahuan Desert supports 350 of the 1 500 known species of cacti in the world. Many of these species are found only in single valleys. In the western region, <u><strong><mark>the Sonoran Desert has the greatest diversity of vegetation of any desert </mark>in the</u></strong> <u><strong>world</u></strong>. A prominent feature of the Chihuahuan and Sonoran deserts is the occurrence of mountain ranges separated by extended valleys. <u><strong>These ranges</u></strong> provide habitats not present in the valleys and host species that <u><strong>contribute to the biodiversity of the border territory</u></strong>. Urban settlements, along with agriculture and cattle ranches, generally occupy the valleys. <u><strong>Big waterways</u></strong>, like the Rio Grande or the Colorado River, <u><strong>traverse the international</u></strong> <u><strong>border and </strong>support millions of people</u> in large cities and rural towns. The Rio Grande or Río Bravo, as it is known in Mexico, flows through five Mexican states and three U.S. states, and a dozen Native American nations. <u><strong>All rely on it for irrigation</u></strong>. From the headwaters in the Rocky Mountains, through the semi-arid Colorado Plateau and the arid Chihuahuan Desert, to its final subtropical ending in the Gulf of Mexico, <u><strong><mark>the Rio Grande sustains a</u></strong> <u><strong>diversity of critical ecosystems </mark>and is crucial for wildlife</u></strong>, including animals as diverse as beavers, bears, kangaroo rats, and migratory birds. The Colorado River also sustains a very biodiverse region encompassing six U.S. states and two Mexican states. The ecosystems along the Colorado are facing unprecedented pressure from economic activities. The ecosystem’s water needs are rarely considered as agricultural production, industry, and a rapidly growing urban population use all but a trickle of the river’s water. <u><strong>The Gulf of Mexico supports productive fisheries</u></strong>, which are largely dependent on the estuaries, lagoons, wetlands and freshwater inflows from the Rio Grande. <u><strong>The <mark>coastal</u></strong> <u><strong>habitats </mark>at the mouth of the Rio Grande <mark>are </mark>particularly <mark>important </mark>as <mark>breeding grounds and maturation areas for </mark>commercial <mark>fisheries </mark>in the Gulf of Mexico</u></strong>. In the Pacific coastal area, a saltwater lagoon and slough mark the seaward end of the Tijuana River within the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR). Established in 1982 to restore and preserve the integrity of the estuary as a functioning ecosystem supporting a diversity of fish and wildlife resources, this protected area encompasses 2 500 acres of beach, dune, mudflat, saltmarsh, riparian, coastal sage, and upland habitats. <u><strong><mark>The reserve</u></strong> <u><strong>is home to </mark>eight threatened and <mark>endangered species</u></mark>, including the light-footed clapper rail and the California least tern among others.</p></strong>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt assuasion

Chow 1993

Chow – Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown - 1993

While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in an opposition against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed) but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words The predicament we face in the West Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper?

The question is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony in oppositional against dominant power but how they can resist the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return claims of oppression and victimization are used to guilt-trip and to control; affirmations of diversities that are made in the name of righteousness create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are not changing the lives of those who seek survival What academic intellectuals must confront is not their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed but the privilege that accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper

(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. The question for me is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony (a question that positions them in an oppositional light against dominant power and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), but how they can resist, as Michel Foucault said, “the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse.’ “ Putting it another way, how do intellectuals struggle against a hegemony which already includes them and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,” and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, many deep-rooted, politically reactionary forces return to haunt us. Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested claims of oppression and victimization that are used merely to guilt-trip and to control; sexist and racist reaffirmations of sexual and racial diversities that are made merely in the name of righteousness—all these forces create new “solidarities whose ideological premises remain unquestioned. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense, We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are battles of words. Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are most certainly not directly changing the downtrodden lives of those who seek their survival in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike. What academic intellectuals must confront is thus not their victimization by society at large (or their victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed), but the power, wealth, and privilege that Ironically accumulate from their “oppositional” viewpoint, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) The predicament we face in the West, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business, . . . he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen. “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses, when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper? How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?

<h4>The ballot is a form of interest convergence between the judge and the aff – this pacifying inclusive gesture replicates academic domination through liberal appropriation whilst perpetuating stasis through guilt <strong>assuasion</h4><p>Chow </strong>– Andrew W. Mellon Professor of the Humanities @ Brown -<strong> 1993</p><p></strong>(Rey, Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies, p. 16-17) </p><p><u>While the struggle for hegemony remains necessary</u> for many reasons-especially in cases where underprivileged groups seek equality of privilege-I remain skeptical of the validity of hegemony over time, especially if it is a hegemony formed through intellectual power. <u><mark>The question</u></mark> for me <u><mark>is not how intellectuals can obtain hegemony</u></mark> (a question that positions them <u><mark>in</mark> an <mark>opposition</u>al</mark> light <u><mark>against dominant power</u></mark> and neglects their share of that power through literacy, through the culture of words), <u><mark>but <strong>how they can resist</u></strong></mark>, as Michel Foucault said, “<u><mark>the forms of power that transform [them] into its object and instrument in the sphere of ‘knowledge,’ ‘truth,’ ‘consciousness, and ‘discourse</u></mark>.’ “ Putting it another way, <u><mark>how do intellectuals struggle against <strong>a hegemony which already includes them</u></strong></mark> and which can no longer be divided into the state and civil society in Gramsci’s terms, nor be clearly demarcated into national and transnational spaces? Because “borders” have so clearly meandered Into so many intel lectual issues that the more stable and conventional relation be tween borders and the field no longer holds, intervention cannot simply be thought of in terms of the creation of new ‘fields.” Instead, it is necessary to think primarily in terms of borders—of borders, that Is, as parasites that never take over a field in Its en tirety but erode it slowly and tactically. The work of Michel de Certeau Is helpful for a formulation of this para-sitical intervention. De Certeau distinguishes between “strategy” and another practice—”tactic”—in the following terms. A strategy has the ability to “transform the uncertainties of history into readable spaces” (de Certeau, p. 36). The type of knowledge derived from strategy is one sustained and determined by the power to provide oneself with one’s own place” (de Certeau, p. 36). Strategy therefore belongs to “an economy of the proper place” (de Certeau, p. 55) and to those who are committed to the building, growth, and fortification of a “field. A text, for instance, would become in this economy “a cultural weapon, a private hunting pre serve.” or a means of social stratification” in the order of the Great Wall of China (de Certeau, p. 171). A tactic, by contrast, is a cal culated action determined by the absence of a proper locus” (de Certeau, p’ 37). Betting on time instead of space, a tactic concerns an operational logic whose models may go as far back as the age-old ruses of fishes and insects that disguise or transform themselves in order to survive, and which has in any case been concealed by the form of rationality currently dominant in Western culture” (de Certeau, p. xi). Why are “tactics useful at this moment? <u>As discussions about multiculturalism,’ “interdisciplinary,” the third world intellectual,”</u> <u>and other companion issues develop in the American academy and society today, and <mark>as rhetorical claims to political change and difference are being put forth, <strong>many</strong> deep-rooted, <strong>politically reactionary forces return</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>to haunt us.</u></strong> <u>Essentialist notions of culture and history; conservative notions of territorial and linguistic propriety, and the otherness’ ensuing from them; unattested <strong><mark>claims</strong></mark> <strong><mark>of oppression and victimization</strong></mark> that <strong><mark>are used</u></strong></mark> merely <u><strong><mark>to guilt-trip and to control</strong>; </mark>sexist and racist re<mark>affirmations of </mark>sexual and racial <mark>diversities that are made</mark> merely <mark>in the name of righteousness</mark>—all these forces <mark>create new “solidarities whose ideological premises <strong>remain unquestioned</u></strong></mark>. These new solidarities are often informed by a strategic attitude which repeats what they seek to overthrow. <u>The weight of old ideologies being reinforced over and over again is immense,</u> <u>We need to remember as intellectuals that the battles we fight are <strong>battles of words</u></strong>. <u><mark>Those who argue the oppositional standpoint are not doing anything different from their enemies and are</mark> </u>most certainly <u><strong><mark>not</u></strong></mark> directly<u> <strong><mark>changing the</strong></mark> </u>downtrodden<u> <strong><mark>lives of those who seek</strong></mark> </u>their<u> <strong><mark>survival</strong></mark> </u>in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan spaces alike.<u> <mark>What academic intellectuals must confront is</mark> thus <mark>not their</mark> </u>victimization by society at large (<u>or their <mark>victimization-in-solidarlty-with-the oppressed</mark>)</u>, <u><mark>but the</mark> power, wealth, and <mark>privilege that</mark> Ironically <mark>accumulate <strong>from their</strong> “oppositional” <strong>viewpoint</strong></mark>, and the widening gap between the professed contents of their words and the upward mobility they gain from such words</u>. (When Foucault said intellectuals need to struggle against becoming the object and instrument of power, he spoke precisely to this kind of situation.) <u>The predicament we face in the West</u>, where Intellectual freedom shares a history with economic enterprise, <u>Is that “If a professor wishes to denounce aspects of big business</u>, . . . <u>he will be wise to locate in a school whose trustees are big businessmen.</u> “ Why should we believe in those who continue to speak a language of alterity-as-lack while their salaries and honoraria keep rising? <u><mark>How do we resist the turning-Into-propriety of oppositional discourses</u></mark>, <u><mark>when the Intention of such discourses has been that of displacing and disowning the proper</mark>?</u> How do we prevent what begin as tactics—that which is ‘without any base where it could stockpile its winnings” (de Certeau. p. 37)—from turning into a solidly fenced-off field, in the military no less than in the academic sense?</p>

1NC

1NC

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Grimes is awesome at fundraising

Sullivan 10/17

Sullivan 10/17 <Sean, WP, The winners and losers of the third quarter fundraising period, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/17/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-third-quarter-fundraising-period/>#SPS

Grimes raised a whopping $4.9 million during the third quarter, outpacing McConnell and reminding the political world once again that she is among the 2014 cycle's most talented fundraisers.

. Grimes raised a whopping $4.9 million during the third quarter, outpacing McConnell and reminding the political world once again that she is among the 2014 cycle's most talented fundraisers.

Alison Lundergan Grimes: This has been the roughest week of the Kentucky Democratic Senate nominee's campaign. But not because of fundraising. Grimes raised a whopping $4.9 million during the third quarter, outpacing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) and reminding the political world once again that she is among the 2014 cycle's most talented fundraisers. Fundraising isn't everything, since national Democrats have gone dark in this race -- a sign that Grimes's chances of winning have dimmed. But even if she loses, there will be plenty of Democrats who will want Grimes to run for higher office again in the future because of her fundraising abilities.

<h4>Grimes is awesome at fundraising</h4><p><strong>Sullivan 10/17</strong> <Sean, WP, The winners and losers of the third quarter fundraising period, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/10/17/the-winners-and-losers-of-the-third-quarter-fundraising-period/>#SPS</p><p>Alison Lundergan Grimes: This has been the roughest week of the Kentucky Democratic Senate nominee's campaign. But not because of fundraising<mark>. <u><strong>Grimes raised a whopping $4.9 million during the third quarter, outpacing</u></strong></mark> Senate Minority Leader Mitch <u><strong><mark>McConnell</u></strong></mark> (R) <u><strong><mark>and reminding the political world once again that she is among the 2014 cycle's most talented fundraisers.</u></strong></mark> Fundraising isn't everything, since national Democrats have gone dark in this race -- a sign that Grimes's chances of winning have dimmed. But even if she loses, there will be plenty of Democrats who will want Grimes to run for higher office again in the future because of her fundraising abilities.</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Resilient --- This card crushes

Drezner 11

Drezner 11 – professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (8/12, Daniel, Foreign Policy, “Please come down off the ledge, dear readers”, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers, WEA) *note: charts and graphics omitted

support for free markets has increased in other major powers despite the worst crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that is not a return to autarky institutions are much more robust now even if Doha is dead trade measures are still working The IMF's resources have been strengthened Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines. The world has more democratic governments than 1931. What happened might be the exception more than the rule. based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen

despite the worst crisis since the Depression attitudes have not changed populist demands to "do something," is not a return to autarky even if Doha is dead trade measures are still working IMF's been strengthened Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent growing As we limit to ever more democratic countries, the coefficient declines 1931 might be the exception more than the rule based on the data we've got

The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so drastc. Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working papercited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931. What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.

<h4>Resilient --- This card crushes </h4><p><strong>Drezner 11</strong> – professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University (8/12, Daniel, Foreign Policy, “Please come down off the ledge, dear readers”, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers, WEA) *note: charts and graphics omitted</p><p>The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S. support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, <u><strong>support for free markets has increased in other major powers</u></strong>, such as Germany and China. On the whole, <u><strong><mark>despite the worst</u></strong> </mark>global economic <u><strong><mark>crisis since the </mark>Great <mark>Depression</mark>, public <mark>attitudes have not changed</u></strong> </mark>all that <u><strong>much. While there might be <mark>populist demands to "do something,"</u></strong> <u><strong></mark>that</u></strong> something <u><strong><mark>is not a return to autarky</u></strong> </mark>or anything so drastc. Another big difference is that multilateral economic <u><strong>institutions are much more robust now</u></strong> than they were in 1931. On trade matters, <u><strong><mark>even if</u></strong> </mark>the <u><strong><mark>Doha</u></strong> </mark>round <u><strong><mark>is dead</u></strong></mark>, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of <u><strong><mark>trade</u></strong></mark>-liberalizing <u><strong><mark>measures are still working</u></strong> </mark>quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. <u><strong>The <mark>IMF's </mark>resources have <mark>been strengthened</u></strong> </mark>as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. <u><strong><mark>Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent </mark>them from <mark>growing</u></strong></mark> into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working papercited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the <u><strong>responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower</u></strong>. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2 scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. <u><strong><mark>As we limit </mark>the sample <mark>to ever more democratic countries, the </mark>size of the <mark>coefficient declines</mark>.</u></strong> For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good news!! <u><strong>The world has</u></strong> a hell of a lot <u><strong>more democratic governments</u></strong> now <u><strong>than</u></strong> it did in <u><strong><mark>1931</mark>. What happened</u></strong> in London, in other words, <u><strong><mark>might</u></strong> </mark>prove to <u><strong><mark>be the exception more than the rule</mark>. </u></strong>So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, <u><strong><mark>based on the data we've got</mark>, that's not going to happen</u></strong>. </p>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

Performance is not a mode of resistance - it gives too much power to the audience because the performer is structurally blocked from controlling the (re)presentation of their representations. Appealing to the ballot is a way of turning over one’s identity to the same reproductive economy that underwrites liberalism

Phelan 96

Phelan 96

published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, 146 Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot participate in the circulation of representations of representations To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own The pressures brought to bear on performance to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy are enormous For only rarely in this culture is the “now”// to which performance addresses its deepest questions valued The document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an encouragement of memory to become present

published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, 146 Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot participate in the circulation of representations of representations To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own The pressures brought to bear on performance to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy are enormous For only rarely in this culture is the “now”// to which performance addresses its deepest questions valued The document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an encouragement of memory to become present

Chair of New York University's Department of Performance Studies (Peggy, Unmarked: the politics of performance, ed published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, 146 Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise participate in the circulation of representations of representations: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own ontology. Performance’s being, like the ontology of subjectivity proposed here, becomes itself through disappearance.¶ The pressures brought to bear on performance to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy are enormous. For only rarely in this culture is the “now”// to which performance addresses its deepest questions valued. (This is why the now is supplemented and buttressed by the documenting camera, the video archive.) Performance occurs over a time which will not be repeated. It can be performed again, but this repetition itself marks it as “different.” The document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an encouragement of memory to become present.

<h4>Performance is <u>not a mode of resistance</u> - it gives <u>too much power to the audience</u> because the performer is <u>structurally blocked from controlling the (re)presentation of their representations</u>. <u>Appealing to the ballot</u> is a way of turning over one’s identity <u>to the same reproductive economy that underwrites liberalism</h4><p></u><strong>Phelan 96</p><p></strong>Chair of New York University's Department of Performance Studies (Peggy, Unmarked: the politics of performance, ed<u><strong><mark> published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005, 146</p><p>Performance’s only life is in the present. Performance cannot</u></strong></mark> be saved, recorded, documented, or otherwise <u><strong><mark>participate in the circulation of representations of representations</u></strong></mark>: once it does so, it becomes something other than performance. <u><strong><mark>To the degree that performance attempts to enter the economy of reproduction it betrays and lessens the promise of its own</u></strong></mark> ontology. Performance’s being, like the ontology of subjectivity proposed here, becomes itself through disappearance.¶ <u><strong><mark>The pressures brought to bear on performance to succumb to the laws of the reproductive economy are enormous</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>For only rarely in this culture is the “now”// to which performance addresses its deepest questions valued</u></strong></mark>. (This is why the now is supplemented and buttressed by the documenting camera, the video archive.) Performance occurs over a time which will not be repeated. It can be performed again, but this repetition itself marks it as “different.” <u><strong><mark>The document of a performance then is only a spur to memory, an encouragement of memory to become present</u></strong></mark>.</p>

1NC

1NC

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and ecosystems

Mittermeier ‘11

Mittermeier ‘11 (et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is¶ irreversible. Human activities elevate therate of species extinctions to a¶thousand or more times the natural rate As species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶human. species may harbor a cure for the next new pathogen With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source of the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience and the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all life on Earth Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. where should action toward biodiversity be implemented first? this question revolves around vulnerability and irreplaceability Myers described ten hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary endemism and habitat loss an extensive global review introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of new data

Extinction is the consequence of the biodiversity crisis As species vanish, so too does the security of every¶human speciesa may harbor a cure for the next pathogen we lose agricultural resilience and the ecosystems¶ that support all life where should be implemented first this revolves around vulnerability and irreplaceability an extensive global review introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of new data

Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is¶ irreversible. Human activities haveelevatedtherate of species extinctions to a¶thousand or more times the natural background rate (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶human. Earth’s speciesare a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen – cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With loss of species, we lose the ultimate source ofour crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration for¶ manufactured products, and the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all life on Earth (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, where should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first?The field of conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability (Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers described ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶>¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the “less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.

<h4><strong>Biodiversity in <u>specific hotspots</u> checks extinction. Key to <u>ag</u>, <u>medicine</u>, and <u>ecosystems</h4><p></u>Mittermeier ‘11</p><p></strong>(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book <u>Biodiversity Hotspots</u> – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Extinction is the </mark>gravest <mark>consequence of the biodiversity crisis</mark>, since it is¶ irreversible. Human activities </u></strong>have<u><strong>elevate</u></strong>d<u><strong>therate of species extinctions to a¶thousand or more times the natural</u></strong> background <u><strong>rate</u></strong> (Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). <u><strong><mark>As species vanish, so too does the </mark>health <mark>security of every¶human</mark>.</u></strong> Earth’s <u><strong><mark>species</u></strong>a</mark>re a vast genetic storehouse that <u><strong><mark>may harbor a cure for</u></strong></mark>¶ cancer, malaria, or <u><strong><mark>the next </mark>new <mark>pathogen</u></strong> </mark>– cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. <u><strong>With loss of species, <mark>we lose </mark>the ultimate source of</u></strong>our crops¶ and <u><strong>the genes we use to improve <mark>agricultural resilience</u></strong></mark>, the inspiration for¶ manufactured products, <u><strong><mark>and the</mark> </u></strong>basis of the structure and function of the <u><strong><mark>ecosystems¶ that support </mark>humans and <mark>all life </mark>on Earth</u></strong> (McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶ and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual, and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?<u><strong>Extinction is a global phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders.</u></strong> More practically, biodiversity, the threats to it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps 90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question. Given the choice, <u><strong><mark>where should </mark>action toward</u></strong> reducing the loss of <u><strong>biodiversity <mark>be implemented first</mark>?</u></strong>The field of conservation planning addresses <u><strong><mark>this </mark>question</u></strong> and <u><strong><mark>revolves around</u></strong> </mark>a framework of <u><strong><mark>vulnerability and irreplaceability</u></strong> </mark>(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. <u><strong>Myers described ten</u></strong> tropical forest “<u><strong>hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary</u></strong> plant <u><strong>endemism and</u></strong> high levels of <u><strong>habitat loss</u></strong>, albeit without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶>¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation (extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in <u><strong><mark>an extensive global review</u></strong> </mark>(Mittermeier et al.1999) and scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that <u><strong><mark>introduced seven new hotspots on the basis</u></strong> <u>of</u> </mark>both the better-defined criteria and <u><strong><mark>new data</u></strong></mark>. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the “less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.</p>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Hagan winning – dolla dolla bills

Taylor 10/17

Taylor 10/17 <Jessica, The Hill, Campaign cash winners, losers, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/221046-top-10-fundraising-winners-and-losers>#SPS

Money is one of the chief reasons Hagan may be the only red state Democrat to survive in November. Hagan’s early spending pace is what’s kept her above water.

Money is one of the chief reasons Hagan] may be the only red state Democrat to survive in November. Hagan’s early spending pace is what’s kept her above water.

Democrat Kay Hagan, North Carolina Senate — Money is one of the chief reasons this Tar Heel incumbent [Hagan] may be the only red state Democrat to survive in November. She again topped the charts with $4.9 million fundraising to Tillis’s $3.4 million. The GOP state House Speaker has picked up the pace from his initial paltry hauls, and has slightly more in the bank, but Hagan’s early spending pace is what’s kept her above water.

<h4><u><strong>Hagan winning – dolla dolla bills </h4><p></u>Taylor 10/17 </strong><Jessica, The Hill, Campaign cash winners, losers, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/221046-top-10-fundraising-winners-and-losers>#SPS</p><p>Democrat Kay Hagan, North Carolina Senate — <u><strong><mark>Money is one of the chief reasons</u></strong></mark> this Tar Heel incumbent [<u><strong><mark>Hagan</u></strong>] <u><strong>may be the only red state Democrat to survive in November.</u></strong></mark> She again topped the charts with $4.9 million fundraising to Tillis’s $3.4 million. The GOP state House Speaker has picked up the pace from his initial paltry hauls, and has slightly more in the bank, but <u><strong><mark>Hagan’s early spending pace is what’s kept her above water.</u></strong></mark> </p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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 not key

Johnson 13 at Florida State, “Market-Protecting Institutions and the World Trade Organization’s Ability to Promote Trade” International Studies Quarterly, p 1-8)

Johnson 13 Professor PolSci Kansas State (Jesse Johnson, Mark Souva- Professor PolSci at Florida State, and Dale Smith- Professor PolSci at Florida State, “Market-Protecting Institutions and the World Trade Organization’s Ability to Promote Trade” International Studies Quarterly, p 1-8)

Rose finds pairs of states belonging to the WTO, do not have higher trade levels than nonmember dyads. Prior to Rose’s research, the WTO were perceived as significant institutions in expanding global trade however tariffs are only one factor affecting trade flows, and often a relatively minor one. Market-protecting institutions that protect market activity, exert a considerable influence on international trade MPIs promote trade by reducing transaction costs the relationship between WTO membership and dyadic trade is conditional on the strength of MPIs in the dyad the WTO does promote trade, but its effect is conditional on the strength of the MPIs in the dyad.

states belonging to WTO do not have higher trade levels than dyads the WTO were perceived as significant institutions in trade tariffs affect trade flows Market-protecting institutions exert considerable influence MPIs promote trade the relationship between WTO membership and dyadic trade is conditional the WTO does promote trade, but its effect is conditional

In a 2004 article “Do We Really Know That the World Trade Organization (WTO) Increases Trade?,” Andrew K. Rose finds that pairs of states belonging to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the WTO, do not have higher trade levels than nonmember dyads. Prior to Rose’s research, the GATT and WTO were commonly perceived as significant institutions in expanding global trade. The WTO aims to promote trade, and the protestors who have attempted to disrupt every WTO ministerial meeting since 1999 in Seattle must think it promotes trade. National governments also seem to think that the WTO promotes trade, or else it is difficult to understand why they spend so much time and effort negotiating new agreements. So, what explains Rose’s counterintuitive finding? The GATT/WTO is supposed to increase trade by reducing tariffs. We argue, however, that tariffs are only one factor affecting trade flows, and often a relatively minor one. Market-protecting institutions (MPIs), which are domestic institutions that protect market activity, exert a considerable influence on international trade (Anderson and Marcouiller 2002; Anderson and van Wincoop 2004; Berkowitz, Moenius and Pistor 2006; Iwanow and Kirkpatrick 2007; Nunn 2007; Ranjan and Lee 2007). MPIs promote trade by reducing transaction costs, and because high transaction costs can prohibit trade, we argue that the relationship between GATT/WTO membership and dyadic trade is conditional on the strength of MPIs in the dyad. When MPIs are strongly developed, trade is able to flow relatively freely and GATT/WTO tariff reductions further increase trade; thus, dyads with strong MPIs are likely to see an increase in trade upon GATT/WTO accession. On the other hand, in dyads with weak MPIs, GATT/WTO membership is unlikely to promote trade because the marginally lower tariffs provided by GATT/WTO membership are unable to offset the high transaction costs associated with weak MPIs. In brief, the WTO does promote trade, but its effect is conditional on the strength of the MPIs in the dyad.

<h4>WTO not key </h4><p><strong>Johnson 13 </strong>Professor PolSci Kansas State (Jesse Johnson, Mark Souva- Professor PolSci at Florida State, and Dale Smith- Professor PolSci<u><strong> at Florida State, “Market-Protecting Institutions and the World Trade Organization’s Ability to Promote Trade” International Studies Quarterly, p 1-8)</p><p></u></strong>In a 2004 article “Do We Really Know That the World Trade Organization (WTO) Increases Trade?,” Andrew K. <u><strong>Rose finds</u></strong> that <u><strong>pairs of <mark>states belonging</mark> <mark>to</u></strong></mark> the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, <u><strong>the <mark>WTO</mark>, <mark>do not have higher trade levels than</mark> nonmember <mark>dyads</mark>. Prior to Rose’s research, <mark>the</u></strong></mark> GATT and <u><strong><mark>WTO were</u></strong></mark> commonly <u><strong><mark>perceived as</mark> <mark>significant institutions</mark> <mark>in</mark> expanding global <mark>trade</u></strong></mark>. The WTO aims to promote trade, and the protestors who have attempted to disrupt every WTO ministerial meeting since 1999 in Seattle must think it promotes trade. National governments also seem to think that the WTO promotes trade, or else it is difficult to understand why they spend so much time and effort negotiating new agreements. So, what explains Rose’s counterintuitive finding? The GATT/WTO is supposed to increase trade by reducing tariffs. We argue, <u><strong>however</u></strong>, that <u><strong><mark>tariffs</mark> are only one factor <mark>affect</mark>ing <mark>trade flows</mark>, and often a relatively minor one. <mark>Market-protecting institutions</u></strong></mark> (MPIs), which are domestic institutions <u><strong>that protect market activity, <mark>exert</mark> a <mark>considerable influence</mark> on international trade</u></strong> (Anderson and Marcouiller 2002; Anderson and van Wincoop 2004; Berkowitz, Moenius and Pistor 2006; Iwanow and Kirkpatrick 2007; Nunn 2007; Ranjan and Lee 2007). <u><strong><mark>MPIs promote trade</mark> by reducing transaction costs</u></strong>, and because high transaction costs can prohibit trade, we argue that <u><strong><mark>the relationship between</u></strong></mark> GATT/<u><strong><mark>WTO membership and dyadic trade is conditional</mark> on the strength of MPIs in the dyad</u></strong>. When MPIs are strongly developed, trade is able to flow relatively freely and GATT/WTO tariff reductions further increase trade; thus, dyads with strong MPIs are likely to see an increase in trade upon GATT/WTO accession. On the other hand, in dyads with weak MPIs, GATT/WTO membership is unlikely to promote trade because the marginally lower tariffs provided by GATT/WTO membership are unable to offset the high transaction costs associated with weak MPIs. In brief, <u><strong><mark>the WTO does promote trade,</mark> <mark>but its effect is conditional</mark> on the strength of the MPIs in the dyad.</p></u></strong>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

Scenario 2 is OAS –

<h4>Scenario 2 is OAS –</h4>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Even if the intent of the affirmative is to provide autonomy, capitalism commodifies the false progressive nature of the 1AC and ensures further exploitation of women -- This is the only piece of evidence read in the debate in the context of Marxism, feminism and LEGALIZATION not prostitution in the abstract

Gruen 13

Gruen 13

114-15, AB Marxist feminists adopt the Marx analysis of prostitution: no woman under capitalism can transcend the conditions that determine her and which prevent her transformation into a subject in charge of her own destiny Try as she might social and economic conditions are such that she must remain an object a play thing in the hands of those who control the contours of her existence she does not hire out her body, like a wage-worker, on piece-work, but sells it into slavery once and for all the prostitute is reminded of her bondage each time she hires out her body her situation is strictly analogous to that of the proletarian worker Prostitution is a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer the prostitute is doubly oppressed by capitalism first as a woman, and then as a worker who must make her living by hiring out her genitals This is precisely why Marxist feminists insist that "to fight prostitution is to fight the foundations of capitalist society," especially the institution of private property and the class system it generates upper class men have enough money to purchase the sexual services of women As long as there is a bourgeois demand and as long as working-class women are paid less-than-adequate wages for less-than-interesting work, working- class women will continue to supply their bodies to meet the bourgeois demand for female flesh The simplest way to break this cycle is to destroy the supply of prostitutes by giving working-class women jobs that provide them with a living wage if women are given such jobs, they will no longer be forced to choose prostitution Capitalists will legalize prostitution in accordance with self-interest were capitalists to legalize prostitution they would do so not out of concern for the prostitute but out of a desire either to fill the state's coffers with tax revenues or to line the pockets of those who would operate the legitimate "cathouses." In neither of these latter events would the condition of the prostitute herself be ameliorated.

no woman under capitalism can transcend the conditions that determine her Try as she might, economic conditions are such that she must remain an object, she does not hire out her body but sells it into slavery the prostitute is reminded of bondage each time she hires out her body her situation is analogous to that of the proletarian worker the prostitute is doubly oppressed by capitalism: first as a woman, and then as a worker Marxist feminists insist to fight prostitution is to fight the foundations of capitalist society especially the institution of private property and class system it generates upper- class men have money to purchase sexual services As long as there is a bourgeois demand and working-class women are paid less-than-adequate wages women supply bodies to meet the bourgeois demand for flesh The simplest way to break this cycle is to destroy the supply of prostitutes Capitalists will legalize prostitution in accordance with self-interes were capitalists to legalize prostitution they would do so not out of concern for the prostitute, but out of a desire either to fill the state's coffers with tax revenues or to line the pockets of those who would operate the legitimate "cathouses."

Lori, Professor of Philosophy, Environmental Science and Gender Studies @ Wesleyan University, “Sex, Morality, and the Law”, January 11th, pg 114-15, AB With some slight variations, classical Marxist feminists adopt the Marx/ Engels's analysis of prostitution: no woman under capitalism, be she a prostitute or not, can transcend the conditions that determine her and which prevent her transformation into a subject, a person who is in charge of her own destiny. Try as she might, social and economic conditions are such that she must remain an object, a play thing in the hands of those who control the contours of her existence. This is why, as Marx and Engels see it, the difference between a married woman and a prostitute— upper-, middle-, or lower-class—is one of degree and not of kind. In the course of discussing the bourgeois family, Engels asserts that in a capitalist society who one marries is determined by the class to which one belongs. This "marriage of convenience" often turns into "the crassest — sometimes on both sides, but much more generally on prostitution the part of the wife, who differs from the ordinary courtesan only in that she does not hire out her body, like a wage-worker, on piece-work, but sells it into slavery once and for all."16 Nevertheless, Marx adds that it is somehow worse to be a prostitute than a wife, not only because the prostitute is reminded anew of her bondage each time she hires out her body, but also because her situation is strictly analogous to that of the proletarian worker: "Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes—and the latter's abomination is still greater—the capitalist etc., also comes under this head." 17 In short, the prostitute is doubly oppressed by capitalism: first as a woman, and then as a worker who must make her living by hiring out not her hands, but her genitals and orifices. This is precisely why not only Engels and Marx, but most Marxist feminists insist that "to fight prostitution is to fight the foundations of capitalist society," especially the institution of private property and the class system it generates. According to classical Marxist analysis, the typical prostitute is a working-class female and the typical patron is an upper- or is a middle-class male—only these men have enough money to purchase the sexual services of women other than their wives. As long as there is a bourgeois demand for whores, and as long as working-class women are paid less-than-adequate wages for less-than-interesting work, working- class women will continue to supply their bodies to meet the bourgeois demand for female flesh. The simplest way to break this cycle is to destroy the supply of prostitutes by giving working-class women jobs that provide them with a living wage and a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment. Arguably, if women are given such jobs, they will no longer be forced to choose degrading work (prostitution)" . .. Capitalists will criminalize, legalize, or decriminalize prostitution in accordance with self-interest. For example, were capitalists to legalize prostitution, they would do so not out of concern for the prostitute, but out of a desire either to fill the state's coffers with tax revenues or to line the pockets of those who would operate the legitimate "cathouses." In neither of these latter events would the condition of the prostitute herself be ameliorated.

<h4>Even if the intent of the affirmative is to provide autonomy, capitalism commodifies<strong> the false progressive nature of the 1AC and ensures further exploitation of women -- This is the only piece of evidence read in the debate in the context of Marxism, feminism and LEGALIZATION not prostitution in the abstract </h4><p>Gruen 13 </p><p></strong>Lori, Professor of Philosophy, Environmental Science and Gender Studies @ Wesleyan University, “Sex, Morality, and the Law”, January 11th, pg<u><strong> 114-15, AB </p><p></u></strong>With some slight variations, classical <u><strong>Marxist feminists adopt the Marx</u></strong>/ Engels's <u><strong>analysis of prostitution: <mark>no woman under capitalism</u></strong></mark>, be she a prostitute or not, <u><strong><mark>can transcend the conditions that determine her</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>and which prevent her transformation into a subject</u></strong>, a person who is <u><strong>in charge of her own destiny</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Try as she might</u></strong>,</mark> <u><strong>social and <mark>economic conditions are such</mark> <mark>that she must remain an object</u></strong>, <u><strong></mark>a play thing in the hands of those who control the contours of her existence</u></strong>. This is why, as Marx and Engels see it, the difference between a married woman and a prostitute— upper-, middle-, or lower-class—is one of degree and not of kind. In the course of discussing the bourgeois family, Engels asserts that in a capitalist society who one marries is determined by the class to which one belongs. This "marriage of convenience" often turns into "the crassest — sometimes on both sides, but much more generally on prostitution the part of the wife, who differs from the ordinary courtesan only in that <u><strong><mark>she does not hire out her body</mark>, like a wage-worker, on piece-work, <mark>but sells it</mark> <mark>into slavery</mark> once and for all</u></strong>."16 Nevertheless, Marx adds that it is somehow worse to be a prostitute than a wife, not only because <u><strong><mark>the prostitute is reminded</u></strong></mark> anew <u><strong><mark>of</mark> her <mark>bondage each time she hires out her body</u></strong></mark>, but also because <u><strong><mark>her</mark> <mark>situation is</mark> strictly <mark>analogous to that of the proletarian worker</u></strong></mark>: "<u><strong>Prostitution is</u></strong> only <u><strong>a specific expression of the general prostitution of the laborer</u></strong>, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes—and the latter's abomination is still greater—the capitalist etc., also comes under this head." 17 In short, <u><strong><mark>the prostitute is doubly oppressed by capitalism</u></strong>: <u><strong>first as a woman, and then as a worker</mark> who must make her living</u></strong> <u><strong>by hiring out</u></strong> not her hands, but <u><strong>her genitals</u></strong> and orifices. <u><strong>This is precisely why</u></strong> not only Engels and Marx, but most <u><strong><mark>Marxist</mark> <mark>feminists</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>insist</mark> that "<mark>to fight prostitution is to fight the foundations of capitalist society</mark>,"</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>especially</mark> <mark>the institution</mark> <mark>of private property and</mark> the <mark>class system it generates</u></strong></mark>. According to classical Marxist analysis, the typical prostitute is a working-class female and the typical patron is an <u><strong><mark>upper</u></strong>-</mark> or is a middle-<u><strong><mark>class</u></strong></mark> male—only these <u><strong><mark>men</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>have</mark> enough <mark>money to purchase</mark> the <mark>sexual services</mark> of women</u></strong> other than their wives. <u><strong><mark>As long as there is a</mark> <mark>bourgeois demand</u></strong></mark> for whores, <u><strong><mark>and</mark> as long as <mark>working-class women are paid less-than-adequate wages</mark> for less-than-interesting work, working- class <mark>women</mark> will continue to <mark>supply</mark> their <mark>bodies to meet the</mark> <mark>bourgeois demand</mark> <mark>for</mark> female <mark>flesh</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>The simplest way to break this cycle is to destroy the supply of</mark> <mark>prostitutes</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>by giving working-class women jobs that provide them with a living wage</u></strong> and a sense of satisfaction or accomplishment. Arguably, <u><strong>if women are given such jobs, they will no longer be forced to choose</u></strong> degrading work (<u><strong>prostitution</u></strong>)" . .. <u><strong><mark>Capitalists will</u></strong></mark> criminalize, <u><strong><mark>legalize</u></strong></mark>, or decriminalize <u><strong><mark>prostitution in accordance with self-interes</mark>t</u></strong>. For example, <u><strong><mark>were capitalists to legalize prostitution</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>they would do so not out of concern for the prostitute</u></strong>, <u><strong>but out of a desire either to fill the state's coffers with tax revenues</u></strong> <u><strong>or to line the pockets of those who would operate the legitimate "cathouses."</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>In neither of these latter events would the condition of the prostitute herself be ameliorated. </p></u></strong>

2NC

Capitalism K

2NC Link

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Same old story in CO – means Udall wins

Scott 10/15

Scott 10/15 <Dylan, TPM, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mark-udall-2014-is-like-michael-bennet-2010>#SPS

the DSCC has attracted headlines for exporting the Bennet model in 2014 But in an ironic twist, the model may be put to its severest test right back where it began, in Colorado, where Democrats are hoping to recreate the Bennet 2010 magic to pull out a win for Udall. "What we saw there in 2010, the question was, how are you going to overcome this Republican wave in Colorado?" "We found that what works is we have ways to mechanically turn the electorate, that the way which we can do it is with targeting and prioritization." About half of Udall's TV ads have been focused on women's issues The Udall campaign and the outside groups supporting him have released numerous Spanish-language ads, "If Udall can get liberal-leaning women to turn out in larger numbers by raising fears that Cory Gardner just doesn't get it, he's much more likely to win the race ... It's a lesson that the Democrats learned four years ago." A robust ground operation -- that other key piece of the Bennet model -- was also a big reason why he outperformed the polls on Election Day, as Udall must now aim to do. Udall's campaign sent out a memo last week boasting about how they had topped Bennet's operation in key categories: 25 field offices in 2014, versus 15 in 2010; 100 field organizers versus 40; and 3,200 volunteers in the last month versus less than 1,000. Bennet beat the margin polling margin by nearly 4 points Obama did the same in 2012 "Bennet and Udall's campaigns are doing the same thing because they believe in science and polls

in an ironic twist, the model may be put to its severest test right back where it began, in Colorado, where Democrats are hoping to recreate the Bennet 2010 magic to pull out a win for Udall We found that what works is we have ways to mechanically turn the electorate, that the way which we can do it is with targeting and prioritization." About half of Udall's TV ads have been focused on women's issues, If Udall can get liberal-leaning women to turn out in larger numbers by raising fears that Cory Gardner just doesn't get it, he's much more likely to win the race Bennet and Udall's campaigns are doing the same thing because they believe in science and polls

By all the public polling, Democrats should really be sweating the Colorado Senate race at this point. Democratic Sen. Mark Udall trails his Republican challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner, by more than 5 points on average. Election forecasters have pegged Colorado (along with Iowa) as the most likely election to swing control of the Senate. But Democrats believe they've seen this movie before. In the 2010 Colorado Senate campaign, Democratic nominee Michael Bennet trailed (or was at best tied) in the last 11 polls of his race against Republican Ken Buck. But then on Election Day, Bennet eked out a less-than-1 point win, a rare bright spot in an otherwise tough cycle for Democrats. The win was attributed by the press to his campaign's singular focus on two core Democratic constituencies -- women and Hispanics -- and an unprecedented, data-driven get-out-the-vote effort. Now Bennet is the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the DSCC has attracted headlines for exporting the Bennet model in 2014 to other tough races like Arkansas and Louisiana in a $60 million effort named for Bannock Street, where Bennet's campaign offices were located in Denver. But in an ironic twist, the model may be put to its severest test right back where it began, in Colorado, where Democrats are hoping to recreate the Bennet 2010 magic to pull out a win for Udall. The methods have evolved -- better software this time, an all mail-in ballot election -- but the foundation remains the same, Paul Dunn, DSCC's national field director, told TPM in a phone interview. "I think the core principle was that was established with Bennet was: This matters," Dunn, who worked on Bennet's 2010 campaign, said. "If you are in the red zone, this becomes extremely important." "What we saw there in 2010, the question was, how are you going to overcome this Republican wave in Colorado?" he said. "We found that what works is we have ways to mechanically turn the electorate, that the way which we can do it is with targeting and prioritization." The Bennet influences on Udall's campaign (and 2014 Democratic Senate campaigns in general) are everywhere. It starts with the national committee and works down to the campaign staff. Dunn and DSCC executive director Guy Cecil were top operatives for Bennet 2010. Udall campaign manager Adam Dunstone was a deputy for Bennet's team. The messaging in Colorado has been relentless. About half of Udall's TV ads have been focused on women's issues, according to the Washington Post. Back in 2010, Bennet ran an ad with a local OB/GYN warning about Buck's extremism on women's health, and now Udall's campaign is going up with an ad this week featuring a local OB/GYN warning about Gardner's opposition to abortion, part of its final push to flood the Colorado airwaves before Election Day. The Udall campaign and the outside groups supporting him have released numerous Spanish-language ads, too. "That strategy worked pretty well and it's really the same one that Democrats are now hoping to use against Cory Gardner," Peter Hanson, who studies Colorado politics at the University of Denver, told TPM. "If Udall can get liberal-leaning women to turn out in larger numbers by raising fears that Cory Gardner just doesn't get it, he's much more likely to win the race ... It's a lesson that the Democrats learned four years ago." The big test for Udall's team is whether they can successfully execute this strategy when the Republican campaign has seemed explicitly engineered to avoid a repeat of 2010. Buck was a notoriously blunt candidate that year, with cringe-worthy lines like "I do not wear high heels." But since he announced his candidacy in early 2014, Gardner has been straining to moderate himself. His campaign began with a renunciation of his support for a state "personhood" amendment, which would outlaw abortion and many kinds of birth control. Gardner has still had some rocky moments, particularly because he still co-sponsors a federal personhood bill. "It's more convenient for you to say it's not a personhood bill," a local TV journalists snapped last month as Gardner insisted that there was no federal personhood bill. "But does saying that make it true?" But between his personhood reversal and embrace of over-the-counter birth control, Gardner clearly came into the campaign ready to fight the Bennet 2010 playbook. “This is the playbook that they ran in 2010, and it worked. They did it again in 2012,” he told the Washington Post earlier this week. “It’s a tired, old playbook. And as a result of the failures of the policies of this administration, it’s not going to work again, because people can see right through it.” "It is a heavier lift in 2014 than in 2010. Republicans have seen this strategy before," Hanson told TPM. "They were ready for it. They are running a candidate in Cory Gardner who comes across as much more moderate." "The Republican strategy from day one has been to seek to portray him in a much more progressive light and to try to head off these attacks," he continued. "I don't think it's a strategy that's going to change minds about the Republican Party, but it might make it harder for Democrats to turn out their constituencies." Udall's campaign, meanwhile, has led to an unfortunate nickname -- "Mark Uterus" – and rebukes from the Denver Post's editorial board and others. But that isn't stopping his campaign from pressing forward with the message. They also note that Gardner has continued to run ads rebuffing the attacks -- which suggests to Udall supporters that they're working. "The fact that he has to run his ads in the first place -- I think people misunderstand what's happening here," a Colorado Democrat told TPM. A robust ground operation -- that other key piece of the Bennet model -- was also a big reason why he outperformed the polls on Election Day, as Udall must now aim to do. Udall's campaign sent out a memo last week boasting about how they had topped Bennet's operation in key categories: 25 field offices in 2014, versus 15 in 2010; 100 field organizers versus 40; and 3,200 volunteers in the last month versus less than 1,000. Bennet beat the margin polling margin by nearly 4 points, according to Real Clear Politics. President Barack Obama did the same in 2012. Based on the polling now, that is the same sort of performance that Udall is going to need. So while critics might be mocking his strategy, if Udall can repeat the 17-point edge that Bennet had with women and his 2-1 margin with Hispanics, it won't matter. "Bennet and Udall's campaigns are doing the same thing because they believe in science and polls," the Colorado Democrat said. "They're not doing this on a whim."

<h4>Same old story in CO – means Udall wins</h4><p><strong>Scott 10/15</strong> <Dylan, TPM, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/mark-udall-2014-is-like-michael-bennet-2010>#SPS</p><p>By all the public polling, Democrats should really be sweating the Colorado Senate race at this point. Democratic Sen. Mark Udall trails his Republican challenger, Rep. Cory Gardner, by more than 5 points on average. Election forecasters have pegged Colorado (along with Iowa) as the most likely election to swing control of the Senate. But Democrats believe they've seen this movie before. In the 2010 Colorado Senate campaign, Democratic nominee Michael Bennet trailed (or was at best tied) in the last 11 polls of his race against Republican Ken Buck. But then on Election Day, Bennet eked out a less-than-1 point win, a rare bright spot in an otherwise tough cycle for Democrats. The win was attributed by the press to his campaign's singular focus on two core Democratic constituencies -- women and Hispanics -- and an unprecedented, data-driven get-out-the-vote effort. Now Bennet is the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and <u><strong>the DSCC has attracted headlines for exporting the Bennet model in 2014</u></strong> to other tough races like Arkansas and Louisiana in a $60 million effort named for Bannock Street, where Bennet's campaign offices were located in Denver. <u><strong>But <mark>in an ironic twist, the model may be put to its severest test right back where it began, in Colorado, where Democrats are hoping to recreate the Bennet 2010 magic to pull out a win for Udall</mark>. </u></strong>The methods have evolved -- better software this time, an all mail-in ballot election -- but the foundation remains the same, Paul Dunn, DSCC's national field director, told TPM in a phone interview. "I think the core principle was that was established with Bennet was: This matters," Dunn, who worked on Bennet's 2010 campaign, said. "If you are in the red zone, this becomes extremely important." <u><strong>"What we saw there in 2010, the question was, how are you going to overcome this Republican wave in Colorado?"</u></strong> he said. <u><strong>"<mark>We found that what works is we have ways to mechanically turn the electorate, that the way which we can do it is with targeting and prioritization."</u></strong></mark> The Bennet influences on Udall's campaign (and 2014 Democratic Senate campaigns in general) are everywhere. It starts with the national committee and works down to the campaign staff. Dunn and DSCC executive director Guy Cecil were top operatives for Bennet 2010. Udall campaign manager Adam Dunstone was a deputy for Bennet's team. The messaging in Colorado has been relentless. <u><strong><mark>About half of Udall's TV ads have been focused on women's issues</u></strong>,</mark> according to the Washington Post. Back in 2010, Bennet ran an ad with a local OB/GYN warning about Buck's extremism on women's health, and now Udall's campaign is going up with an ad this week featuring a local OB/GYN warning about Gardner's opposition to abortion, part of its final push to flood the Colorado airwaves before Election Day. <u><strong>The Udall campaign and the outside groups supporting him have released numerous Spanish-language ads, </u></strong>too.<u><strong> </u></strong>"That strategy worked pretty well and it's really the same one that Democrats are now hoping to use against Cory Gardner," Peter Hanson, who studies Colorado politics at the University of Denver, told TPM. <u><strong>"<mark>If Udall can get liberal-leaning women to turn out in larger numbers by raising fears that Cory Gardner just doesn't get it, he's much more likely to win the race</mark> ... It's a lesson that the Democrats learned four years ago." </u></strong>The big test for Udall's team is whether they can successfully execute this strategy when the Republican campaign has seemed explicitly engineered to avoid a repeat of 2010. Buck was a notoriously blunt candidate that year, with cringe-worthy lines like "I do not wear high heels." But since he announced his candidacy in early 2014, Gardner has been straining to moderate himself. His campaign began with a renunciation of his support for a state "personhood" amendment, which would outlaw abortion and many kinds of birth control. Gardner has still had some rocky moments, particularly because he still co-sponsors a federal personhood bill. "It's more convenient for you to say it's not a personhood bill," a local TV journalists snapped last month as Gardner insisted that there was no federal personhood bill. "But does saying that make it true?" But between his personhood reversal and embrace of over-the-counter birth control, Gardner clearly came into the campaign ready to fight the Bennet 2010 playbook. “This is the playbook that they ran in 2010, and it worked. They did it again in 2012,” he told the Washington Post earlier this week. “It’s a tired, old playbook. And as a result of the failures of the policies of this administration, it’s not going to work again, because people can see right through it.” "It is a heavier lift in 2014 than in 2010. Republicans have seen this strategy before," Hanson told TPM. "They were ready for it. They are running a candidate in Cory Gardner who comes across as much more moderate." "The Republican strategy from day one has been to seek to portray him in a much more progressive light and to try to head off these attacks," he continued. "I don't think it's a strategy that's going to change minds about the Republican Party, but it might make it harder for Democrats to turn out their constituencies." Udall's campaign, meanwhile, has led to an unfortunate nickname -- "Mark Uterus" – and rebukes from the Denver Post's editorial board and others. But that isn't stopping his campaign from pressing forward with the message. They also note that Gardner has continued to run ads rebuffing the attacks -- which suggests to Udall supporters that they're working. "The fact that he has to run his ads in the first place -- I think people misunderstand what's happening here," a Colorado Democrat told TPM. <u><strong>A robust ground operation -- that other key piece of the Bennet model -- was also a big reason why he outperformed the polls on Election Day, as Udall must now aim to do. Udall's campaign sent out a memo last week boasting about how they had topped Bennet's operation in key categories: 25 field offices in 2014, versus 15 in 2010; 100 field organizers versus 40; and 3,200 volunteers in the last month versus less than 1,000. Bennet beat the margin polling margin by nearly 4 points</u></strong>, according to Real Clear Politics. President Barack <u><strong>Obama did the same in 2012</u></strong>. Based on the polling now, that is the same sort of performance that Udall is going to need. So while critics might be mocking his strategy, if Udall can repeat the 17-point edge that Bennet had with women and his 2-1 margin with Hispanics, it won't matter. <u><strong>"<mark>Bennet and Udall's campaigns are doing the same thing because they believe in science and polls</u></strong></mark>," the Colorado Democrat said. "They're not doing this on a whim."</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Uniqueness Wall

./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

Trade war articles are hype – zero risk – China doesn’t retaliate

Alden 12

Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 10/31/12, A U.S.-China “Trade War”: Time to Abolish a Silly Notion, thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2012/10/31/a-u-s-china-trade-war-time-to-abolish-a-silly-notion/

it is time to bury the concept of a “trade war The phrase is so ubiquitous it is almost a reflex that every time the U S takes any action that restricts imports in any fashion, reporters jump to their keyboards to warn that a trade war is looming. it is a canard The closest historical example is Smoot-Hawley what are the chances of a “trade war zero for two big reasons in 1930, there was no W T O no N A F T A no E U – in short, no rules Today unilateral action is largely forbidden tit-for-tat measures we have seen have all been taken within the framework of WTO rules When Obama curbed purchases of Chinese steel China responded with an “anti-dumping” case the U S challenged that action in the WTO No trade war instead see you in court every nation in the world seems fully aware of the dangers of aggressive protectionism trade plunging by 12 percent in 2009 the biggest drop since World War II is how little protectionism that is permitted under WTO rules actually occurred no trade war – just an unfavorable WTO decision a administration would quickly comply. The “trade war” threat stifles reasonable debate, because every trade action – however modest — is assumed to cause a self-destructive over-reaction

it is time to bury the concept of a “trade war what are the chances of a “trade war” zero in 1930, there was no W T O N A F T A E U no rules Today tit-for-tat measures have all been within WTO rules China responded with anti-dumping the U S challenged that action No war – instead court every nation seems aware of the dangers of aggressive protectionism every trade action is assumed to cause self-destructive over-reaction

I have a suggestion for everyone who writes about international trade: it is time to bury, once and for all, the concept of a “trade war.” The phrase is so ubiquitous that it will be awfully hard to abolish; I have probably been guilty of this myself from time to time. Indeed, it is almost a reflex that every time the United States or some other nation takes any action that restricts imports in any fashion, reporters and editorial writers jump to their keyboards to warn that a trade war is looming. But it is a canard that makes it far harder to have a sensible discussion about U.S. trade policy. No sooner had President Obama and Mitt Romney finished their latest round of “who’s tougher on trade with China?” in their final debate than the New York Times – to take one of many possible examples – warned that “formally citing Beijing as a currency manipulator may backfire, economic and foreign-policy experts have said. In the worst case, it could set off a trade war, leading to falling American exports to China and more expensive Chinese imports.” But what exactly is a “trade war”? To take the U.S.-China example, the notion seems to be that, if the United States restricts Chinese imports, China will respond by restricting imports of U.S. goods, in turn leading to further U.S. restrictions and so on and so on until trade between the two countries plummets. The closest historical example is the reaction to the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff act of 1930, which raised the average U.S. tariff on imports to historically high levels. As trade historian Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth has shown persuasively, Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Great Depression, and probably did not even exacerbate it very much since trade was a tiny part of the U.S. economy. But Smoot-Hawley did result in Great Britain, Canada and other U.S. trading partners raising their own tariffs in response. Irwin suggests that the higher tariffs were probably responsible for about a third of the 40 percent drop in imports between 1929 and 1932, and perhaps a slightly higher percentage of export losses. And the new trade barriers put in place took many decades to dismantle. With imports and exports today comprising roughly a third of the U.S. economy, and the few remaining tariffs mostly in the single digits, the consequences of similar tit-for-tat tariff increases today would be far more severe. But what are the chances of such a “trade war” actually occurring? Pretty close to zero, for two big reasons. First, in 1930, there was no World Trade Organization, no North American Free Trade Agreement, no European Community/Union – in short, no rules to prevent countries from jacking up tariffs or imposing quotas whenever governments felt domestic political pressure to do so. Today, such unilateral action is largely forbidden. Indeed, the tit-for-tat measures we have seen in the U.S.-China trade relationship have all been taken within the framework of WTO rules. When the Obama administration curbed purchases of Chinese steel in 2009 under the “Buy America” provisions of the stimulus, for example, China responded with an “anti-dumping” case which led to tariffs on imports of U.S. steel. But the United States challenged that action in the WTO, and earlier this month the WTO ordered China to lift the duties. No trade war – instead the phrase “see you in court” comes to mind. Secondly, almost every nation in the world seems fully aware of the dangers of aggressive protectionism. One of the striking things about the Great Recession– which resulted in global trade volumes plunging by more than 12 percent in 2009, the biggest drop since World War II – is how little of the protectionism that is permitted under WTO rules actually occurred. Chad Bown of the World Bank has documented the surprising low level of new trade barriers imposed during the recession and its aftermath. The danger of competitive currency devaluations – which are not clearly covered under WTO rules – is a greater threat than tariffs. This is one of the reasons that Romney’s pledge to label China a currency manipulator could be playing with fire, particularly after more than seven years in which the value of the renminbi has been creeping up steadily against the dollar. And his suggestion that the United States would impose tariffs in response is just silly – it would be a blatant violation of WTO rules and would quickly be slapped down as such. Again, however, no trade war – just an unfavorable WTO decision with which a Romney administration would quickly comply. The real questions about trade restrictions should be practical ones – are the gains to the economy worth the costs? Generally, the answer is no, because free competition is a good thing for consumers and competitive businesses. But sometimes protecting a viable domestic industry temporarily against a flood of low-priced imports makes sense, which is why the WTO has rules permitting temporary safeguards. Sometimes foreign subsidies make fair competition impossible, which is why the WTO permits tariffs against dumped or subsidized imports. Such actions raise prices for U.S. consumers, but may still on balance bring benefits to the U.S. economy. The “trade war” threat stifles reasonable debate, because every trade action – however modest — is assumed to cause a self-destructive over-reaction by trading partners. So I hereby pledge to abolish the phrase from all my future writings on the subject. I hope others will do the same.

<h4>Trade war articles are hype – zero risk – China doesn’t retaliate</h4><p>Edward <strong>Alden</strong>, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, 10/31/<strong>12</strong>, A U.S.-China “Trade War”: Time to Abolish a Silly Notion, thediplomat.com/pacific-money/2012/10/31/a-u-s-china-trade-war-time-to-abolish-a-silly-notion/</p><p>I have a suggestion for everyone who writes about international trade: <u><strong><mark>it is time to bury</u></strong></mark>, once and for all, <u><strong><mark>the concept of a “trade war</u></strong></mark>.” <u><strong>The phrase is so ubiquitous </u></strong>that it will be awfully hard to abolish; I have probably been guilty of this myself from time to time. Indeed, <u><strong>it is</u></strong> <u><strong>almost a reflex that every time the U</u></strong>nited <u><strong>S</u></strong>tates or some other nation <u><strong>takes any action that restricts imports in any fashion, reporters</u></strong> and editorial writers <u><strong>jump to their keyboards to warn that a trade war is looming.</u></strong> But <u><strong>it is a canard</u></strong> that makes it far harder to have a sensible discussion about U.S. trade policy. No sooner had President Obama and Mitt Romney finished their latest round of “who’s tougher on trade with China?” in their final debate than the New York Times – to take one of many possible examples – warned that “formally citing Beijing as a currency manipulator may backfire, economic and foreign-policy experts have said. In the worst case, it could set off a trade war, leading to falling American exports to China and more expensive Chinese imports.” But what exactly is a “trade war”? To take the U.S.-China example, the notion seems to be that, if the United States restricts Chinese imports, China will respond by restricting imports of U.S. goods, in turn leading to further U.S. restrictions and so on and so on until trade between the two countries plummets. <u><strong>The closest historical example is</u></strong> the reaction to the infamous <u><strong>Smoot-Hawley</u></strong> tariff act of 1930, which raised the average U.S. tariff on imports to historically high levels. As trade historian Douglas Irwin of Dartmouth has shown persuasively, Smoot-Hawley did not cause the Great Depression, and probably did not even exacerbate it very much since trade was a tiny part of the U.S. economy. But Smoot-Hawley did result in Great Britain, Canada and other U.S. trading partners raising their own tariffs in response. Irwin suggests that the higher tariffs were probably responsible for about a third of the 40 percent drop in imports between 1929 and 1932, and perhaps a slightly higher percentage of export losses. And the new trade barriers put in place took many decades to dismantle. With imports and exports today comprising roughly a third of the U.S. economy, and the few remaining tariffs mostly in the single digits, the consequences of similar tit-for-tat tariff increases today would be far more severe. But <u><strong><mark>what are the chances of</u></strong></mark> such <u><strong><mark>a “trade war</u></strong>”</mark> actually occurring? Pretty close to <u><strong><mark>zero</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>for two big reasons</u></strong>. First, <u><strong><mark>in 1930, there was no W</u></strong></mark>orld <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>rade <u><strong><mark>O</u></strong></mark>rganization, <u><strong>no <mark>N</u></strong></mark>orth <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>merican <u><strong><mark>F</u></strong></mark>ree <u><strong><mark>T</u></strong></mark>rade <u><strong><mark>A</u></strong></mark>greement, <u><strong>no <mark>E</u></strong></mark>uropean Community/<u><strong><mark>U</u></strong></mark>nion <u><strong>– in short, <mark>no rules</u></strong></mark> to prevent countries from jacking up tariffs or imposing quotas whenever governments felt domestic political pressure to do so. <u><strong><mark>Today</u></strong></mark>, such <u><strong>unilateral action is largely forbidden</u></strong>. Indeed, the <u><strong><mark>tit-for-tat measures</mark> we have seen</u></strong> in the U.S.-China trade relationship <u><strong><mark>have all been</mark> taken <mark>within</mark> the framework of <mark>WTO rules</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>When</u></strong> the <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> administration <u><strong>curbed purchases of Chinese steel</u></strong> in 2009 under the “Buy America” provisions of the stimulus, for example, <u><strong><mark>China responded with</mark> an “<mark>anti-dumping</mark>” case</u></strong> which led to tariffs on imports of U.S. steel. But <u><strong><mark>the U</u></strong></mark>nited <u><strong><mark>S</u></strong></mark>tates <u><strong><mark>challenged that action</mark> in the WTO</u></strong>, and earlier this month the WTO ordered China to lift the duties. <u><strong><mark>No</mark> trade <mark>war</u></strong> – <u><strong>instead</u></strong></mark> the phrase “<u><strong>see you in <mark>court</u></strong></mark>” comes to mind. Secondly, almost <u><strong><mark>every nation</mark> in the world <mark>seems</mark> fully <mark>aware of the dangers of aggressive protectionism</u></strong></mark>. One of the striking things about the Great Recession– which resulted in global <u><strong>trade</u></strong> volumes <u><strong>plunging by</u></strong> more than <u><strong>12 percent in 2009</u></strong>, <u><strong>the biggest drop since World War II</u></strong> – <u><strong>is how little</u></strong> of the <u><strong>protectionism that is permitted under WTO rules actually occurred</u></strong>. Chad Bown of the World Bank has documented the surprising low level of new trade barriers imposed during the recession and its aftermath. The danger of competitive currency devaluations – which are not clearly covered under WTO rules – is a greater threat than tariffs. This is one of the reasons that Romney’s pledge to label China a currency manipulator could be playing with fire, particularly after more than seven years in which the value of the renminbi has been creeping up steadily against the dollar. And his suggestion that the United States would impose tariffs in response is just silly – it would be a blatant violation of WTO rules and would quickly be slapped down as such. Again, however, <u><strong>no trade war – just an unfavorable WTO decision</u></strong> with which <u><strong>a</u></strong> Romney <u><strong>administration would quickly comply. </u></strong>The real questions about trade restrictions should be practical ones – are the gains to the economy worth the costs? Generally, the answer is no, because free competition is a good thing for consumers and competitive businesses. But sometimes protecting a viable domestic industry temporarily against a flood of low-priced imports makes sense, which is why the WTO has rules permitting temporary safeguards. Sometimes foreign subsidies make fair competition impossible, which is why the WTO permits tariffs against dumped or subsidized imports. Such actions raise prices for U.S. consumers, but may still on balance bring benefits to the U.S. economy. <u><strong>The “trade war” threat stifles reasonable debate, because <mark>every trade action</mark> – however modest — <mark>is assumed to cause</mark> a <mark>self-destructive over-reaction</u></strong></mark> by trading partners. So I hereby pledge to abolish the phrase from all my future writings on the subject. I hope others will do the same.</p>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

The United States’ unilateral hardline approach to the war on drugs has devastated OAS credibility

Isacson 12

Isacson 12 (Adam, director of the Regional Security Policy Program at the Washington Office on Latin America, May 22, “Conflict Resolution in the Americas: The Decline of the OAS”, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11979/conflict-resolution-in-the-americas-the-decline-of-the-oas, AB)

The [Organization of American States] is an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy to the interests of freedom and security," said Rep from Florida You can’t expect much from the OAS. It’s like a corpse that must be buried." The Organization of American States’ troubles go beyond being attacked from both extremes of the ideological spectrum The Summit showed many of the region's presidents disagreeing with the United States on key issues like drug policy and diplomacy Latin American governments have formed a handful of parallel organizations that explicitly exclude the United States. What is going on here? The OAS, the world's oldest regional organization, has never been a diplomatic powerhouse the OAS has functioned as a multilateral sounding board a place to build consensus around broad policies, from anti-communism to counternarcotics to counterterrorism The ability to discuss issues at regular general assemblies and special sessions has reduced friction OAS components -- have made important contributions to regional peace, security and democracy. The OAS is also hampered by a perception that the Washington-based body is dominated by the United States the perception of an uneven playing field has damaged the organization's "honest broker" status and made Latin American states reluctant to take decisions that might require them to cede sovereignty to the OAS, even for the benefit of a greater good. As a result, the OAS has not been viewed as a forum for debating drug policy Instead, the CICAD has reinforced Washington’s hard-line approach the OAS has become a more active voice in favor of strengthening the transition to democracy Cases of interstate conflict in Latin America, can be explosive The OAS has played a role at times in defusing them usually by quickly convening regional heads of state and exerting united international pressure. Far more common in Latin America have been internal conflicts: civil wars, insurgencies, coups d'état and mass outbreaks of violent crime.

The O A S disagree with the United States on key issues like drug policy the OAS has functioned as a multilateral sounding board, a place to build consensus around broad policies, OAS components have made important contributions to regional peace, The OAS is hampered by a perception that the body is dominated by the U S the perception of an uneven playing field damaged the organization's "honest broker" status and made Latin American states reluctant to take decisions that might require them to cede sovereignty to the OAS the OAS has not been viewed as a forum for debating drug policy. Cases of interstate conflict in Latin America, can be explosive The OAS has played a role at times in defusing them usually by quickly convening regional heads of state and exerting united international pressure

"The [Organization of American States] is an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy to the interests of freedom and security," said Rep. David Rivera, a Republican congressman from Florida, in July 2011 as he joined the House Foreign Affairs Committee's GOP majority in voting to cut off U.S. funding for the OAS. Rivera’s low regard for the organization was matched by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who in urging the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean to form a new regional bloc excluding the United States said, "You can’t expect much from the OAS. It’s like a corpse that must be buried." The Organization of American States’ troubles go beyond being attacked from both extremes of the ideological spectrum. The April 2012 Summit of the Americas showed many of the region's presidents disagreeing, at times sharply, with the United States on key issues like drug policy and diplomacy toward Cuba; several said they saw little reason to continue with the series of periodic meetings that began in 1995. Latin American governments, meanwhile, have formed a handful of parallel organizations that explicitly exclude the United States. What is going on here? The OAS, the world's oldest regional organization, has never been a diplomatic powerhouse. Since the Pan-American Union's founding in 1910, it has rarely been the center of gravity for the Western Hemisphere's politics or diplomacy. It has helped to resolve only a small fraction of the region's armed conflicts or crises that threatened to deteriorate into conflicts. Instead, the OAS has functioned as a multilateral sounding board, a place to build consensus around broad policies, from anti-communism to counternarcotics to counterterrorism. The ability to discuss issues at regular general assemblies and special sessions has reduced friction among its members. And some OAS components -- the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, electoral observer missions and efforts to verify postconflict demobilizations -- have made important contributions to regional peace, security and democracy. But the OAS has been hampered by its design, which keeps it deliberately weak. The organization operates on a consensus model, in which a determined minority can prevent action. Its “one country, one vote” system means that a tiny state like St. Lucia has as much voice as a large state like Brazil. The OAS has no analogue to the U.N. Security Council and no dispute-resolution or peace-enforcement mechanism to deal with breaches of the peace like that contemplated in Chapters VI and VII of the U.N. Charter. The OAS is also hampered by a perception, reinforced during the Cold War, that the Washington-based body is dominated by the United States. This is perhaps inevitable given the asymmetry of wealth and power between the United States and its regional neighbors. Still, the perception of an uneven playing field has damaged the organization's "honest broker" status and made Latin American states reluctant to take decisions that might require them to cede sovereignty to the OAS, even for the benefit of a greater good. As a result, the OAS has not been viewed as a forum for debating drug policy. Instead, the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), which is largely funded by the United States, has reinforced Washington’s hard-line approach emphasizing supply reduction. Nor has the OAS been a leading voice on regional security issues; little of note has emerged from its Secretariat for Multidimensional Security since it was established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The organization's security guarantees exist mostly on paper: The 1947 Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance Treaty, which commits all countries to view an attack against one as an attack against all, has not been meaningfully invoked in decades, and Mexico dropped out of it entirely in the 2002 run-up to the Iraq War. By contrast, the OAS has become a more active voice in favor of strengthening the region's 30-year-old transition from dictatorship to democracy. However, its 2001 Democratic Charter, which in theory automatically suspends nondemocratic members and calls for diplomatic measures to deal with interruptions in democracy, has not been employed successfully. It failed key tests in Venezuela in 2002 and Honduras in 2009, as well as in more recent cases of democratic erosion in several countries. Cases of interstate conflict are rare in Latin America, but when they do occur they can be explosive. The OAS has played a role at times in defusing them, usually by quickly convening regional heads of state and exerting united international pressure. From the 1950s to the 1970s, for instance, frequent flare-ups along a disputed border between Nicaragua and army-less Costa Rica were taken to the OAS. In one of the organization's greatest achievements, it helped broker an end to a brief 1995 border war between Peru and Ecuador, which included the deployment of a postconflict observer mission. Many other 20th century border conflicts, though, were settled by other international actors. The Vatican, for instance, mediated a 1978 dispute between Argentina and Chile, and the International Court of Justice is currently considering a maritime dispute between Peru and Chile. Far more common in Latin America have been internal conflicts: civil wars, insurgencies, coups d'état and mass outbreaks of violent crime. Here, it is far harder for an international actor to resolve the conflict, because it means obligating a state or an insurgency to change its behavior within its own borders.

<h4>The United States’ unilateral hardline approach to the war on drugs has devastated OAS credibility </h4><p><strong>Isacson 12</strong> (Adam, director of the Regional Security Policy Program at the Washington Office on Latin America, May 22, “Conflict Resolution in the Americas: The Decline of the OAS”, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/11979/conflict-resolution-in-the-americas-the-decline-of-the-oas, AB)</p><p>"<u>The [Organization of American States] is an enemy of the U.S. and an enemy to the interests of freedom and security," said</u> <u>Rep</u>. David Rivera, a Republican congressman <u>from Florida</u>, in July 2011 as he joined the House Foreign Affairs Committee's GOP majority in voting to cut off U.S. funding for the OAS. Rivera’s low regard for the organization was matched by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who in urging the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean to form a new regional bloc excluding the United States said, "<u>You can’t expect much from the OAS. It’s like a corpse that must be buried." <mark>The</mark> <mark>O</mark>rganization of <mark>A</mark>merican <mark>S</mark>tates’ troubles go beyond being attacked from both extremes of the ideological spectrum</u>. <u>The</u> April 2012 <u>Summit</u> of the Americas <u>showed many of the region's presidents <mark>disagree</mark>ing</u>, at times sharply, <u><mark>with the United States on <strong>key issues like drug policy</strong></mark> and diplomacy</u> toward Cuba; several said they saw little reason to continue with the series of periodic meetings that began in 1995. <u>Latin American governments</u>, meanwhile, <u>have formed a handful of <strong>parallel organizations</strong> that <strong>explicitly exclude the United States</strong>. What is going on here? The OAS, the world's oldest regional organization, has never been a diplomatic powerhouse</u>. Since the Pan-American Union's founding in 1910, it has rarely been the center of gravity for the Western Hemisphere's politics or diplomacy. It has helped to resolve only a small fraction of the region's armed conflicts or crises that threatened to deteriorate into conflicts. Instead, <u><mark>the OAS has functioned as a <strong>multilateral sounding board</u></strong>, <u>a place to <strong>build consensus</strong> around broad <strong>policies</strong>, </mark>from anti-communism to <strong>counternarcotics</strong> to counterterrorism</u>. <u>The ability to discuss issues at regular general assemblies and special sessions has <strong>reduced friction</u></strong> among its members. And some <u><mark>OAS components</u></mark> -- the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, electoral observer missions and efforts to verify postconflict demobilizations <u>-- <mark>have made <strong>important contributions to regional peace, </mark>security and democracy. </u></strong>But the OAS has been hampered by its design, which keeps it deliberately weak. The organization operates on a consensus model, in which a determined minority can prevent action. Its “one country, one vote” system means that a tiny state like St. Lucia has as much voice as a large state like Brazil. The OAS has no analogue to the U.N. Security Council and no dispute-resolution or peace-enforcement mechanism to deal with breaches of the peace like that contemplated in Chapters VI and VII of the U.N. Charter. <u><strong><mark>The OAS is </mark>also <mark>hampered by a perception</u></strong></mark>, reinforced during the Cold War, <u><mark>that the <strong></mark>Washington-based <mark>body is dominated by the U</mark>nited <mark>S</mark>tates</u></strong>. This is perhaps inevitable given the asymmetry of wealth and power between the United States and its regional neighbors. Still, <u><mark>the <strong>perception of an uneven playing field</strong> </mark>has <strong><mark>damaged</strong> the organization's "honest broker" <strong>status</strong> and made Latin American states <strong>reluctant to take decisions</strong> that might require them to cede sovereignty to the OAS</mark>, even for the benefit of a greater good. As a result, <mark>the OAS has <strong>not been viewed as a forum</strong> for debating drug policy</u>.</mark> <u>Instead, the</u> Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (<u>CICAD</u>), which is largely funded by the United States, <u>has reinforced Washington’s hard-line approach</u> emphasizing supply reduction. Nor has the OAS been a leading voice on regional security issues; little of note has emerged from its Secretariat for Multidimensional Security since it was established in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The organization's security guarantees exist mostly on paper: The 1947 Inter-American Reciprocal Assistance Treaty, which commits all countries to view an attack against one as an attack against all, has not been meaningfully invoked in decades, and Mexico dropped out of it entirely in the 2002 run-up to the Iraq War. By contrast, <u>the OAS has become a more active voice in favor of strengthening the</u> region's 30-year-old <u>transition</u> from dictatorship <u>to democracy</u>. However, its 2001 Democratic Charter, which in theory automatically suspends nondemocratic members and calls for diplomatic measures to deal with interruptions in democracy, has not been employed successfully. It failed key tests in Venezuela in 2002 and Honduras in 2009, as well as in more recent cases of democratic erosion in several countries. <u><mark>Cases of interstate conflict </u></mark>are rare<u> <mark>in Latin America, </u></mark>but when they do occur they<u> <mark>can be <strong>explosive</u></strong></mark>. <u><mark>The OAS has <strong>played a role at times in defusing them</u></strong></mark>, <u><mark>usually by quickly convening regional heads of state and <strong>exerting united international pressure</strong></mark>. </u>From the 1950s to the 1970s, for instance, frequent flare-ups along a disputed border between Nicaragua and army-less Costa Rica were taken to the OAS. In one of the organization's greatest achievements, it helped broker an end to a brief 1995 border war between Peru and Ecuador, which included the deployment of a postconflict observer mission. Many other 20th century border conflicts, though, were settled by other international actors. The Vatican, for instance, mediated a 1978 dispute between Argentina and Chile, and the International Court of Justice is currently considering a maritime dispute between Peru and Chile. <u>Far more common in Latin America have been internal conflicts: civil wars, insurgencies, coups d'état and mass outbreaks of violent crime.</u> Here, it is far harder for an international actor to resolve the conflict, because it means obligating a state or an insurgency to change its behavior within its own borders.</p>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Their critique of state power in the context of the prohibition on prostitution is hijacked by anti-state neoliberalism

Gupta 12

Gupta 12

Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism promotes privatisation and deregulation to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete without interference from a state capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal the right has little to say about patriarchy The critique of the state mounted by feminists when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda by neoliberalism If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency free even of patriarchal restraints It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’ If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make prostitution is seen as a liberation Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project neo-liberalism promotes privatisation and deregulation to safeguard the individual to compete without interference from a state capitalism co-opts the opposition neoliberalism serves to co-opt the feminist critique The critique of the state mounted by feminists neoliberal values created a space for fake feminism This period represented appropriation of the feminist agenda, by neoliberalism. If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women it was the idea of agency free even of patriarchal restraints It emphasised self-sufficiency undermining struggles The world was your oyster all you needed to do was compete capitalism is committed to the ‘fetishism of choice’ If women choose things that disadvantage them it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make prostitution is seen as a liberation Choice is their weapon their so-called free expression they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

Rahila is a freelance journalist and published author, January 4th, https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways, “Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?”, AB Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project to which it is in hock in order to make it deliver for women. It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order that is hovering on the horizon, says Rahila Gupta How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks the developed world. While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth. The current phase of capitalism – neo-liberalism – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, promotes privatisation and deregulation in order to safeguard the freedom of the individual to compete and consume without interference from a bloated state. According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down. The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books. The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back. The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’. I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions. It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, capitalism co-opts the opposition to its own ends. If part of the project of neoliberalism is to shrink the size of the state, it serves its purpose to co-opt the feminist critique that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, the right has little to say about patriarchy. What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant. The critique of the state mounted by feminists such as Elizabeth Wilson when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded. It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls. This transitional period between second wave and the current wave of feminism (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) represented the archetypal appropriation of the feminist agenda, shorn of its political context, by neoliberalism. Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters. If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints. It emphasised self-sufficiency of the individual while at the same time undermining those collective struggles or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. The world was your oyster – all you needed to do was compete successfully in the marketplace. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that liberal capitalism is committed to what she calls the ‘fetishism of choice’. If women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because prostitution is seen as a liberation from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. Choice is their weapon against feminist objections. In their so-called free expression of their sexuality, they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.

<h4><strong>Their critique of state power in the context of the prohibition on prostitution is hijacked by anti-state neoliberalism </h4><p>Gupta 12</p><p></strong>Rahila is a freelance journalist and published author, January 4th, https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/rahila-gupta/has-neoliberalism-knocked-feminism-sideways, “Has neoliberalism knocked feminism sideways?”, AB </p><p><u><strong><mark>Feminism needs to recapture the state from the neoliberal project</u></strong></mark> to which it is in hock in order to make it deliver for women. <u><strong>It must guard against atomisation and recover its transformative aspirations to shape the new social order</u></strong> that is hovering on the horizon, says Rahila Gupta How should feminists read our current times? A major economic crisis rocks the developed world. While austerity measures don’t appear to be working across Europe, the mildly Keynesian efforts of Obama to kick-start the US economy have had only a marginal effect. The Occupy movement has gone global and the public disorder in the summer, with more disorder being predicted by the police, are an indication of deep discontent with the system. Yet we have seen an enthusiastic and vibrant third wave of youthful feminism emerge in the past decade. At the rate at which these waves arise, it will be some time before the rock of patriarchy will be worn smooth. <u><strong>The current phase of capitalism – <mark>neo-liberalism</u></strong></mark> – which began with Thatcher and Reagan in the 1970s, <u><strong><mark>promotes privatisation and deregulation</mark> </u></strong>in order <u><strong><mark>to</mark> <mark>safeguard</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>the</mark> freedom of the <mark>individual to compete</u></strong></mark> and consume <u><strong><mark>without interference from a</u></strong> </mark>bloated <u><strong><mark>state</u></strong></mark>. According to David Harvey, a Marxist academic, the world stumbled towards neo-liberalism in response to the last major recession in the 70s when ‘the uneasy compact between capital and labour brokered by an interventionist state’ broke down. The UK government, for example, was obliged by the International Monetary Fund to cut expenditure on the welfare state in order to balance the books. The post-war settlement had given labour more than its due, and it was time for the upper classes to claw these gains back. The fact that second wave feminism and neoliberalism flourished from the 1970s onwards has led some to argue, notably Nancy Fraser, that feminism ‘served to legitimate a structural transformation of capitalist society’. I am with Nancy Fraser in so far as she says that there is a convergence, a coinciding of second wave feminism and neo-liberalism, even that feminism thrived in these conditions. It is well known that in an attempt to renew and survive, <u><strong><mark>capitalism co-opts the opposition</mark> to its own ends</u></strong>. If <u><strong>part of the project of <mark>neoliberalism</mark> is to shrink the size of the state, it <mark>serves</mark> its purpose <mark>to co-opt the feminist critique</mark> that the state is both paternalistic and patriarchal</u></strong>. Critiques of the nanny state from the right may chime with feminist concerns. However, <u><strong>the right has little to say about patriarchy</u></strong>. What is left out of the co-option process is equally significant. <u><strong><mark>The critique of the state mounted by feminists</u></strong></mark> such as Elizabeth Wilson <u><strong>when state capitalism was at the height of its powers suited neoliberal capitalists seeking deregulation and a reduced role for the state. </u></strong>Fraser’s analysis does not explain the current resurgence of feminism at a time when the shine of neoliberalism has faded. It is not so much that feminism legitimised neoliberalism, but that <u><strong><mark>neoliberal values created a space for </mark>a bright, brassy and ultimately <mark>fake feminism</u></strong></mark> - the ‘I really, really want’ girl-power ushered in by the Spice Girls. <u><strong><mark>This</mark> transitional <mark>period</mark> between second wave and the current wave of feminism</u></strong> (which some commentators characterised as post-feminist) <u><strong><mark>represented</mark> the archetypal <mark>appropriation of the feminist agenda</u></strong>, </mark>shorn of its political context, <u><strong><mark>by neoliberalism</u></strong>. </mark>Incidentally, many of us rejected the label post-feminist because it felt like an attempt to chuck feminism into the dustbin of history and to deny the continuing need for it. In hindsight, there was something different going on in that lull between the two waves in the 70s and 80s and today; the voice of feminism was being drowned out by its loud, brassy sisters. <u><strong><mark>If the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women</mark>, <mark>it was the idea of agency</u></strong></mark>, of choice freely exercised, <u><strong><mark>free even of patriarchal restraints</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>It emphasised self-sufficiency</mark> of the individual while</u></strong> at the same time <u><strong><mark>undermining</mark> those collective <mark>struggles</mark> or institutions which make self-sufficiency possible. <mark>The</mark> <mark>world was your oyster</mark> – <mark>all you needed to do was compete</mark> successfully in the marketplace</u></strong>. The flexible worker, in order to make herself acceptable to the world of work, may even go so far as to remodel herself through cosmetic surgery, all the while under the illusion that she was in control of her life. In her essay on ‘Feminism’ in a forthcoming book, Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, Clare Chambers argues that <u><strong>liberal <mark>capitalism is committed to</mark> what she calls <mark>the ‘fetishism of choice’</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>If women</mark> <mark>choose things that disadvantage them</mark> and entrench differences, <mark>it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make</u></strong></mark>. The few women who do well out of the sex industry do not believe that their work entrenches inequality because it is freely chosen, because <u><strong><mark>prostitution is seen as a liberation</u></strong></mark> from the drudgery of cleaning jobs. <u><strong><mark>Choice is</mark> <mark>their weapon</mark> against feminist objections. In <mark>their so-called free expression</mark> of their sexuality</u></strong>, <u><strong><mark>they are challenging nothing in the neoliberal schema because the work reduces women to the status of meat and commodity.</mark> </p></u></strong>

2NC

Capitalism K

2NC Link

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Trade is irrelevant for war

Barbieri 13

Katherine Barbieri 13, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina, Ph.D. in Political Science from Binghamton University, “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or Source of Interstate Conflict?” Chapter 10 in Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research, google books

How does interdependence affect war the empirical results evidence from the pre-WWII period provides support for those arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on leaders’ decisions to engage in war This study provides little empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a path to interstate peace Even after controlling for the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter conflict Instead economic interdependence appears to have little influence on the incidence of war

How does interdependence affect war empirical results. provides support for arguing economic factors have little, if any, influence on decisions to engage in war This study provides little empirical support for the proposition that trade provides a path to peace. Even after controlling for contiguity democracy, alliance ties, and capabilities evidence suggests in most instances trade fails to deter conflict interdependence appears to have little influence on war

How does interdependence affect war, the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives the empirical results. The rarity of wars makes any analysis of their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs, the log-likelihood ratio tests for each model suggest that the inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the control variables improves our understanding of the factors affecting the occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model. However, the individual interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant. Again, we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with unequal power are more pacific than those with highly equal power. Surprisingly, no evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states.¶ The evidence from the pre-WWII period provides support for those arguing that economic factors have little, if any, influence on affecting leaders’ decisions to engage in war, but many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results should be interpreted with caution, since the sample does not contain a sufficient number wars to allow us to capture great variations across different types of relationships. Many observations of war are excluded from the sample by virtue of not having the corresponding explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an extremely strong influence on conflict—as does contiguity—to find significant results. ¶ 7. Conclusions This study provides little empirical support for the liberal proposition that trade provides a path to interstate peace. Even after controlling for the influence of contiguity, joint democracy, alliance ties, and relative capabilities, the evidence suggests that in most instances trade fails to deter conflict. Instead, extensive economic interdependence increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it appears to have little influence on the incidence of war. The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages. That is, extensive economic linkages, be they symmetrical or asymmetrical, appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.

<h4>Trade is <u>irrelevant</u> for war</h4><p>Katherine <strong>Barbieri 13</strong>, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of South Carolina, Ph.D. in Political Science from Binghamton University, “Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or Source of Interstate Conflict?” Chapter 10 in Conflict, War, and Peace: An Introduction to Scientific Research, google books</p><p><u><strong><mark>How does interdependence affect war</u></strong></mark>, the most intense form of conflict? Table 2 gives <u><strong>the <mark>empirical results</u></strong>.</mark> The rarity of wars makes any analysis of their causes quite difficult, for variations in interdependence will seldom result in the occurrence of war. As in the case of MIDs, the log-likelihood ratio tests for each model suggest that the inclusion of the various measures of interdependence and the control variables improves our understanding of the factors affecting the occurrence of war over that obtained from the null model. However, the individual interdependence variables, alone, are not statistically significant. This is not the case with contiguity and relative capabilities, which are both statistically significant. Again, we see that contiguous dyads are more conflict-prone and that dyads composed of states with unequal power are more pacific than those with highly equal power. Surprisingly, no evidence is provided to support the commonly held proposition that democratic states are less likely to engage in wars with other democratic states.¶ The <u><strong>evidence from the pre-WWII period <mark>provides support for </mark>those <mark>arguing</mark> that <mark>economic factors have little, if any, influence on</u></strong></mark> affecting <u><strong>leaders’ <mark>decisions to engage in war</u></strong></mark>, but many of the control variables are also statistically insignificant. These results should be interpreted with caution, since the sample does not contain a sufficient number wars to allow us to capture great variations across different types of relationships. Many observations of war are excluded from the sample by virtue of not having the corresponding explanatory measures. A variable would have to have an extremely strong influence on conflict—as does contiguity—to find significant results. ¶ 7. Conclusions <u><strong><mark>This study provides little empirical support for the</mark> liberal <mark>proposition that trade provides a path to</mark> interstate <mark>peace</u></strong>. <u><strong>Even after</u></strong> <u><strong>controlling for</mark> the influence of <mark>contiguity</mark>, joint <mark>democracy, alliance ties, and</mark> relative <mark>capabilities</u></strong></mark>, the <u><strong><mark>evidence suggests</mark> that <mark>in most instances trade fails to deter conflict</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Instead</u></strong>, extensive <u><strong>economic <mark>interdependence</u></strong></mark> increases the likelihood that dyads engage in militarized dispute; however, it <u><strong><mark>appears to have little influence on</mark> the incidence of <mark>war</u></strong></mark>. The greatest hope for peace appears to arise from symmetrical trading relationships. However, the dampening effect of symmetry is offset by the expansion of interstate linkages. That is, extensive economic linkages, be they symmetrical or asymmetrical, appear to pose the greatest hindrance to peace through trade.</p>

2NC

2NC Case -- Trade

2NC 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

The plan alienates religious groups, African Americans, the elderly, and women

Emanuel 02

Emanuel 02 Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD From the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide A Review of the Empirical Data From the United States” http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=214736

certain characteristics predict support and opposition to PAS people who report themselves to be more religious are significantly more opposed to PAS African Americans and older individuals are significantly more opposed PAS some surveys suggest women are significantly more opposed to PAS

certain characteristics predict support and opposition to PAS people who report themselves to be more religious are significantly more opposed to PAS African Americans and older individuals are significantly more opposed PAS

Finally, certain sociodemographic characteristics consistently predict support and opposition to euthanasia or PAS.13- 15 Catholics and people who report themselves to be more religious are significantly more opposed to euthanasia or PAS. Similarly, African Americans and older individuals are significantly more opposed to euthanasia or PAS. Finally, some, but not all, surveys suggest that women are significantly more opposed to euthanasia or PAS. Interestingly, patients with terminal illnesses, such as cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, have attitudes that are almost identical to the public's.16 In other words, having a serious, life-threatening illness itself does not seem to alter attitudes toward the permissibility or opposition to euthanasia or PAS. Similarly, being a caregiver for a terminally ill patient or a recently bereaved caregiver does not seem to affect attitudes toward euthanasia or PAS.16

<h4><strong>The plan alienates religious groups, African Americans, the elderly, and women</h4><p>Emanuel 02</strong> Ezekiel J. Emanuel, MD, PhD From the Department of Clinical Bioethics, Warren G. Magnuson Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md. “Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide A Review of the Empirical Data From the United States” http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=214736</p><p>Finally, <u><strong><mark>certain</u></strong></mark> sociodemographic <u><strong><mark>characteristics</u></strong></mark> consistently <u><strong><mark>predict support and opposition to</u></strong></mark> euthanasia or <u><strong><mark>PAS</u></strong></mark>.13- 15 Catholics and <u><strong><mark>people who report themselves to be more religious are significantly more opposed to</u></strong></mark> euthanasia or <u><strong><mark>PAS</u></strong></mark>. Similarly, <u><mark>African Americans<strong> and </strong>older individuals<strong> are significantly more opposed</u></strong></mark> to euthanasia or <u><strong><mark>PAS</u></strong></mark>. Finally, <u><strong>some</u></strong>, but not all, <u><strong>surveys suggest</u></strong> that <u>women<strong> are significantly more opposed to</u></strong> euthanasia or <u><strong>PAS</u></strong>. Interestingly, patients with terminal illnesses, such as cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, have attitudes that are almost identical to the public's.16 In other words, having a serious, life-threatening illness itself does not seem to alter attitudes toward the permissibility or opposition to euthanasia or PAS. Similarly, being a caregiver for a terminally ill patient or a recently bereaved caregiver does not seem to affect attitudes toward euthanasia or PAS.16</p>

1NR

Case

1NR – Link Wall

./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 Affirmative’s criticism of American policy is dangerous – it contributes to isolationism and the eventual collapse of U.S. primacy

Kagan 1998

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the CE for International Peace and PhD in American History from American University, 1998, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=275, “The Benevolent Empire”

Those contributing to the growing chorus of antihegemony and multipolarity may know they are playing a dangerous game that needs to be conducted with the utmost care, as French leaders did during the Cold War, lest the entire international system come crashing down around them. What they may not have adequately calculated that Americans will not respond Americans are taking it seriously post-Vietnam liberalism is echoed by conservatives decrying American "hubris," "arrogance," and "imperialism." there is a stirring of neo-isolationism that complements view among many Europeans that America is meddling too much foreign grumbling about American hegemony would be merely amusing, were it not for the very real possibility that too many Americans will forget — even if most of the rest of the world does not — just how important continued American dominance is to the preservation of a reasonable level of international security and prosperity

Those contributing to the chorus of antihegemony are playing a dangerous game the entire international system come crashing down post-Vietnam liberalism is echoed decrying American "hubris," and imperialism there is a neo-isolationism grumbling about American hegemony would amusing, were it not for the very real possibility that Americans will forget how important continued dominance is to the preservation of international security and prosperity

Those contributing to the growing chorus of antihegemony and multipolarity may know they are playing a dangerous game, one that needs to be conducted with the utmost care, as French leaders did during the Cold War, lest the entire international system come crashing down around them. What they may not have adequately calculated, however, is the possibility that Americans will not respond as wisely as they generally did during the Cold War. Americans and their leaders should not take all this sophisticated whining about U.S. hegemony too seriously. They certainly should not take it more seriously than the whiners themselves do. But, of course, Americans are taking it seriously. In the United States these days, the lugubrious guilt trip of post-Vietnam liberalism is echoed even by conservatives, with William Buckley, Samuel Huntington, and James Schlesinger all decrying American "hubris," "arrogance," and "imperialism." Clinton administration officials, in between speeches exalting America as the "indispensable" nation, increasingly behave as if what is truly indispensable is the prior approval of China, France, and Russia for every military action. Moreover, at another level, there is a stirring of neo-isolationism in America today, a mood that nicely complements the view among many Europeans that America is meddling too much in everyone else's business and taking too little time to mind its own. The existence of the Soviet Union disciplined Americans and made them see that their enlightened self-interest lay in a relatively generous foreign policy. Today, that discipline is no longer present. In other words, foreign grumbling about American hegemony would be merely amusing, were it not for the very real possibility that too many Americans will forget — even if most of the rest of the world does not — just how important continued American dominance is to the preservation of a reasonable level of international security and prosperity. World leaders may want to keep this in mind when they pop the champagne corks in celebration of the next American humbling.

<h4>The <strong>Affirmative’s criticism of American policy is dangerous – it contributes to isolationism and the eventual collapse of U.S. primacy</h4><p></strong>Robert <strong><mark>Kagan</strong></mark>, senior associate at the CE for International Peace and PhD in American History from American University, <strong>19<mark>98</strong></mark>, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=275, “The Benevolent Empire”</p><p><u><strong><mark>Those</mark> <mark>contributing to the</mark> growing <mark>chorus of antihegemony</mark> and multipolarity may know they <mark>are playing a dangerous game</u></strong></mark>, one <u><strong>that needs to be conducted with the utmost care, as French leaders did during the Cold War, lest <mark>the entire international system come crashing down</mark> around them. What they may not have adequately calculated</u></strong>, however, is the possibility <u><strong>that Americans will not respond</u></strong> as wisely as they generally did during the Cold War. Americans and their leaders should not take all this sophisticated whining about U.S. hegemony too seriously. They certainly should not take it more seriously than the whiners themselves do. But, of course, <u><strong>Americans are taking it seriously</u></strong>. In the United States these days, the lugubrious guilt trip of <u><strong><mark>post-Vietnam liberalism is echoed</u></strong></mark> even <u><strong>by conservatives</u></strong>, with William Buckley, Samuel Huntington, and James Schlesinger all <u><strong><mark>decrying American "hubris,"</mark> "arrogance," <mark>and</mark> "<mark>imperialism</mark>."</u></strong> Clinton administration officials, in between speeches exalting America as the "indispensable" nation, increasingly behave as if what is truly indispensable is the prior approval of China, France, and Russia for every military action. Moreover, at another level, <u><strong><mark>there is a</mark> stirring of <mark>neo-isolationism</u></strong></mark> in America today, a mood <u><strong>that</u></strong> nicely <u><strong>complements</u></strong> the <u><strong>view among many Europeans that America is meddling too much</u></strong> in everyone else's business and taking too little time to mind its own. The existence of the Soviet Union disciplined Americans and made them see that their enlightened self-interest lay in a relatively generous foreign policy. Today, that discipline is no longer present. In other words, <u><strong>foreign <mark>grumbling about American hegemony would</mark> be merely <mark>amusing, were it not for the very real possibility that</mark> too many <mark>Americans will forget</mark> — even if most of the rest of the world does not — just <mark>how important</mark> <mark>continued</mark> American <mark>dominance is to the preservation</mark> of a reasonable level <mark>of international security and prosperity</u></strong></mark>. World leaders may want to keep this in mind when they pop the champagne corks in celebration of the next American humbling. </p>

1NC

1NC

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

N

UNLV

5

UNLV JE

Pryor, Shelby

1AC - Ableism - Organ Sales 1NC - T-Sales University K Identity PIC 2NC - University K 1NR - University K 2NR - University K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UNLV-Round5.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

EVEN IF legalization is ineffective, the gesture is enough to resolve the lack of internal communication in the OAS -- independently solves

Padgett 13 , AB)

Padgett 13 (Tim is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America, “OAS to White House and Hemisphere: It’s High Time to Consider Legalizing Pot”, http://world.time.com/2013/05/22/key-regional-organization-pushes-white-house-to-debate-legalizing-pot/, AB)

the Organization of American States has always borne a reputation as Washington’s lackey But the OAS just sent the western hemisphere a message the White House would rather not hear It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence That conclusion by OAS , is one that a growing number of Latin American governments which might legalize marijuana this year — are urging the Obama Administration to accept Having the motion seconded by Washington’s “lackey” makes it harder to ignore. It will mark one of the largest experiments to determine if marijuana is in reality an “exit” drug. it will only serve to reinforce the argument, mentioned by the OAS study, that marijuana is a relatively benign drug Most Latin American leaders — whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war — already made it clear to President Obama at last year’s Summit of the Americas in that it’s high time to ask whether marijuana legalization might help reduce drug cartel revenues and therefore drug cartel mayhem it could rob Mexico’s narco-mafias of a third of the estimated $30 billion they rake in each year.) the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue,” and he called for “greater flexibility” on the part of nations like the U.S. The OAS concludes trends in the hemisphere “lean toward legalization of the production, sale and use of marijuana decisions in this area will need to be taken.” Former presidents of three of Latin America’s largest economies have jointly called for marijuana legalization Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.

the O A S has always borne a reputation as Washington’s lackey. the OAS just sent the western hemisphere a message It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence Having the motion seconded by Washington’s “lackey” makes it harder to ignore. Most Latin American leaders already made it clear to Obama that it’s high time to ask whether marijuana legalization might help the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue The OAS concludes trends lean toward legalization of the production, sale and use of marijuana Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.

On the Latin American street, the Organization of American States has always borne a reputation, often undeserved, as Washington’s lackey. But the OAS, based in Washington, just sent the western hemisphere a message the White House would rather not hear: It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence. That conclusion, from a study presented last Friday in Bogotá, Colombia, by OAS Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza, is one that a growing number of Latin American governments — including Uruguay, which might legalize marijuana this year — are urging the Obama Administration to accept. Having the motion seconded by Washington’s “lackey” makes it harder to ignore. But even as Insulza and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos were hailing the OAS report last week, something else was brewing in Bogotá that could further undermine resistance to pot legalization. The Colombian capital is about to start a program that uses marijuana to wean junkies off bazuco, a cheap but fiercely addictive cocaine paste. It will mark one of the largest experiments to determine if marijuana — which legalization opponents still insist is a “gateway” to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin — is in reality an “exit” drug. If so, it will only serve to reinforce the argument, mentioned by the OAS study, that marijuana is a relatively benign drug, far more comparable to alcohol than it is, say, to crystal meth. (MORE: Legalizing Marijuana and Other Ways the U.S. and Mexico Can Win the Drug War) As Miami Herald South America correspondent Jim Wyss recently wrote from Bogotá, “For the most desperate [bazuco] users, the cannabis cure may be the only way out.” Or as one social worker told Wyss, “We want people to quit a substance that is very, very dama0ging and transition to something less dangerous and which will allow them to function in society.” Critics say the effort will just turn bazuco zombies into potheads. But for years now, similar projects in countries like Brazil, Jamaica and most recently Canada have indicated that marijuana is in fact an effective exit drug. In British Columbia last fall, a team of U.S. and Canadian addiction researchers determined that “clinical trials on cannabis substitution for problematic substance abuse appear justified.” That doesn’t mean we should all start smoking herb like Harold and Kumar. The fact that a glass of hot bourbon can relieve common cold symptoms doesn’t mean we should all start drinking Manhattans, either. But affirming marijuana as an exit drug would lead us to reconsider one of modern society’s most glaring double standards: booze good, pot bad. It would reinforce the notion that moderate marijuana use is not more perilous than moderate alcohol consumption. According to studies, in fact, pot smoking in some cases can be a preferable alternative to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. (MORE: The Obama Administration Looks to Latin America After Years of Neglect) So why do we waste so many resources (almost $10 billion each year in the U.S. alone) as well as lives hunting down marijuana users and sellers? The OAS’s $2 million report “The Drug Problem in the Americas” seems to ask the same thing. It is not an outright call for marijuana legalization. It is, as Insulza said in Bogotá, “the beginning of a long-awaited discussion” about “more realistic [drug war] policies.” Most Latin American leaders — whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war — already made it clear to President Obama at last year’s Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia, that it’s high time to ask whether marijuana legalization might help reduce drug cartel revenues and therefore drug cartel mayhem. (Studies indicate it could rob Mexico’s narco-mafias of a third of the estimated $30 billion they rake in each year.) Insulza acknowledged the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue,” and he called for “greater flexibility” on the part of nations like the U.S. The 400-page OAS study itself concludes that trends in the hemisphere “lean toward decriminalization or legalization of the production, sale and use of marijuana. Sooner or later, decisions in this area will need to be taken.” Santos, who is widely considered Washington’s closest ally in Latin America today, has not yet endorsed legalization, but he said the report should help drug-war battered countries like his “seek better solutions” than the conventional interdiction strategy Washington still pushes. Former presidents of three of Latin America’s largest economies — Brazil, Mexico and Colombia — have jointly called for marijuana legalization. In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado last fall voted to legalize pot. Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.

<h4><u>EVEN IF</u> legalization is ineffective, the gesture is enough to resolve the lack of internal communication in the OAS -- independently solves </h4><p><strong>Padgett 13</strong> (Tim is WLRN-Miami Herald News' Americas correspondent covering Latin America, “OAS to White House and Hemisphere: It’s High Time to Consider Legalizing Pot”, http://world.time.com/2013/05/22/key-regional-organization-pushes-white-house-to-debate-legalizing-pot/<u><strong>, AB) </p><p></u></strong>On the Latin American street, <u><mark>the O</mark>rganization of <mark>A</mark>merican <mark>S</mark>tates <mark>has always borne a reputation</u></mark>, often undeserved, <u><mark>as Washington’s</u> <u>lackey</u>.</mark> <u>But <mark>the OAS</u></mark>, based in Washington, <u><mark>just sent the western hemisphere a message</mark> the White House would rather not hear</u>: <u><strong><mark>It’s time to seriously discuss legalizing marijuana as one means of reducing harrowing drug violence</u></strong></mark>. <u>That conclusion</u>, from a study presented last Friday in Bogotá, Colombia, <u>by OAS</u> Secretary-General José Miguel Insulza<u>, is one that a growing number of Latin American governments</u> — including Uruguay, <u>which</u> <u>might legalize marijuana this year — are <strong>urging</strong> the <strong>Obama</strong> Administration</u> <u><strong>to accept</u></strong>. <u><mark>Having the motion seconded by <strong>Washington’s “lackey”</strong> makes it harder to ignore.</mark> </u>But even as Insulza and Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos were hailing the OAS report last week, something else was brewing in Bogotá that could further undermine resistance to pot legalization. The Colombian capital is about to start a program that uses marijuana to wean junkies off bazuco, a cheap but fiercely addictive cocaine paste. <u>It</u> <u>will mark one of the largest experiments to determine if marijuana</u> — which legalization opponents still insist is a “gateway” to harder drugs like cocaine and heroin — <u>is in reality an “exit” drug.</u> If so, <u>it will only serve to reinforce the argument, mentioned by the OAS study, that marijuana is a relatively benign drug</u>, far more comparable to alcohol than it is, say, to crystal meth. (MORE: Legalizing Marijuana and Other Ways the U.S. and Mexico Can Win the Drug War) As Miami Herald South America correspondent Jim Wyss recently wrote from Bogotá, “For the most desperate [bazuco] users, the cannabis cure may be the only way out.” Or as one social worker told Wyss, “We want people to quit a substance that is very, very dama0ging and transition to something less dangerous and which will allow them to function in society.” Critics say the effort will just turn bazuco zombies into potheads. But for years now, similar projects in countries like Brazil, Jamaica and most recently Canada have indicated that marijuana is in fact an effective exit drug. In British Columbia last fall, a team of U.S. and Canadian addiction researchers determined that “clinical trials on cannabis substitution for problematic substance abuse appear justified.” That doesn’t mean we should all start smoking herb like Harold and Kumar. The fact that a glass of hot bourbon can relieve common cold symptoms doesn’t mean we should all start drinking Manhattans, either. But affirming marijuana as an exit drug would lead us to reconsider one of modern society’s most glaring double standards: booze good, pot bad. It would reinforce the notion that moderate marijuana use is not more perilous than moderate alcohol consumption. According to studies, in fact, pot smoking in some cases can be a preferable alternative to drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco. (MORE: The Obama Administration Looks to Latin America After Years of Neglect) So why do we waste so many resources (almost $10 billion each year in the U.S. alone) as well as lives hunting down marijuana users and sellers? The OAS’s $2 million report “The Drug Problem in the Americas” seems to ask the same thing. It is not an outright call for marijuana legalization. It is, as Insulza said in Bogotá, “the beginning of a long-awaited discussion” about “more realistic [drug war] policies.” <u><mark>Most Latin American leaders</mark> — whose countries suffer the bloody brunt of the largely failed U.S.-led drug war — <mark>already made it clear to</mark> President <mark>Obama</mark> at last year’s Summit of the Americas in</u> Cartagena, Colombia, <u><mark>that it’s <strong>high time</strong> to</mark> <mark>ask whether marijuana legalization might help</mark> reduce drug cartel revenues and therefore drug cartel mayhem</u>. (Studies indicate <u>it could rob Mexico’s narco-mafias of a third of the estimated $30 billion they rake in each year.)</u> Insulza acknowledged <u><mark>the current “disposition” throughout the Americas to “deal with the legalization issue</mark>,” and he called for “greater flexibility” on the part of nations like the U.S. <mark>The</u></mark> 400-page <u><mark>OAS</u></mark> study itself <u><mark>concludes</u></mark> that <u><strong><mark>trends</strong></mark> in the hemisphere “<strong><mark>lean toward</mark> </u></strong>decriminalization or<u><strong> <mark>legalization</strong></mark> <mark>of the production, sale and use of marijuana</u></mark>. Sooner or later, <u><strong>decisions in this area will need to be taken.”</u></strong> Santos, who is widely considered Washington’s closest ally in Latin America today, has not yet endorsed legalization, but he said the report should help drug-war battered countries like his “seek better solutions” than the conventional interdiction strategy Washington still pushes. <u>Former presidents of three of Latin America’s largest economies</u> — Brazil, Mexico and Colombia — <u><strong>have jointly called for marijuana legalization</u></strong>. In the U.S., the states of Washington and Colorado last fall voted to legalize pot. <u><strong><mark>Now that the OAS has joined that chorus, both the White House and the U.S. Congress need to join the discussion with more open ears.</p></u></strong></mark>

1AC

Diplomacy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

A

UMKC

1

ASU BW

Eric Robinsoin

1AC Policy MJ LA AF 1NC States Federalism Midterms (Turnout) Cartels DA 2NC States Federalism 1NR Midterms Case 2NR States Federalism

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Aff-UMKC-Round1.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

***Neoliberalism has created the notion of free choice and agency -- prostitution is not radical or progressive, it just plays into the hands of capitalist patriarchal structures --

Murphy 12

Murphy 12

An argument commonly made is that sex work is somehow “transgressive” that somehow sex work and challenges dominant ideology or cultural expectations of women To frame sex work as “transgressive” presents the act of commodifying one’s sexuality as a radical act what is radical about the selling of sex Isn’t “sex sells” one of the most common used defenses for sexist imagery and depictions of women of our time the objectification of the body the easiest way for men advertisers corporations and media to profit the simplest way to gain male approval to sexualize our bodies to appear as though our very being exists for pleasure and consumption men long used female bodies to profit or to sell products Capitalist patriarchy is not radical Sex work may be necessary for many women Many women must resort to prostitution in order to survive There should be no judgement Sex work may even be a choice There may even be aspects of this work that women enjoy But money does not equal freedom and an individual’s ability to profit from a misogynist industry does not equal collective empowerment prostitution is a “choice” largely determined by class / poverty. sex work is not transgressive It is something that exists because we live within a system that thrives on inequity Put women in a world where many cannot survive comfortably where men hold power where they are taught the most important thing about them is their sexuali and male pleasure is prioritized and see what happens. Prostitution is not something that exists because of women’s power It exists as the result of a lack of power and a lack of choice I am disappointed that we continue to blame feminists rather than an exploitative, violent system that allows women suffer and die without a second thought. Yet those who advocate for the legalization of prostitution claim it is not men who are their enemies rather feminists we need to re-focus turning the lens onto those who are doing the exploiting and onto those who are profiting from women’s lack of power and choice we are primarily concerned with stopping the system within which this kind of exploitation is allowed and encouraged. neoliberal values created a space for fake feminism neoliberalism had to offer women the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised What neoliberal ideology has done for feminism is to provide a basis for individual empowerment which rests on a supposed “freedom” to choose What the individual woman chooses is not relevant That she is making a choice to sell sex, is enough to frame this choice as potentially empowering if women choose things that disadvantage them it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make Making a choice does not empower anyone. Particularly when it is made within the constructs of an oppressive framework. Within the context of neoliberalism, “choice” can work against us We have convinced ourselves that by choosing to emulate that which has been sketched out for us by oppressive systems of power such as capitalism and patriarchy we are actually empowered. Inequality is overcome by choosing to frame said inequality as empowerment The poor will not rise above the rich by simply making do within the system designed to destroy them and women will not become empowered by pretending their oppression is liberating The abstractions” lead to policy, to legislation, and to decisions that affect the real lives of individuals and society as a whole. What abolitionists and the left have in common is the desire to change the system so people have real choices This entails affordable housing, health care, education, social safety nets and a state that does not perpetuate and condone violence against women

An argument commonly made is that sex work is transgressive and challenges dominant ideology of women To frame sex work as “transgressive” presents the act of commodifying one’s sexuality as a radical act what is radical about the selling of sex Isn’t “sex sells the most common defenses for sexist imagery and depictions of women of our time the simplest way to gain male approval to sexualize our bodies to appear as though our very being exists for pleasure Capitalist patriarchy is not radical Sex work may necessary for women to survive There should be no judgement Sex work may even be a choice But money does not equal freedom and an individual’s ability to profit from a misogynist industry does not equal collective empowerment. prostitution is a “choice determined by class / poverty sex work is not transgressive. It exists because we live within a system that thrives on inequity Put women in a world where many cannot survive men hold power where they are taught the most important thing about them is sex and male pleasure is prioritized and see what happens Prostitution is exists as the result of a lack of power and a lack of choice we need to re-focus. the lens onto those doing the exploiting profiting from women’s lack of power and choice primarily concerned with stopping the system within which exploitation is allowed neoliberal values created a space for fake feminism neoliberalism offer women the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised What the individual woman chooses is not relevant. That she is making a choice to sell sex if women choose things that disadvantage them it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make.” Making a choice does not empower anyone. Particularly when it is made within the constructs of an oppressive framework. Within the context of neoliberalism, “choice” can work against us The poor will not rise by making do within the system designed to destroy them and women will not become empowered by pretending oppression is liberating. “The abstractions” lead to policy legislation that affect real lives abolitionists desire to change the system so people have a state that does not perpetuate and condone violence against women

Meghan, MA in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Simon Fraser University and is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada's most-read feminist blog, http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/f-word-collective/2012/02/who-real-enemy-prostitution-debate-response-one-argument-ag, The Sex Worker as “Transgressive”, February 22nd, AB An argument commonly made by women who discovered feminism within the third wave or through post-modernism is that sex work is somehow “transgressive” – that somehow, sex work defies norms and challenges dominant ideology or cultural expectations of women. To frame sex work as “transgressive” presents the act of commodifying one’s sexuality as a radical act. But what is radical about the selling of sex? Isn’t “sex sells” one of the most commonly used defenses for sexist imagery and depictions of women of our time? Isn’t the objectification of the female body the easiest way for men, for advertisers, for corporations, and of course, for mainstream media to profit? Isn’t the simplest way to gain male approval to sexualize our bodies and to appear as though our very being exists for their pleasure and consumption? Haven’t men long used female bodies to profit or to sell products? Capitalist patriarchy is not radical. Sex work may well be necessary for many, many women. Many women must resort to prostitution in order to survive. There should be no judgement in this circumstance. We live in a world that doesn’t always leave us with many options. Survival is a priority. Sex work may even be a choice of sorts for some women. If you have a certain level of privilege, there is a great deal of money to be made in the industry. There may even be aspects of this work that some women enjoy on a certain level. But money does not equal freedom and an individual’s ability to profit from a misogynist industry does not equal collective empowerment. In truth, prostitution is a “choice” largely determined by class / poverty. As such, sex work is not transgressive. It is something that exists because we live within a system that thrives on inequity. Put women in a world where many cannot survive comfortably, where men, at large, hold more social, political, and economic power, where they are taught from day one that the most important thing about them is their sexuality and their ability to attract male attention, and where male pleasure is prioritized over female pleasure and well-being and see what happens. The Location of the Debate I agree that the location of this debate should not necessarily be between feminists, meaning that I don’t see how pitting feminists against one another could possibly be productive for the movement. What has always been clear to abolitionists and to radical feminists is that this is a fight between feminists and the patriarchy. Prostitution is not something that exists because of women’s power. It exists as the result of a lack of power and a lack of choice. I am as disappointed as the next woman that this debate has caused many of those who identify as feminists to call abolitionists their “enemies” (as well as a host of other, much less pleasant names). I am disappointed that this debate continues not be to centered around the perpetrators of violence – that is, the men. I am disappointed that we continue to blame feminists rather than an exploitative, violent, misogynist system that allows women suffer and die without a second thought. Yet those who advocate for the decriminalization and legalization of prostitution often claim that it is not men who are their enemies, but rather it is feminists. I am in complete agreement that we need to re-focus. Abolitionists have done just that; turning the lens onto those who are doing the exploiting and onto those who are profiting from women’s lack of power and lack of real choice. In the end, we are primarily concerned with stopping those who are doing the violence, that is, the men, as well as changing the system within which this kind of exploitation is allowed and encouraged. Neoliberalism as the Enemy of Feminism The author points out that which we are all (sadly) aware: “[if] the enemy is neoliberalism, then feminists are losing spectacularly.” As Rahila Gupta wrote, back in January: “neoliberal values created a space for a bright, brassy and ultimately fake feminism,” going on to say that “if the culture of neoliberalism had something to offer women, it was the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised, free even of patriarchal restraints.” What neoliberal ideology (that is, the work to privatize everything under the guise of providing more choice and freedom for individuals) has done for feminism is to provide a basis for a kind of individual empowerment which rests on a supposed “freedom” to choose. What the individual woman chooses is, of course, not relevant. That she is making a choice to get breast implants, to get onto a stripper pole, or to, yes, sell sex, is enough to frame this choice as potentially empowering. Gupta elaborates on this idea by referencing a concept discussed by Clare Chambers, called: “the fetishism of choice,” arguing that “if women choose things that disadvantage them and entrench differences, it legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make.” Making a choice does not, in and of itself, empower anyone. Particularly when it is made within the constructs of an oppressive framework. Within the context of neoliberalism, “choice” can work against us. We have convinced ourselves that by choosing to emulate that which has been sketched out for us by oppressive systems of power such as capitalism and patriarchy, we are actually empowered. Inequality, within this context, is overcome by choosing to frame said inequality as empowerment. While it could be argued, as the originally referenced article does, that “the abstractions of neoliberalism” are less important than it’s practices, I would argue that the two go hand in hand. Attempts at privatization, the destruction of social safety nets, the work to dismantle unions and to defund essential women’s organizations happens because of people. People who believe that the world must function in a certain way and cannot or will not imagine another way. The poor will not rise above the rich by simply making do within the system designed to destroy them and women will not become empowered by pretending their oppression is liberating. “The abstractions” lead to policy, to legislation, and to decisions that affect the real lives of individuals and society as a whole. What many abolitionists and the left have in common is the desire to change the system so that people have real choices and can live with dignity. This entails affordable housing, health care, education, social safety nets and, of course, a state that does not perpetuate and condone violence against women. To argue that feminists do not believe in and fight for these things is, to put it quite simply, dishonest. I won’t be erased from the left by those who wish to vilify and make enemies of the feminist movement. The feminist movement nothing if not a progressive movement for collective empowerment.

<h4><strong>***Neoliberalism has created the notion of free choice and agency -- prostitution is not radical or progressive, it just plays into the hands of capitalist patriarchal structures -- </h4><p>Murphy 12</p><p></strong>Meghan, MA in Gender, Sexuality, and Women's Studies at Simon Fraser University and is the founder and editor of Feminist Current, Canada's most-read feminist blog, http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/f-word-collective/2012/02/who-real-enemy-prostitution-debate-response-one-argument-ag, The Sex Worker as “Transgressive”, February 22nd, AB</p><p><u><strong><mark>An argument commonly made</u></strong></mark> by women who discovered feminism within the third wave or through post-modernism <u><strong><mark>is that sex</mark> <mark>work is </mark>somehow “<mark>transgressive</mark>”</u></strong> – <u><strong>that somehow</u></strong>, <u><strong>sex work</u></strong> defies norms <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong> <u><strong>challenges dominant ideology</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>or cultural expectations <mark>of women</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>To frame sex work as “transgressive” presents the act of commodifying one’s sexuality as a radical act</u></strong></mark>. But <u><strong><mark>what is radical about the selling of sex</u></strong></mark>? <u><strong><mark>Isn’t “sex sells</mark>” one of <mark>the most</mark> <mark>common</u></strong></mark>ly<u><strong> used <mark>defenses for sexist imagery and depictions of women of our time</u></strong></mark>? Isn’t <u><strong>the objectification of the</u></strong> female <u><strong>body the easiest way for men</u></strong>, for <u><strong>advertisers</u></strong>, for <u><strong>corporations</u></strong>, <u><strong>and</u></strong> of course, for mainstream <u><strong>media to profit</u></strong>? Isn’t <u><strong><mark>the simplest way to gain male approval to sexualize our</mark> <mark>bodies</u></strong></mark> and <u><strong><mark>to appear as though our very being exists for</u></strong></mark> their <u><strong><mark>pleasure</mark> and consumption</u></strong>? Haven’t <u><strong>men long used female bodies to profit or to sell products</u></strong>? <u><strong><mark>Capitalist patriarchy is not radical</u></mark>. <u><mark>Sex work may</mark> </u></strong>well <u><strong>be <mark>necessary for</u></strong></mark> many, <u><strong>many <mark>women</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>Many women must resort to prostitution in order <mark>to survive</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>There</mark> <mark>should be no judgement</u></strong></mark> in this circumstance. We live in a world that doesn’t always leave us with many options. Survival is a priority. <u><strong><mark>Sex work may even be a choice</u></strong></mark> of sorts for some women. If you have a certain level of privilege, there is a great deal of money to be made in the industry. <u><strong>There may even be aspects of this work that</u></strong> some <u><strong>women enjoy</u></strong> on a certain level. <u><strong><mark>But money does not equal freedom and an individual’s ability to profit from a misogynist industry does not equal collective empowerment</u></strong>.</mark> In truth, <u><strong><mark>prostitution is a “choice</mark>” largely <mark>determined by class / poverty</mark>. </u></strong>As such, <u><strong><mark>sex work is not transgressive</u></strong>. <u><strong>It </mark>is something that <mark>exists because we live within a system that thrives on inequity</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong><mark>Put women in a world where many cannot survive</mark> comfortably</u></strong>, <u><strong>where <mark>men</u></strong></mark>, at large, <u><strong><mark>hold</u></strong></mark> more social, political, and economic <u><strong><mark>power</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong><mark>where they are</u></strong> <u><strong>taught</u></strong></mark> from day one that <u><strong><mark>the most important thing</mark> <mark>about them is</mark> their <mark>sex</mark>uali</u></strong>ty and their ability to attract male attention, <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong></mark> where <u><strong><mark>male pleasure is prioritized</u></strong></mark> over female pleasure and well-being <u><strong><mark>and see what happens</mark>. </u></strong>The Location of the Debate I agree that the location of this debate should not necessarily be between feminists, meaning that I don’t see how pitting feminists against one another could possibly be productive for the movement. What has always been clear to abolitionists and to radical feminists is that this is a fight between feminists and the patriarchy. <u><strong><mark>Prostitution is </mark>not something that exists because of women’s power</u></strong>. <u><strong>It <mark>exists as the result of a lack of power and a lack of choice</u></strong></mark>. I am as disappointed as the next woman that this debate has caused many of those who identify as feminists to call abolitionists their “enemies” (as well as a host of other, much less pleasant names). I am disappointed that this debate continues not be to centered around the perpetrators of violence – that is, the men. <u><strong>I am disappointed that we continue to blame feminists rather than an exploitative, violent</u></strong>, misogynist <u><strong>system that allows women suffer and die without a second thought. Yet those who advocate for the</u></strong> decriminalization and <u><strong>legalization of prostitution</u></strong> often <u><strong>claim</u></strong> that <u><strong>it is not men who are their enemies</u></strong>, but <u><strong>rather</u></strong> it is <u><strong>feminists</u></strong>. I am in complete agreement that <u><strong><mark>we need to re-focus</u></strong>.</mark> Abolitionists have done just that; <u><strong>turning <mark>the lens onto those</mark> who are <mark>doing the exploiting</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>and onto those who are <mark>profiting from women’s lack of power</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong> </mark>lack of real <u><strong><mark>choice</u></strong></mark>. In the end, <u><strong>we are</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>primarily</mark> <mark>concerned with stopping</u></strong></mark> those who are doing the violence, that is, the men, as well as changing <u><strong><mark>the system within which</mark> this kind of <mark>exploitation is allowed</mark> and encouraged. </u></strong>Neoliberalism as the Enemy of Feminism The author points out that which we are all (sadly) aware: “[if] the enemy is neoliberalism, then feminists are losing spectacularly.” As Rahila Gupta wrote, back in January: “<u><strong><mark>neoliberal values created a space for</u></strong></mark> a bright, brassy and ultimately <u><strong><mark>fake feminism</u></strong></mark>,” going on to say that “if the culture of <u><strong><mark>neoliberalism </mark>had</u></strong> something <u><strong>to <mark>offer women</u></strong></mark>, it was <u><strong><mark>the idea of agency, of choice freely exercised</u></strong></mark>, free even of patriarchal restraints.” <u><strong>What neoliberal ideology</u></strong> (that is, the work to privatize everything under the guise of providing more choice and freedom for individuals) <u><strong>has done for feminism is to provide a basis for</u></strong> a kind of <u><strong>individual empowerment which rests on a supposed “freedom” to choose</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>What the individual woman chooses is</u></strong></mark>, of course, <u><strong><mark>not relevant</u></strong>. <u><strong>That she is making a choice to</u></strong></mark> get breast implants, to get onto a stripper pole, or to, yes, <u><strong><mark>sell sex</mark>, is enough to frame this choice as potentially empowering</u></strong>. Gupta elaborates on this idea by referencing a concept discussed by Clare Chambers, called: “the fetishism of choice,” arguing that “<u><strong><mark>if women choose things that disadvantage them</u></strong></mark> and entrench differences, <u><strong><mark>it</mark> <mark>legitimates inequality because the inequality arises from the choices they make</u></strong>.” <u><strong>Making a choice does not</u></strong></mark>, in and of itself, <u><strong><mark>empower anyone.</u></strong> <u><strong>Particularly when it is made within the constructs of an oppressive framework. Within the context of neoliberalism, “choice” can work against</mark> <mark>us</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>We have convinced ourselves that by choosing to emulate</u></strong> <u><strong>that which has been sketched out for us by oppressive systems of power such as capitalism</u></strong> <u><strong>and patriarchy</u></strong>, <u><strong>we are actually empowered. Inequality</u></strong>, within this context, <u><strong>is overcome by choosing to frame said inequality as empowerment</u></strong>. While it could be argued, as the originally referenced article does, that “the abstractions of neoliberalism” are less important than it’s practices, I would argue that the two go hand in hand. Attempts at privatization, the destruction of social safety nets, the work to dismantle unions and to defund essential women’s organizations happens because of people. People who believe that the world must function in a certain way and cannot or will not imagine another way. <u><strong><mark>The poor will not rise </mark>above the rich <mark>by</mark> simply <mark>making do within the system designed to destroy them and women will not become empowered by pretending</mark> their <mark>oppression is liberating</u></strong>. “<u><strong>The</mark> <mark>abstractions” lead to policy</mark>, to <mark>legislation</mark>, and to decisions <mark>that affect</mark> the <mark>real lives</mark> of individuals and society as a whole. What</u></strong> many <u><strong><mark>abolitionists</mark> and the left have in common is the <mark>desire to change the</mark> <mark>system</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>so</u></strong></mark> that <u><strong><mark>people have</mark> real choices</u></strong> and can live with dignity. <u><strong>This entails affordable housing, health care, education, social safety nets and</u></strong>, of course, <u><strong><mark>a state that does not perpetuate and condone violence against women</u></strong></mark>. To argue that feminists do not believe in and fight for these things is, to put it quite simply, dishonest. I won’t be erased from the left by those who wish to vilify and make enemies of the feminist movement. The feminist movement nothing if not a progressive movement for collective empowerment.</p>

2NC

Capitalism K

2NC Link

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

N

UMKC

7

Stanford GL

Claire McKinney

1AC - Affirm the Prostitute 1NC - T-FW Cap K Ballot K 2NC - Cap 1NR - FW 2NR - FW

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

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Evangelical turnout causes a GOP victory – especially in the South

Gibson 14 , http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/27/republicans-launch-digital-effort-rally-evangelicals-polls/>#SPS

Gibson 14 <David, award-winning journalist, author and filmmaker, “Republicans woo evangelical base in bid to recapture the Senate,” June 27th, http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/27/republicans-launch-digital-effort-rally-evangelicals-polls/>#SPS

The RNC launched its effort to rally conservative believers behind the party, a sign of how crucial voter turnout will be in this fall’s close-fought midterm elections and an indication that the GOP cannot take its evangelical Christian base for granted. even though evangelicals identify more closely than ever with the GOP, they have not been turning out at the polls in sufficient numbers to carry Republican candidates to victory. for the election of Mitt Romney “the faith vote was an afterthought in a lot of places.” That came back to haunt the party while 89 million Americans identify as evangelical Christians, just a third of them voted in the 2012 election — and more than a fifth of those voters pulled the lever Obama. In past years Conservative believers reliably turned out for the GOP But those groups are gone or greatly diminished, constituents may support their agenda but are not always showing up on Election Day. The immediate goal is to “maximize the faith vote” in key Senate races, especially in red or purple states like Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. Winning those seats is essential to the GOP dreams of retaking the majority in the Senate this year.

The RNC launched its effort to rally conservative believers a sign of how crucial voter turnout will be in this fall’s elections the GOP cannot take its evangelical Christian base for granted. even though evangelicals identify more closely than ever with the GOP, they have not been turning out at the polls in sufficient numbers to carry Republican candidates to victory for Romney the faith vote was an afterthought in a lot of places while 89 million Americans identify as evangelical Christians, just a third of them voted in the 2012 election — and more than a fifth of those voters pulled the lever Obama But those groups are gone or greatly diminished The immediate goal is to “maximize the faith vote” in key Senate races, especially in red or purple states like Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. Winning those seats is essential to the GOP retaking the Senate

(RNS) The Republican National Committee [RNC] on Friday (June 27) launched its first web-based effort to rally conservative believers behind the party, a sign of how crucial voter turnout will be in this fall’s close-fought midterm elections and an indication that the GOP cannot take its evangelical Christian base for granted. “This shouldn’t be outreach, this should be who we are — it is who we are,” said Chad Connelly, director of faith engagement for the Republican National Committee and the force behind this new initiative, GOPfaith.com. Evangelicals, Connelly said, “are our biggest, most reliable voting bloc.” The problem, however, is that even though evangelicals identify more closely than ever with the GOP, they have not been turning out at the polls in sufficient numbers to carry Republican candidates to victory. Connelly, a conservative Christian and former chairman of the Republican Party in South Carolina, said that as he traveled the country in 2012 working for the election of Mitt Romney, he found that “the faith vote was an afterthought in a lot of places.” That came back to haunt the party, he said. He cited surveys showing that while 89 million Americans identify as evangelical Christians, just a third of them voted in the 2012 election — and more than a fifth of those voters pulled the lever for President Obama. RNC chair Reince Priebus set up the RNC’s Faith Engagement group last year, its first-ever strategic initiative aimed exclusively at conservative faith-based voters. Priebus tapped Connelly to head it, and this new get-out-the-vote campaign — “an online home for all of our efforts, all around the country,” as he says in a video on the site. In past years, the party didn’t need to make such efforts. Conservative believers reliably turned out for the GOP, often mobilized by adjunct organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. But those groups are gone or greatly diminished, and the GOP can now use digital tools — much as Democrats have done to great effect — to directly reach constituents who may support their agenda but who are not always showing up on Election Day. The aim of the website is, as it says, “to build an army of conservative pro-faith activists” — sympathetic believers of all faiths, but in particular conservative Christians. The plan is to identify 100,000 believers who will spread the word at the grass roots, especially in churches. Central to the effort are pastors, who Connelly said have been too reticent to preach about political issues. Under federal law, houses of worship could jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they endorse individual candidates. “Let’s overcome that myth of the IRS saying you can’t talk about this from the pulpit,” he said. “Look, if there’s no freedom of speech in the pulpit, there’s no freedom of speech.” “Now is the time of righteous indignation,” he said, a time to be the “turn-the-tables-over Jesus” and not the “meek, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus.” The immediate goal of this initiative is to “maximize the faith vote” in key Senate races, especially in red or purple states like Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina. Winning those seats is essential to the GOP dreams of retaking the majority in the Senate this year.

<h4>Evangelical turnout causes a GOP victory – especially in the South</h4><p><strong>Gibson 14</strong> <David, award-winning journalist, author and filmmaker, “Republicans woo evangelical base in bid to recapture the Senate,” June 27th<u><strong>, http://www.religionnews.com/2014/06/27/republicans-launch-digital-effort-rally-evangelicals-polls/>#SPS</p><p></u></strong>(RNS) <u><strong><mark>The</u></strong></mark> Republican National Committee [<u><strong><mark>RNC</u></strong></mark>] on Friday (June 27) <u><strong><mark>launched</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>its</u></strong></mark> first web-based <u><strong><mark>effort to rally conservative believers</mark> behind the party, <mark>a sign of how crucial voter turnout will be in this fall’s</mark> close-fought midterm <mark>elections</mark> and an indication that <mark>the GOP cannot take its evangelical Christian base for granted.</mark> </u></strong>“This shouldn’t be outreach, this should be who we are — it is who we are,” said Chad Connelly, director of faith engagement for the Republican National Committee and the force behind this new initiative, GOPfaith.com. Evangelicals, Connelly said, “are our biggest, most reliable voting bloc.” The problem, however, is that <u><strong><mark>even though evangelicals identify more closely than ever with the GOP, they have not been turning out at the polls in sufficient numbers to carry Republican candidates to victory</mark>. </u></strong>Connelly, a conservative Christian and former chairman of the Republican Party in South Carolina, said that as he traveled the country in 2012 working <u><strong><mark>for</mark> the election of Mitt <mark>Romney</u></strong></mark>, he found that <u><strong>“<mark>the faith vote was an afterthought in a lot of places</mark>.” That came back to haunt the party</u></strong>, he said. He cited surveys showing that <u><strong><mark>while</mark> <mark>89 million Americans identify as evangelical Christians, just a third of them voted in the 2012 election — and more than a fifth of those voters pulled the lever</u></strong></mark> for President <u><strong><mark>Obama</mark>.</u></strong> RNC chair Reince Priebus set up the RNC’s Faith Engagement group last year, its first-ever strategic initiative aimed exclusively at conservative faith-based voters. Priebus tapped Connelly to head it, and this new get-out-the-vote campaign — “an online home for all of our efforts, all around the country,” as he says in a video on the site. <u><strong>In past years</u></strong>, the party didn’t need to make such efforts. <u><strong>Conservative believers reliably turned out for the GOP</u></strong>, often mobilized by adjunct organizations like the Moral Majority and Christian Coalition. <u><strong><mark>But those groups are gone or greatly diminished</mark>,</u></strong> and the GOP can now use digital tools — much as Democrats have done to great effect — to directly reach <u><strong>constituents</u></strong> who <u><strong>may support their agenda but</u></strong> who <u><strong>are not always showing up on Election Day. </u></strong>The aim of the website is, as it says, “to build an army of conservative pro-faith activists” — sympathetic believers of all faiths, but in particular conservative Christians. The plan is to identify 100,000 believers who will spread the word at the grass roots, especially in churches. Central to the effort are pastors, who Connelly said have been too reticent to preach about political issues. Under federal law, houses of worship could jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they endorse individual candidates. “Let’s overcome that myth of the IRS saying you can’t talk about this from the pulpit,” he said. “Look, if there’s no freedom of speech in the pulpit, there’s no freedom of speech.” “Now is the time of righteous indignation,” he said, a time to be the “turn-the-tables-over Jesus” and not the “meek, turn-the-other-cheek Jesus.” <u><strong><mark>The immediate goal</u></strong></mark> of this initiative <u><strong><mark>is to “maximize the faith vote”</u></strong> <u><strong>in key Senate races, especially in red or purple states like Kentucky, Georgia, Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina.</u></strong> <u><strong>Winning those seats is essential to the GOP</mark> dreams of <mark>retaking the</mark> majority in the <mark>Senate</mark> this year.</p></u></strong>

1NR

Case

1NR – Link Wall

./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