Datasets:

Yusuf5

/

OpenCaselist

like 14

Mexico’s economy is recovering but is fragile

Montes 6-25

Montes 6-25

upbeat April data buoyed hopes that the economy is finally on the path toward improved growth. economists welcomed the broad 1.3% expansion in the global index of economic activity in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012 "The frequency of the positive data over the negative data is increasing. There are a whole range of indicators that show that we're in a recovery cycle Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside Capistrán chief economist said the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period" the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year government spending jumped 13% compared with the same period a year earlier the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in June, the central bank cut interest rates to support economic growth and said that it will likely lower its 2.3% to 3.3% growth estimate for the year, suggesting that the economic recovery in the coming months will be more moderate. unemployment is relatively high and that the slack in the economy is widening economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm. indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand nonmanufacturing index fell the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May Inflation was subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices. consumer credit growth has been weak.

"The frequency of the positive data is increasing we're in a recovery cycle the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year government spending jumped 13% central bank cut interest rates and will lower its growth estimate suggesting that the recovery will be moderate unemployment is high and the slack is widening economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm.

(JUAN MONTES, reporter, “Mexican Economy Sees Glimpse of Recovery” June 25, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/mexican-economy-sees-glimpse-of-recovery-1403719934, KB) After many months of dreary economic news from Mexico, upbeat April data buoyed hopes that the economy is finally on the path toward improved growth. The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto and some economists welcomed the broad 1.3% expansion in the global index of economic activity in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012, bolstered by growth in services, construction and industry. "The frequency of the positive data over the negative data is increasing. There are a whole range of indicators that show that we're in a recovery cycle," said Fernando Aportela, Mexico's deputy finance minister. In an interview, Mr. Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging. The data, released Tuesday, surprised a market that had been discounting another disappointing year for growth. In 2013, Mexico expanded just 1.1%, the lowest rate since the recession of 2009. Prospects for this year worsened quickly after a sluggish first quarter that prompted the government to cut its growth estimates to 2.7%, well below the 5% growth target sought by Mr. Peña Nieto. The finance ministry is confident that the effect of new taxes on consumption is dissipating, that a battered construction sector is picking up and that Mexico's export engine is gaining pace. Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the U.S., where economic activity is recovering after an unusually harsh winter knocked down demand. The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside (in coming months) as there are still unjustified bearish views regarding the economy's performance in 2014," said Marco Oviedo, an economist with Barclays, reaffirming his 3% growth forecast. Carlos Capistrán, chief economist of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, said the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period" that began in mid-2012, when the country's export engine started to slow and delays in government spending dented investments. "We're very confident that the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year," Mr. Capistrán said, adding that the government is now spending at a much faster pace. In the January-April period, government spending jumped 13% compared with the same period a year earlier. Among the chorus of optimism, however, the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in early June, the central bank cut interest rates to support economic growth and said that it will likely lower its 2.3% to 3.3% growth estimate for the year, suggesting that the economic recovery in the coming months will be more moderate. Mexico's central bank has said unemployment is relatively high and that the slack in the economy is widening. The bank is expecting the output gap—the difference between actual output and its potential—to close only in late 2015. Some economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm. "It's premature to say that this is the beginning of a strong recovery. The April data could just be a one-time rebound, given the huge contraction seen in March," said Jonathan Heath, an independent economist. In March, Mexico's economy shrank 0.6% versus February. Mr. Heath said some indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand. The Mexican Institute of Finance Executives' nonmanufacturing index fell for a fourth straight month in May, and the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May, giving no clues of improvement. Inflation was also subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices. And consumer credit growth has been weak. "We should wait to see the economic growth in May and June to be sure that this is a long-lasting recovery and not something temporary," said Mr. Heath. Gross domestic product data for the second quarter of the year will be released on August 21.

<h4><strong>Mexico’s economy is recovering but is fragile</h4><p>Montes 6-25</p><p></strong>(JUAN MONTES, reporter, “Mexican Economy Sees Glimpse of Recovery” June 25, 2014, http://online.wsj.com/articles/mexican-economy-sees-glimpse-of-recovery-1403719934, KB)</p><p>After many months of dreary economic news from Mexico, <u><strong>upbeat April data buoyed hopes that the economy is finally on the path toward improved growth.</u></strong> The government of President Enrique Peña Nieto and some <u><strong>economists welcomed the broad 1.3% expansion in the global index of economic activity in April, which marked the best monthly performance since November 2012</u></strong>, bolstered by growth in services, construction and industry. <u><strong><mark>"The frequency of the positive data </mark>over the negative data <mark>is increasing</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>There are a whole range of indicators that show that</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>we're in a recovery cycle</u></strong></mark>," said Fernando Aportela, Mexico's deputy finance minister. In an interview, Mr. <u><strong>Aportela cited recent improvements in retail sales and industrial production as encouraging</u></strong>. The data, released Tuesday, surprised a market that had been discounting another disappointing year for growth. In 2013, Mexico expanded just 1.1%, the lowest rate since the recession of 2009. Prospects for this year worsened quickly after a sluggish first quarter that prompted the government to cut its growth estimates to 2.7%, well below the 5% growth target sought by Mr. Peña Nieto. The finance ministry is confident that the effect of new taxes on consumption is dissipating, that a battered construction sector is picking up and that Mexico's export engine is gaining pace. Mexico sends 80% of its exports to the U.S., where economic activity is recovering after an unusually harsh winter knocked down demand. <u><strong>The finance ministry is keeping its 2.7% growth forecast for now. Some analysts argue that this guidance could be too pessimistic. "Markets might be surprised to the upside</u></strong> (in coming months) as there are still unjustified bearish views regarding the economy's performance in 2014," said Marco Oviedo, an economist with Barclays, reaffirming his 3% growth forecast. Carlos <u><strong>Capistrán</u></strong>, <u><strong>chief economist</u></strong> of Bank of America Merrill Lynch, <u><strong>said the Mexican economy is exiting a "recessive period"</u></strong> that began in mid-2012, when the country's export engine started to slow and delays in government spending dented investments. "We're very confident that <u><strong><mark>the Mexican economy will significantly rebound in the second half of the year</u></strong></mark>," Mr. Capistrán said, adding that the government is now spending at a much faster pace. In the January-April period, <u><strong><mark>government spending jumped 13%</mark> compared with the same period a year earlier</u></strong>. Among the chorus of optimism, however, <u><strong>the Bank of Mexico is sounding a note of discord. In its most recent policy decision in</u></strong> early <u><strong>June, the <mark>central bank cut interest rates</mark> to support economic growth <mark>and</mark> said that it <mark>will</mark> likely <mark>lower its</mark> 2.3% to 3.3% <mark>growth estimate</mark> for the year, <mark>suggesting that</u></strong> <u><strong>the</mark> economic <mark>recovery</mark> in the coming months <mark>will be</mark> more <mark>moderate</mark>. </u></strong>Mexico's central bank has said <u><strong><mark>unemployment is </mark>relatively <mark>high and</mark> that <mark>the slack</mark> in the economy <mark>is widening</u></strong></mark>. The bank is expecting the output gap—the difference between actual output and its potential—to close only in late 2015. Some <u><strong><mark>economists argue it's too early to say that the recovery is firm.</mark> </u></strong>"It's premature to say that this is the beginning of a strong recovery. The April data could just be a one-time rebound, given the huge contraction seen in March," said Jonathan Heath, an independent economist. In March, Mexico's economy shrank 0.6% versus February. Mr. Heath said some <u><strong>indicators are still showing weakness in domestic demand</u></strong>. The Mexican Institute of Finance Executives' <u><strong>nonmanufacturing index fell</u></strong> for a fourth straight month in May, and <u><strong>the urban unemployment rate was close to 6% in May</u></strong>, giving no clues of improvement. <u><strong>Inflation was</u></strong> also <u><strong>subdued until early June, indicating that there is no significant demand pressure on prices.</u></strong> And <u><strong>consumer credit growth has been weak.</u></strong> "We should wait to see the economic growth in May and June to be sure that this is a long-lasting recovery and not something temporary," said Mr. Heath. Gross domestic product data for the second quarter of the year will be released on August 21.</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Mexico DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Economic inequality has to be addressed before and separate from legislation – this answers the permutation because you’re the wrong starting point

Haynes, 4

Haynes, 4 (Dina F., “Used, Abused, Arrested and Deported.” Human Rights Quarterly 26.2 – Project Muse)

Trafficking in women is fueled by poverty, and women in transitioning and developing countries are exceptionally vulnerable Poverty conditions in these countries tend to impact women in particular, as their economic status vis-à-vis men is usually even lower in these countries While the eradication of poverty is too large to be tackled within an anti-trafficking scheme, the conditions that foster a vulnerability to trafficking must be addressed In both the smuggling and trafficking scenarios, it is crucial to look at the reasons why a person would feel the need to leave her home in search of work Fully understanding the reasons women fall prey to traffickers can help legislators determine how best to draft and implement anti-trafficking legislation

Trafficking in women is fueled by poverty Poverty conditions in these countries tend to impact women in particular, as their economic status vis-à-vis men is usually lower While the eradication of poverty is too large to be tackled within an anti-trafficking scheme, the conditions that foster a vulnerability to trafficking must be addressed it is crucial to look at the reasons why a person would feel the need to leave her home in search of work

Trafficking in women is fueled by poverty, and women in transitioning and developing countries are exceptionally vulnerable.144 Poverty conditions in these countries tend to impact women in particular, as their economic status vis-à-vis men is usually even lower in these countries. While the eradication of gender-based poverty is too large of an agenda to be tackled within an anti-trafficking scheme, the conditions that foster a vulnerability to trafficking must at least be addressed at some point. In both the smuggling and trafficking scenarios, it is crucial to look at the reasons why a person would feel the need to leave her home country and travel abroad in search of work or escape from a violent or unsuitable life, but also to remember that some simply leave home in search of adventure or a better life and find themselves held against their will or forced into labor. Fully understanding the reasons women fall prey to traffickers can help legislators determine how best to draft and implement anti-trafficking legislation.

<h4>Economic inequality has to be addressed before and separate from legislation – this answers the permutation because you’re the wrong starting point</h4><p><strong>Haynes, 4</strong> (Dina F., “Used, Abused, Arrested and Deported.” Human Rights Quarterly 26.2 – Project Muse)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Trafficking in women is fueled by poverty</mark>,</u></strong> <u><strong>and women in transitioning and developing countries are exceptionally vulnerable</u></strong>.144 <u><strong><mark>Poverty conditions in these countries tend to impact women in particular, as their economic status vis-à-vis men is usually</mark> even <mark>lower</mark> in these countries</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>While the eradication of</mark> </u></strong>gender-based <u><strong><mark>poverty is too large</u></strong></mark> of an agenda <u><strong><mark>to be tackled within an anti-trafficking scheme, the conditions that foster a vulnerability to trafficking must</u></strong></mark> at least <u><strong><mark>be addressed</u></strong></mark> at some point. <u><strong>In both the smuggling and trafficking scenarios, <mark>it is crucial to look at the reasons why a person would feel the need to leave her home</u></strong></mark> country and travel abroad <u><strong><mark>in search of work</mark> </u></strong>or escape from a violent or unsuitable life, but also to remember that some simply leave home in search of adventure or a better life and find themselves held against their will or forced into labor. <u><strong>Fully understanding the reasons women fall prey to traffickers can help legislators determine how best to draft and implement anti-trafficking legislation</u></strong>. </p>

2NC

Cap K

2NC AT: Gender>Econ

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Voting neg recognizes that rejecting the totality of capitalism is the only ethical decision possible. It means preferring not to engage in the affirmative’s logic of overspecific criticism which blunts radical critique by creating wounded attachments to status quo minutia.

<h4>Voting neg recognizes that rejecting the totality of capitalism is the only ethical decision possible. It means preferring not to engage in the affirmative’s logic of overspecific criticism which blunts radical critique by creating wounded attachments to status quo minutia. </h4>

2NC

Cap K

2NC Alternative

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The plan destroys cartels

Pullen ‘09

Pullen ‘09 (Doug Pullen “Cheech and Chong: Comedy tour stokes talk on pot legalization” May 10, 2009 Sunday Lexis, TSW)

75 percent of the cartels' revenues are dependent upon marijuana If you take that away from them, it will at destabilize and affect their ability to recruit new members and the kind of heavy weaponry used to outgun the Mexican military

75 percent of the cartels' revenues are dependent upon marijuana If you take that away from them, it will at destabilize and affect their ability to recruit new members and the kind of heavy weaponry used to outgun the Mexican military

"If you legalize it, at least you eliminate that huge problem of law enforcement. Now you've got a cap on it." While elected officials debate marijuana legalization, Chong says he doesn't smoke the herb anymore. Nor does he believe Cheech and Chong were wrong to use or joke about marijuana. Cheech and Chong was a comedy team first and foremost, he said, not advocates for drug use or abuse. "The thing about our humor is it was a gentle approach. It wasn't a militant approach. And it's still working," Chong said. "It's what's made us last all these years. We weren't fighting a war. We were showing people how life really is." O'Rourke said he has studied drug legalization more intensely since he created a media firestorm by adding his amendment to a series of recommendations by the Border Relations Committee to address drug-related violence. He says decriminalizing marijuana might hurt cartels. "There's no true way to know, because it's a non-reported black market, but people say that 50 to 75 percent of the cartels' revenues are dependent upon marijuana," O'Rourke said. "If you take that away from them, it will at least destabilize and affect their ability to recruit new members and the kind of heavy weaponry used to outgun the Juárez police and, frankly, the Mexican military." In many ways, Chong became a symbol for those who say U.S. marijuana laws are wrongheaded.

<h4><strong>The plan destroys cartels</h4><p>Pullen ‘09</p><p></strong>(Doug Pullen “Cheech and Chong: Comedy tour stokes talk on pot legalization” May 10, 2009 Sunday Lexis, TSW)</p><p>"If you legalize it, at least you eliminate that huge problem of law enforcement. Now you've got a cap on it." While elected officials debate marijuana legalization, Chong says he doesn't smoke the herb anymore. Nor does he believe Cheech and Chong were wrong to use or joke about marijuana. Cheech and Chong was a comedy team first and foremost, he said, not advocates for drug use or abuse. "The thing about our humor is it was a gentle approach. It wasn't a militant approach. And it's still working," Chong said. "It's what's made us last all these years. We weren't fighting a war. We were showing people how life really is." O'Rourke said he has studied drug legalization more intensely since he created a media firestorm by adding his amendment to a series of recommendations by the Border Relations Committee to address drug-related violence. He says decriminalizing marijuana might hurt cartels. "There's no true way to know, because it's a non-reported black market, but people say that 50 to <u><strong><mark>75 percent of the cartels' revenues are dependent upon marijuana</u></strong></mark>," O'Rourke said. "<u><strong><mark>If you take that away from them, it will at </u></strong></mark>least<u><strong><mark> destabilize and affect their ability to recruit new members and the kind of heavy weaponry used to outgun </u></strong></mark>the Juárez police and, frankly,<u><strong><mark> the Mexican military</u></strong></mark>." In many ways, Chong became a symbol for those who say U.S. marijuana laws are wrongheaded.</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Mexico DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Legalization expands the black market, increases violence from customers, makes it exceedingly difficult to get police help, and decreases support services and exit programs

Forrey ‘14

Forrey ‘14 [Chariane K. Forrey is a 2014 J.D. Candidate at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 14 Nev. L.J. 970. ETB]

Nevada is not alone in attempting legalization Victoria enacted the Prostitution Control Act of 1994 to reform and legalize adult prostitution. the Act was meant to protect prostitutes from violence and health risks and to eliminate criminals from providing prostitution services the opposite occurred To meet the demand 400 illegal brothels sprung up as compared with 95 legal brothels This does not include other unlicensed escort agencies and the surge in street prostitution For women working in legal brothels, the rising demand increased the competition among prostitutes This resulted in increased pressure on women to book a sex buyer even if the buyer was violent, drunk, or demanding The blurred line between what constituted [*986] work and what constituted sexual assault made it exceedingly difficult for women to know when to seek help from the police. The normalization of prostitution resulted in a lack of support services rather than a push for exit programs, such that "those involved in a cycle of drugs, prostitution, conviction and vulnerability were likely to be trapped within the industry many women in the legal sex industry remained vulnerable to labor abuse because the industry often employed young workers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds These women often worked long hours and were poorly paid, yet because of their backgrounds they remained unaware of their employment rights

Victoria enacted the the Act to protect prostitutes from violence the opposite occurred To meet the demand 400 illegal brothels sprung up compared with 95 legal brothels the competition among prostitutes resulted in increased pressure to book a buyer even if the buyer was violent, drunk, or demanding The blurred line between work and sexual assault made it exceedingly difficult for women to seek help from the police normalization of prostitution resulted in a lack of support services rather than a push for exit programs, such that "those involved were likely to be trapped women remained vulnerable to abuse because the industry employed workers from diverse backgrounds

Nevada is not alone in attempting legalization. Victoria, Australia is a state similar to Nevada in that international tourists flock toward its gaming industry. n149 Australian popular culture has promoted its reputation as a "nation [*985] of gamblers." n150 Victoria in particular has been the heartland for gambling within the racing industry since the 1800s, n151 but the state began to increase its profits in the casino industry in 1991. n152 The Victorian casino industry tends to attract young tourists between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, usually students. n153¶ Almost two decades ago, Victoria enacted the Prostitution Control Act of 1994 to reform and legalize adult prostitution. n154 Parts of the casino and prostitution industry combined efforts, with one brothel requesting customers book appointments with casino chips. n155 Among other goals, the Prostitution Control Act of 1994 was meant to protect prostitutes from violence and health risks and to eliminate criminals from providing prostitution services. n156 However, the opposite occurred. n157¶ To meet the demand for cheap sex and limitless sexual services, 400 illegal brothels sprung up throughout the state by 2003, n158 as compared with 95 legal brothels. n159 This number does not include other unlicensed escort agencies n160 and the surge in street prostitution. n161 Additionally, within a few years after legalization, Victoria became the state with the highest number of children used in commercial sex, including children less than ten years of age. n162 Although Australia legalized prostitution to keep children out of the sex trade, both legal and illegal brothels engaged in the sex trafficking of minors. n163¶ For women working in legal brothels, the rising demand for sex in Victoria increased the competition among prostitutes. n164 This resulted in brothels placing increased pressure on women to book a sex buyer even if the buyer was violent, drunk, or demanding. n165 The blurred line between what constituted [*986] work and what constituted sexual assault made it exceedingly difficult for women to know when to seek help from the police. n166 The normalization of prostitution resulted in a lack of support services rather than a push for exit programs, such that "those involved in a cycle of drugs, prostitution, conviction and vulnerability were likely to be trapped within the industry." n167¶ Other promised benefits of legalization did not materialize. Tax evasion continued to occur among both legal and illegal brothels. n168 Women working in legal brothels were unwilling to submit tax returns because they did not want an official register of their work in prostitution. n169 Also, many women in the legal sex industry remained vulnerable to labor abuse because the industry often employed young workers from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. n170 These women often worked long hours and were poorly paid, yet because of their backgrounds they remained unaware of their employment rights. n171

<h4><strong>Legalization expands the black market, increases violence from customers, makes it exceedingly difficult to get police help, and decreases support services and exit programs</h4><p>Forrey ‘14</p><p></strong>[Chariane K. Forrey is a 2014 J.D. Candidate at the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 14 Nev. L.J. 970. ETB]</p><p><u><strong>Nevada is not alone in attempting legalization</u></strong>. Victoria, Australia is a state similar to Nevada in that international tourists flock toward its gaming industry. n149 Australian popular culture has promoted its reputation as a "nation [*985] of gamblers." n150 Victoria in particular has been the heartland for gambling within the racing industry since the 1800s, n151 but the state began to increase its profits in the casino industry in 1991. n152 The Victorian casino industry tends to attract young tourists between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, usually students. n153¶ Almost two decades ago, <u><strong><mark>Victoria enacted the </mark>Prostitution Control Act of 1994 to reform and legalize adult prostitution.</u></strong> n154 Parts of the casino and prostitution industry combined efforts, with one brothel requesting customers book appointments with casino chips. n155 Among other goals, <u><strong><mark>the</u></strong> </mark>Prostitution Control <u><strong><mark>Act</u></strong> </mark>of 1994 <u><strong>was meant <mark>to protect prostitutes from violence </mark>and health risks and to eliminate criminals from providing prostitution services</u></strong>. n156 However, <u><strong><mark>the opposite occurred</u></strong></mark>. n157¶ <u><strong><mark>To meet the demand</u></strong> </mark>for cheap sex and limitless sexual services, <u><strong><mark>400 illegal brothels sprung up</u></strong> </mark>throughout the state by 2003, n158 <u><strong>as <mark>compared with 95 legal brothels</u></strong></mark>. n159 <u><strong>This</u></strong> number <u><strong>does not include other unlicensed escort agencies</u></strong> n160 <u><strong>and</u></strong> <u><strong>the surge in street prostitution</u></strong>. n161 Additionally, within a few years after legalization, Victoria became the state with the highest number of children used in commercial sex, including children less than ten years of age. n162 Although Australia legalized prostitution to keep children out of the sex trade, both legal and illegal brothels engaged in the sex trafficking of minors. n163¶ <u><strong>For women working in legal brothels, the rising demand</u></strong> for sex in Victoria <u><strong>increased <mark>the competition among prostitutes</u></strong></mark>. n164 <u><strong>This <mark>resulted in </u></strong></mark>brothels placing <u><strong><mark>increased pressure </mark>on women <mark>to book a</mark> sex <mark>buyer even if the buyer was violent, drunk, or demanding</u></strong></mark>. n165 <u><strong><mark>The blurred line between </mark>what constituted [*986] <mark>work and </mark>what constituted <mark>sexual assault made it exceedingly difficult for women to </mark>know when to <mark>seek help from the police</mark>.</u></strong> n166 <u><strong>The <mark>normalization of prostitution resulted in a lack of support services rather than a push for exit programs,</mark> <mark>such that "those involved </mark>in a cycle of drugs, prostitution, conviction and vulnerability <mark>were likely to be trapped </mark>within the industry</u></strong>." n167¶ Other promised benefits of legalization did not materialize. Tax evasion continued to occur among both legal and illegal brothels. n168 Women working in legal brothels were unwilling to submit tax returns because they did not want an official register of their work in prostitution. n169 Also, <u><strong>many <mark>women </mark>in the legal sex industry <mark>remained vulnerable to </mark>labor <mark>abuse because the industry</mark> often <mark>employed </mark>young <mark>workers from diverse </mark>cultural and linguistic <mark>backgrounds</u></strong></mark>. n170 <u><strong>These women often worked long hours and were poorly paid, yet because of their backgrounds they remained unaware of their employment rights</u></strong>. n171</p>

1NR

Case

Ext – 1NC #2

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

This refusal represents the direct prioritization of class struggle as a direct confrontation with the constitutive societal antagonism – which radicalizes political subjectivity, embraces the universal kernel of emancipation, and imposes universal punishment on the structural oppressors of humanity.

<h4>This refusal represents the direct prioritization of class struggle as a direct confrontation with the constitutive societal antagonism – which radicalizes political subjectivity, embraces the universal kernel of emancipation, and imposes universal punishment on the structural oppressors of humanity. </h4>

2NC

Cap K

2NC Alternative

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Cartels are key to Mexico’s banking sector – collapse crushes the entire economy

Lange 10

Lange 10 (Jason Lange, Correspondent, Washington, “From spas to banks, Mexico economy rides on drugs” Jan 22, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/22/us-drugs-mexico-economy-idUSTRE60L0X120100122, KB)

Collins is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business, whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. cartels bring $40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. Mexico probably made more money in 2009 moving drugs than it did exporting oil drug cash is everywhere in Mexico It has propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. "Mexico is saturated with this money," said Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor. the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. Drug money has fueled part of a real estate boom around tourist resorts cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. Much of the cartels' profits eventually ends up in Mexico's banking system During the global financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity, says economist Ibarra "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that helped the banks drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico. Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating. drug money is driving nearly 20 percent of the state's economy. organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. Another problem the economy could face is that drug funding could one day fall if authorities cracked down on money laundering or wrenched power away from the cartels. the moment it stops it all crashes

Mexico made more money moving drugs than it did exporting oil It has propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate During the financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that helped the banks drug money is driving 20 percent of the state's economy. drug funding could one day fall the moment it stops it all crashes

At a modern factory in a city whose main claim to fame is an image of the Virgin Mary revered for granting miracles, Mexican pharmaceuticals firm Grupo Collins churns out antibiotics and other medicines. But the United States contends that the company in Zapopan is not what it seems. The U.S. Treasury put Grupo Collins on a black list in 2008, saying the firm supplies a small drug cartel in western Mexico with chemicals needed to make methamphetamines. Grupo Collins, which has denied any connection to organized crime, is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business, whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. Mexican cartels, which control most of the cocaine and methamphetamine smuggled into the United States, bring an estimated $25 billion to $40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. To put that in perspective: Mexico probably made more money in 2009 moving drugs than it did exporting oil, its single biggest legitimate foreign currency earner. From the white Caribbean beaches of Cancun to violent towns on the U.S. border and the beauty parlors of Mexico City's wealthy suburbs, drug cash is everywhere in Mexico. It has even propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy. Smuggled into Mexico mostly from the United States in $100 bills, narco money finds its way onto the books of restaurants, construction firms and bars as drug lords try to legitimize their cash and prevent police from tracing it. "Mexico is saturated with this money," said George Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor. In western Mexico, drug money started pouring into Zapopan and nearby Guadalajara in the 1980s as the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate, said Martin Barron, a researcher at the institute that trains Mexico's organized crime prosecutors. Now residents in the region known in Mexico for its piety say drug smugglers barely make an effort to disguise themselves. A strip of fancy boutiques in Zapopan was financed with drug money, says Jaime Ramirez, a local newspaper columnist who has been reporting on the drug world for two decades. As well as the Grupo Collins factory in Zapopan, a nearby car wash is also on the U.S. Treasury's black list. A local cemetery draws relatives of traffickers who were among the 17,000 people killed in the drug war in Mexico since 2006. "A lot of narcos are buried there. You should see it on Fathers' Day," Ramirez said, as a black pick-up truck with tinted windows pulled in. Zapopan residents just shrug their shoulders when a wealthy neighbor displays traits seen as typical of a drug trafficker -- wearing cowboy gear, playing loud "norteno" music from the country's north or holding lavish parties attended by guests who arrive in pick-up trucks or SUVs. "Living alongside them is normal," Ramirez said. "Everybody knows when a neighbor is on the shady side." One of those neighbors was Sandra Avila, a glamorous trafficker known as the "Queen of the Pacific," who lived in Zapopan before being arrested in Mexico City in 2007. On a typical day in Zapopan recently, men unloaded boxes from vans in the Grupo Collins compound, near the company's private chapel and soccer field. From behind the factory's high walls, there was little to suggest it could have ties to a cartel. "It has always been really calm," said Genaro Rangel, who sells tacos every morning to factory workers from a stall across the street. The plant was advertising a job opening on the company web site for a machine room technician. Washington's accusation, filed under a U.S. sanctions program, makes it illegal for Americans to do business with Grupo Collins and freezes any assets it might have in U.S. accounts. In a 2006 report, Mexican authorities named Grupo Collins' owner Telesforo Tirado as an operator of the Colima cartel. The U.S. Treasury and Mexico's Attorney General's office both declined to provide further details on the case and Grupo Collins executives also refused to comment. But Tirado has previously denied the charges in the Mexican media. CASHING IN ON THE DRUG TRADE What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. A well-known Mexico City restaurant specializing in the spicy cuisine of the Yucatan peninsula was added to the U.S. list of front companies in December. Months earlier, one of Mexico's top food critics had recommended it. Drug money has also fueled part of a real estate boom around tourist resorts such as Cancun, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico City. "We've had cases where traffickers purchased large tracts of land in areas where any investor would buy," he said, asking not to be named because of concerns about his safety. An architect in the city of Tijuana did well out of designing buildings that cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. "The pay was enough for me to build a house for myself, as well as to buy a lot a tools," he said. He was once hired to design a tunnel that led to the street from a secret door in a drug gang member's closet. Craving acceptance, the drug gangs even throw their money at acquaintances to get them on the social scene. A drug trafficker pays his friend Roberto, who declined to give his last name, to keep him connected in Tijuana and introduce him to women. "I take him to parties," Roberto said. In the wealthy shopping areas of Interlomas, near Mexico City, the Perfect Silhouette spa offers breast implants. Staffed by young women in loose-fitting white suits, the spa also sells weight-loss creams and offers massages. The U.S. Treasury recently said it was part of the financial network of the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader was gunned down by elite Mexican marines in December. The salon's manager, Teresa Delgado, appeared baffled by the U.S. accusations. "We haven't seen anything strange here," she said. A woman Delgado identified as the owner did not return a phone call requesting an interview. Businesses enlisted to launder drug money typically get a cut worth 3 percent to 8 percent of the funds passing through their books, the U.S. law enforcement official said. "SMURFING" AROUND THE LAWS Much of the cartels' profits eventually ends up in Mexico's banking system, the U.S. official said. During the global financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity, says economist Guillermo Ibarra of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. "They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that to a certain extent helped the banks," Ibarra said. Indeed, drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico. A United Nations report on the global drug trade in 2009 said that "at a time of major bank failures, money doesn't smell, bankers seem to believe." Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," said the U.S. official. Mexico's banking association and the finance ministry's anti-money laundering unit declined to comment for this story. While Mexico is confiscating more drugs and assets than ever under President Felipe Calderon, forfeitures of money are still minuscule compared to even low-ball estimates of the amount of drug money that flows into Mexico. Under Calderon, authorities have confiscated about $400 million, almost none of which was seized from banks, said Ricardo Najera, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. Mexican bank secrecy laws make it particularly difficult to go after drug money in financial institutions, Najera said. "We can't just go in there and say 'OK, let's have a look,'" he said. "We have to trace the illicit origin of that money before we can get at those bank accounts." The U.S. Treasury has blocked only about $16 million in suspected Mexican drug assets since June 2000, a Treasury official in Washington said. The official, who asked not to be named, said the sanctions program aims to hit drug lords by breaking "their commercial and financial backbones." But freezing assets is not "the principal objective nor the key measure of success." MAFIA CAPITALISM Data on Mexican banking provides a novel way for calculating the size of the drug economy. Ibarra crunched numbers on monetary aggregates across different Mexican states and concluded that more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating. "It's as if two people had the same job and the same level of seniority, but one of them has twice as much savings," he said, talking about comparisons between Sinaloa and other states. Ibarra estimates cartels have laundered more than $680 million in the banks of Sinaloa -- which is a financial services backwater -- and that drug money is driving nearly 20 percent of the state's economy. Edgardo Buscaglia, an academic at Columbia University, recently scoured judicial case files and financial intelligence reports, some of which were provided by Mexican authorities. His research found organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. Buscaglia thinks Mexico's lackluster effort to confiscate dirty money is allowing drug gangs and other mafias to flourish. "You will wind up with mafia capitalism here before things improve," he said. Even though cartels are clearly creating jobs and giving a lot of people extra spending money, some of these economic benefits are neutralized by a raging drug war that has scared investors. About a dozen foreign companies in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from Texas, are postponing investments in factories there because of regular gun battles in the city, said Soledad Maynez, who heads a local factory association. She met with the companies' representatives in November. "They need the security issue improved," she said. Business leaders say thousands of shops have closed in Ciudad Juarez because of the violence. Another problem the economy could face is that drug funding could one day fall if authorities cracked down on money laundering or somehow wrenched power away from the cartels. "(Drug money) could have a short-term positive effect. But in the long run, because you're propping up this artificial economy, the moment it stops it all crashes," the U.S. law enforcement official said. (Additional reporting by Lizbeth Diaz in Tijuana, editing by Claudia Parsons and Jim Impoco)

<h4>Cartels are key to Mexico’s banking sector – collapse crushes the entire economy</h4><p><strong>Lange 10</p><p></strong>(Jason Lange, Correspondent, Washington, “From spas to banks, Mexico economy rides on drugs” Jan 22, 2010, http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/22/us-drugs-mexico-economy-idUSTRE60L0X120100122, KB)</p><p>At a modern factory in a city whose main claim to fame is an image of the Virgin Mary revered for granting miracles, Mexican pharmaceuticals firm Grupo Collins churns out antibiotics and other medicines. But the United States contends that the company in Zapopan is not what it seems. The U.S. Treasury put Grupo Collins on a black list in 2008, saying the firm supplies a small drug cartel in western Mexico with chemicals needed to make methamphetamines. Grupo <u><strong>Collins</u></strong>, which has denied any connection to organized crime, <u><strong>is one of dozens under suspicion of laundering money for the nation's booming drug business,</u></strong> <u><strong>whose growing economic impact now pervades just about every level of Mexican life. </u></strong>Mexican <u><strong>cartels</u></strong>, which control most of the cocaine and methamphetamine smuggled into the United States, <u><strong>bring</u></strong> an estimated $25 billion to <u><strong>$40 billion into Mexico from their global operations every year. </u></strong>To put that in perspective: <u><strong><mark>Mexico</mark> probably <mark>made more money</mark> in 2009 <mark>moving drugs than it did exporting oil</u></strong></mark>, its single biggest legitimate foreign currency earner. From the white Caribbean beaches of Cancun to violent towns on the U.S. border and the beauty parlors of Mexico City's wealthy suburbs, <u><strong>drug cash is everywhere in Mexico</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>It has</u></strong></mark> even <u><strong><mark>propped up the country's banking system, helping it ride out the financial crisis and aiding the country's economy.</mark> </u></strong>Smuggled into Mexico mostly from the United States in $100 bills, narco money finds its way onto the books of restaurants, construction firms and bars as drug lords try to legitimize their cash and prevent police from tracing it. <u><strong>"Mexico is saturated with this money," said</u></strong> George <u><strong>Friedman, who heads geopolitical analysis firm Stratfor.</u></strong> In western Mexico, drug money started pouring into Zapopan and nearby Guadalajara in the 1980s as <u><strong><mark>the Sinaloa cartel bought hospitals and real estate</u></strong></mark>, said Martin Barron, a researcher at the institute that trains Mexico's organized crime prosecutors. Now residents in the region known in Mexico for its piety say drug smugglers barely make an effort to disguise themselves. A strip of fancy boutiques in Zapopan was financed with drug money, says Jaime Ramirez, a local newspaper columnist who has been reporting on the drug world for two decades. As well as the Grupo Collins factory in Zapopan, a nearby car wash is also on the U.S. Treasury's black list. A local cemetery draws relatives of traffickers who were among the 17,000 people killed in the drug war in Mexico since 2006. "A lot of narcos are buried there. You should see it on Fathers' Day," Ramirez said, as a black pick-up truck with tinted windows pulled in. Zapopan residents just shrug their shoulders when a wealthy neighbor displays traits seen as typical of a drug trafficker -- wearing cowboy gear, playing loud "norteno" music from the country's north or holding lavish parties attended by guests who arrive in pick-up trucks or SUVs. "Living alongside them is normal," Ramirez said. "Everybody knows when a neighbor is on the shady side." One of those neighbors was Sandra Avila, a glamorous trafficker known as the "Queen of the Pacific," who lived in Zapopan before being arrested in Mexico City in 2007. On a typical day in Zapopan recently, men unloaded boxes from vans in the Grupo Collins compound, near the company's private chapel and soccer field. From behind the factory's high walls, there was little to suggest it could have ties to a cartel. "It has always been really calm," said Genaro Rangel, who sells tacos every morning to factory workers from a stall across the street. The plant was advertising a job opening on the company web site for a machine room technician. Washington's accusation, filed under a U.S. sanctions program, makes it illegal for Americans to do business with Grupo Collins and freezes any assets it might have in U.S. accounts. In a 2006 report, Mexican authorities named Grupo Collins' owner Telesforo Tirado as an operator of the Colima cartel. The U.S. Treasury and Mexico's Attorney General's office both declined to provide further details on the case and Grupo Collins executives also refused to comment. But Tirado has previously denied the charges in the Mexican media. CASHING IN ON THE DRUG TRADE <u><strong>What's going on in Zapopan is happening all over Mexico. </u></strong>A well-known Mexico City restaurant specializing in the spicy cuisine of the Yucatan peninsula was added to the U.S. list of front companies in December. Months earlier, one of Mexico's top food critics had recommended it. <u><strong>Drug money has </u></strong>also <u><strong>fueled part of a real estate boom around tourist resorts</u></strong> such as Cancun, said a senior U.S. law enforcement official in Mexico City. "We've had cases where traffickers purchased large tracts of land in areas where any investor would buy," he said, asking not to be named because of concerns about his safety. An architect in the city of Tijuana did well out of designing buildings that <u><strong>cartels would build and rent out to legitimate local businesses. </u></strong>"The pay was enough for me to build a house for myself, as well as to buy a lot a tools," he said. He was once hired to design a tunnel that led to the street from a secret door in a drug gang member's closet. Craving acceptance, the drug gangs even throw their money at acquaintances to get them on the social scene. A drug trafficker pays his friend Roberto, who declined to give his last name, to keep him connected in Tijuana and introduce him to women. "I take him to parties," Roberto said. In the wealthy shopping areas of Interlomas, near Mexico City, the Perfect Silhouette spa offers breast implants. Staffed by young women in loose-fitting white suits, the spa also sells weight-loss creams and offers massages. The U.S. Treasury recently said it was part of the financial network of the Beltran Leyva cartel, whose leader was gunned down by elite Mexican marines in December. The salon's manager, Teresa Delgado, appeared baffled by the U.S. accusations. "We haven't seen anything strange here," she said. A woman Delgado identified as the owner did not return a phone call requesting an interview. Businesses enlisted to launder drug money typically get a cut worth 3 percent to 8 percent of the funds passing through their books, the U.S. law enforcement official said. "SMURFING" AROUND THE LAWS <u><strong>Much of the cartels' profits eventually ends up in Mexico's banking system</u></strong>, the U.S. official said. <u><strong><mark>During the</mark> global <mark>financial crisis last year, those assets provided valuable liquidity</mark>, says economist</u></strong> Guillermo <u><strong>Ibarra</u></strong> of the Autonomous University of Sinaloa. <u><strong><mark>"They had a cushion from drug trafficking money that</u></strong></mark> to a certain extent <u><strong><mark>helped the banks</u></strong></mark>," Ibarra said. Indeed, <u><strong>drug money in banks is a global phenomenon, not just in Mexico.</u></strong> A United Nations report on the global drug trade in 2009 said that "at a time of major bank failures, money doesn't smell, bankers seem to believe." <u><strong>Drug gangs in Mexico have their associates make thousands of tiny deposits in their bank accounts to avoid raising suspicion from banking authorities, a practice known as "smurfing," </u></strong>said the U.S. official. Mexico's banking association and the finance ministry's anti-money laundering unit declined to comment for this story. While Mexico is confiscating more drugs and assets than ever under President Felipe Calderon, forfeitures of money are still minuscule compared to even low-ball estimates of the amount of drug money that flows into Mexico. Under Calderon, authorities have confiscated about $400 million, almost none of which was seized from banks, said Ricardo Najera, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office. Mexican bank secrecy laws make it particularly difficult to go after drug money in financial institutions, Najera said. "We can't just go in there and say 'OK, let's have a look,'" he said. "We have to trace the illicit origin of that money before we can get at those bank accounts." The U.S. Treasury has blocked only about $16 million in suspected Mexican drug assets since June 2000, a Treasury official in Washington said. The official, who asked not to be named, said the sanctions program aims to hit drug lords by breaking "their commercial and financial backbones." But freezing assets is not "the principal objective nor the key measure of success." MAFIA CAPITALISM Data on Mexican banking provides a novel way for calculating the size of the drug economy. Ibarra crunched numbers on monetary aggregates across different Mexican states and concluded that <u><strong>more money sits in Sinaloan banks than its legitimate economy should be generating.</u></strong> "It's as if two people had the same job and the same level of seniority, but one of them has twice as much savings," he said, talking about comparisons between Sinaloa and other states. Ibarra estimates cartels have laundered more than $680 million in the banks of Sinaloa -- which is a financial services backwater -- and that <u><strong><mark>drug money is driving</mark> nearly <mark>20 percent of the state's economy.</mark> </u></strong>Edgardo Buscaglia, an academic at Columbia University, recently scoured judicial case files and financial intelligence reports, some of which were provided by Mexican authorities. His research found <u><strong>organized crime's involvement in Mexican businesses had expanded sharply in the five years through 2008, with gangs now involved in most sectors of the economy. </u></strong>Buscaglia thinks Mexico's lackluster effort to confiscate dirty money is allowing drug gangs and other mafias to flourish. "You will wind up with mafia capitalism here before things improve," he said. Even though cartels are clearly creating jobs and giving a lot of people extra spending money, some of these economic benefits are neutralized by a raging drug war that has scared investors. About a dozen foreign companies in Ciudad Juarez, across the border from Texas, are postponing investments in factories there because of regular gun battles in the city, said Soledad Maynez, who heads a local factory association. She met with the companies' representatives in November. "They need the security issue improved," she said. Business leaders say thousands of shops have closed in Ciudad Juarez because of the violence. <u><strong>Another problem the economy could face is that <mark>drug funding could one day fall</mark> if authorities cracked down on money laundering or</u></strong> somehow <u><strong>wrenched power away from the cartels. </u></strong>"(Drug money) could have a short-term positive effect. But in the long run, because you're propping up this artificial economy, <u><strong><mark>the moment it stops it all crashes</u></strong></mark>," the U.S. law enforcement official said. (Additional reporting by Lizbeth Diaz in Tijuana, editing by Claudia Parsons and Jim Impoco)</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Mexico DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Legalization doesn’t solve stigma

Raymond ‘3

Raymond ‘3 [Ph.D. Janice Raymond is a professor at the University of Massachusetts.¶ “Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution ¶ And a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution.” (Published in simultaneously in hard copy in Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 2003: ¶ pp. 315-332; and in Prostitution, Trafficking and Traumatic Stress. Melissa Farley ¶ (Ed.). Binghamton: Haworth Press, 2003. ETB]

Legalization of prostitution increases clandestine, ¶ illegal and street prostitution. ¶ One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into ¶ brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street ¶ prostitution. However, many women are in street prostitution because they want ¶ to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps transformed in legalized ¶ systems into sex businessmen). legalization may actually drive some women ¶ into street prostitution. /// women in prostitution point out that legalization does not erase the stigma of prostitution. ¶ Because they must register and lose their anonymity, women are more ¶ vulnerable to being stigmatized as “whores,” and this identity follows them ¶ everyplace. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still operate illegally and ¶ underground. Some who originally supported the ¶ legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now ¶ seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of ¶ sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. The real growth in ¶ prostitution in Australia since legalization took effect has been in the illegal ¶ sector. Over a period of 12 months from 1998-1999, unlicensed brothels in ¶ Victoria tripled in number and still operate with impunity In New South Wales where brothels were decriminalized in 1995, the ¶ number of brothels in Sydney had tripled to 400-500 by 1999, with the vast ¶ majority having no license to advertise or operate

Legalization increases illegal and street prostitution women want ¶ to avoid being controlled by pimps (transformed in legalized ¶ systems into sex businessmen legalization may drive some into street prostitution legalization does not erase the stigma Because they must register and lose their anonymity, women are more ¶ vulnerable to being stigmatized as “whores,” and this identity follows them still operate illegally and ¶ underground The real growth in Australia since legalization has been in the illegal ¶ sector from 1998-1999, unlicensed brothels tripled

4. Legalization/decriminalizaton of prostitution increases clandestine, ¶ illegal and street prostitution. ¶ ¶ One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into ¶ brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street ¶ prostitution. However, many women are in street prostitution because they want ¶ to avoid being controlled and exploited by pimps (transformed in legalized ¶ systems into sex businessmen). Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is ¶ legalized (Schelzig, 2002). Thus, legalization may actually drive some women ¶ into street prostitution. ///Arguing against an Italian proposal for legalized ¶ prostitution, Esohe Aghatise has suggested that brothels actually deprive women ¶ of what little protection they may have on the street, confining women to closed ¶ spaces where they have little chance of meeting outreach workers or others ¶ who might help them exit prostitution (Aghatise, in press). ¶ ¶ In the Netherlands, women in prostitution point out that legalization or ¶ decriminalization of the sex industry does not erase the stigma of prostitution. ¶ Because they must register and lose their anonymity, women are more ¶ vulnerable to being stigmatized as “whores,” and this identity follows them ¶ everyplace. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still operate illegally and ¶ underground. Some members of Parliament who originally supported the ¶ legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now ¶ seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women (Daley, ¶ 2001, p. A1). ¶ ¶ Chief Inspector Nancy Pollock, one of Scotland’s highest-ranking female police ¶ officers, established Glasgow’s street liaison team for women in prostitution in ¶ 1998. Pollock stated that legalization or decriminalization of prostitution is ¶ “…simply to abandon women to what has to be the most demeaning job in the ¶ world” (Martin, 2002, p. A5). Countering the argument that legalized prostitution ¶ provides safer venues for women, Pollock noted that women in sauna ¶ prostitution, for example, “have even less control over what services they will ¶ perform. On the street, very few women will do anal sex and few do sex without a ¶ condom. But in the saunas, the owners, who obviously don’t want their punters ¶ going away disappointed, decide what the women will do, and very often that is ¶ anal sex and sex – oral and vaginal – without a condom” (Martin, 2002, p. A5). ¶ ¶ The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of ¶ sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. The real growth in ¶ prostitution in Australia since legalization took effect has been in the illegal ¶ sector. Over a period of 12 months from 1998-1999, unlicensed brothels in ¶ Victoria tripled in number and still operate with impunity (Sullivan & Jeffreys, ¶ 2001). In New South Wales where brothels were decriminalized in 1995, the ¶ number of brothels in Sydney had tripled to 400-500 by 1999, with the vast ¶ majority having no license to advertise or operate. In response to widespread ¶ police corruption, control of illegal prostitution was removed from police ¶ jurisdiction and placed under the control of local councils and planning ¶ regulators. However, the local councils do not have the resources to investigate ¶ illegal brothel operators (Sullivan & Jeffreys, 2001).

<h4><strong>Legalization doesn’t solve stigma </h4><p>Raymond ‘3</p><p></strong>[Ph.D. Janice Raymond is a professor at the University of Massachusetts.¶ “Ten Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution ¶ And a Legal Response to the Demand for Prostitution.” (Published in simultaneously in hard copy in Journal of Trauma Practice, 2, 2003: ¶ pp. 315-332; and in Prostitution, Trafficking and Traumatic Stress. Melissa Farley ¶ (Ed.). Binghamton: Haworth Press, 2003. ETB]</p><p>4. <u><strong><mark>Legalization</u></strong></mark>/decriminalizaton <u><strong>of prostitution <mark>increases </mark>clandestine, ¶ <mark>illegal and street prostitution</mark>. ¶ </u></strong>¶ <u><strong>One goals of legalized prostitution was to move prostituted women indoors into ¶ brothels and clubs where they would be allegedly less vulnerable than in street ¶ prostitution. However, many <mark>women </mark>are in street prostitution because they <mark>want ¶ to avoid being controlled </mark>and exploited <mark>by pimps</u></strong> (<u><strong>transformed in legalized ¶ systems into sex businessmen</mark>). </u></strong>Other women do not want to register or submit to health checks, as required by law in some countries where prostitution is ¶ legalized (Schelzig, 2002). Thus, <u><strong><mark>legalization may </mark>actually <mark>drive some </mark>women ¶ <mark>into street prostitution</mark>. ///</u></strong>Arguing against an Italian proposal for legalized ¶ prostitution, Esohe Aghatise has suggested that brothels actually deprive women ¶ of what little protection they may have on the street, confining women to closed ¶ spaces where they have little chance of meeting outreach workers or others ¶ who might help them exit prostitution (Aghatise, in press). ¶ ¶ In the Netherlands, <u><strong>women in prostitution point out that <mark>legalization </u></strong></mark>or ¶ decriminalization of the sex industry<u><strong> <mark>does not erase the stigma </mark>of prostitution. ¶ <mark>Because they must register and lose their anonymity, women are more ¶ vulnerable to being stigmatized as “whores,” and this identity follows them</mark> ¶ everyplace. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution <mark>still operate illegally and ¶ underground</mark>. Some</u></strong> members of Parliament <u><strong>who originally supported the ¶ legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now ¶ seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women</u></strong> (Daley, ¶ 2001, p. A1). ¶ ¶ Chief Inspector Nancy Pollock, one of Scotland’s highest-ranking female police ¶ officers, established Glasgow’s street liaison team for women in prostitution in ¶ 1998. Pollock stated that legalization or decriminalization of prostitution is ¶ “…simply to abandon women to what has to be the most demeaning job in the ¶ world” (Martin, 2002, p. A5). Countering the argument that legalized prostitution ¶ provides safer venues for women, Pollock noted that women in sauna ¶ prostitution, for example, “have even less control over what services they will ¶ perform. On the street, very few women will do anal sex and few do sex without a ¶ condom. But in the saunas, the owners, who obviously don’t want their punters ¶ going away disappointed, decide what the women will do, and very often that is ¶ anal sex and sex – oral and vaginal – without a condom” (Martin, 2002, p. A5). ¶ ¶ <u><strong>The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of ¶ sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. <mark>The real growth </mark>in ¶ prostitution <mark>in Australia since legalization </mark>took effect <mark>has been in the illegal ¶ sector</mark>. Over a period of 12 months <mark>from 1998-1999, unlicensed brothels </mark>in ¶ Victoria <mark>tripled </mark>in number and still operate with impunity</u></strong> (Sullivan & Jeffreys, ¶ 2001). <u><strong>In New South Wales where brothels were decriminalized in 1995, the ¶ number of brothels in Sydney had tripled to 400-500 by 1999, with the vast ¶ majority having no license to advertise or operate</u></strong>. In response to widespread ¶ police corruption, control of illegal prostitution was removed from police ¶ jurisdiction and placed under the control of local councils and planning ¶ regulators. However, the local councils do not have the resources to investigate ¶ illegal brothel operators (Sullivan & Jeffreys, 2001).</p>

1NR

Case

Ext – 1NC #2

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Our starting point of class analysis resolves the case better than the 1AC

Cole 12

Cole 12

Preston’s pedagogical solutions are the abolition of both ‘whiteness’ and capitalism, of which the former is perhaps capitalism’s ‘weakest link’ There are major problems with ‘the abolition of whiteness’. it is too vague to have any practical implications hardly surprising given the abstract theorizing that preceded its announcement how are white people to be persuaded to ‘abolish their whiteness’, and what would follow abolition? it is seriously open to misinterpretation. abolition of ‘whiteness’ is useless as a unifier and counter-productive as a political rallying point. were the abolition of whiteness to be routinely promoted in educational establishments it would cause severe confusion and mayhem. Unproductive divisions would accelerate. abstract academic Marxism not linked to practice is not appropriate for pedagogy. the urgent need is to partake in Marxist praxis. This must entail a concrete engagement with the real possibilities of twenty-first-century socialism Rather than abolish ‘whiteness’, it is more appropriate to unite around a common purpose. Central should be a theoretical exploration linked to concrete practice, such as communal councils and communes where people are directly involved in decision-making and where Marxism is being considered seriously as a viable alternative to capitalism.

There are major problems with ‘the abolition of whiteness’ it is too vague to have any practical implications how are white people to be persuaded to ‘abolish their whiteness’ what would follow it is open to misinterpretation abolition of ‘whiteness’ is useless as a unifier and counter-productive as a rallying point were the abolition of whiteness to be promoted in educational establishments, it would cause severe confusion Unproductive divisions would accelerate abstract Marxism not linked to practice, is not appropriate for pedagogy Marxist praxis must entail a concrete engagement with real possibilities of socialism Rather than abolish ‘whiteness’ it is more appropriate to unite around a common purpose Central should be theoretical exploration linked to concrete practice

Centre for Education for Social Justice @ Bishop Grosseteste U College Lincoln, (Mike, “Critical race theory in education, Marxism and abstract racial domination,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33:2, p. 167-183) What then are the implications for educational practice? Preston’s pedagogical solutions are the abolition of both ‘whiteness’ and capitalism, of which the former, according to Preston, is perhaps capitalism’s ‘weakest link’ (2010, 123). There are three major problems with ‘the abolition of whiteness’. First it is too vague to have any practical implications (hardly surprising given the abstract theorizing that preceded its announcement).12 Just how are white people to be persuaded to ‘abolish their whiteness’, and what would follow such abolition? Second, given its vagueness, it is seriously open to misinterpretation. While Preston clearly does not propose the abolition of white people, his advocacy of the abolition of ‘whiteness’ is clearly open to being interpreted as such. Third, and following on from the first and second problems, the abolition of ‘whiteness’ is useless as a unifier and counter-productive as a political rallying point. Indeed, were the abolition of whiteness to be routinely promoted in educational establishments, it would most likely cause severe confusion and indeed mayhem. Unproductive divisions on grounds of ‘race’, class and culture would undoubtedly accelerate.13 As far as the abolition of capitalism is concerned, by its very nature, abstract academic Marxism, as developed by Postone and not linked to practice, is not appropriate for Marxist pedagogy. Rather the urgent need is to partake in Marxist praxis. This must entail a concrete engagement with the real possibilities of twenty-first-century socialism (for example, Lebowitz 2006; Martinez, Fox, and Farrell 2010; Motta and Cole 2013, forthcoming). Rather than abolish ‘whiteness’, however perceived, it is more appropriate to unite around a common purpose. Central should be a theoretical exploration of the concept of participatory democracy, but linked to concrete practice, such as in the communal councils and communes of Venezuela – a country where people are directly involved in decision-making and where Marxism, in the form of twenty-first-century socialism, is being considered seriously as a viable alternative to capitalism.14

<h4>Our <u>starting point</u> of class analysis resolves the case better than the 1AC</h4><p><strong>Cole 12</p><p></strong>Centre for Education for Social Justice @ Bishop Grosseteste U College Lincoln, (Mike, “Critical race theory in education, Marxism and abstract racial domination,” British Journal of Sociology of Education, 33:2, p. 167-183)</p><p>What then are the implications for educational practice? <u><strong>Preston’s pedagogical solutions are the abolition of both ‘whiteness’ and capitalism, of which the former</u></strong>, according to Preston, <u><strong>is perhaps capitalism’s ‘weakest link’ </u></strong>(2010, 123). <u><strong><mark>There are</u></strong></mark> three <u><strong><mark>major problems</u></strong> <u><strong>with ‘the abolition of whiteness’</mark>. </u></strong>First <u><strong><mark>it is too vague to have any practical implications</u></strong></mark> (<u><strong>hardly surprising</u></strong> <u><strong>given the abstract theorizing that preceded its announcement</u></strong>).12 Just <u><strong><mark>how are white people to be persuaded to ‘abolish their whiteness’</mark>, and <mark>what would</u></strong> <u>follow</u></mark> such <u><strong>abolition?</u></strong> Second, given its vagueness, <u><strong><mark>it is</mark> seriously <mark>open to misinterpretation</mark>.</u></strong> While Preston clearly does not propose the abolition of white people, his advocacy of the abolition of ‘whiteness’ is clearly open to being interpreted as such. Third, and following on from the first and second problems, the <u><strong><mark>abolition of ‘whiteness’ is useless as a unifier and</mark> <mark>counter-productive as a</mark> political <mark>rallying point</mark>.</u></strong> Indeed, <u><strong><mark>were the abolition of whiteness to be</mark> routinely <mark>promoted in educational establishments</u></strong>, <u><strong>it would</u></strong></mark> most likely <u><strong><mark>cause</mark> <mark>severe confusion</mark> and</u></strong> indeed <u><strong>mayhem. <mark>Unproductive</u></strong> <u><strong>divisions</u></strong></mark> on grounds of ‘race’, class and culture <u><strong><mark>would</u></strong></mark> undoubtedly <u><strong><mark>accelerate</mark>.</u></strong>13 As far as the abolition of capitalism is concerned, by its very nature, <u><strong><mark>abstract</mark> academic <mark>Marxism</u></strong></mark>, as developed by Postone and <u><strong><mark>not linked to practice</u></strong>, <u><strong>is not appropriate for</u></strong></mark> Marxist <u><strong><mark>pedagogy</mark>.</u></strong> Rather <u><strong>the urgent need is to partake in <mark>Marxist praxis</mark>. This <mark>must entail a concrete</mark> <mark>engagement with</mark> the <mark>real possibilities of</mark> twenty-first-century <mark>socialism</u></strong></mark> (for example, Lebowitz 2006; Martinez, Fox, and Farrell 2010; Motta and Cole 2013, forthcoming). <u><strong><mark>Rather than abolish ‘whiteness’</mark>,</u></strong> however perceived, <u><strong><mark>it is</mark> <mark>more appropriate to unite around a common purpose</mark>. <mark>Central should be</mark> a <mark>theoretical exploration</u></strong></mark> of the concept of participatory democracy, but <u><strong><mark>linked to concrete practice</mark>, such as</u></strong> in the <u><strong>communal councils and communes</u></strong> of Venezuela – a country <u><strong>where people are directly involved in decision-making and where Marxism</u></strong>, in the form of twenty-first-century socialism, <u><strong>is being considered seriously as a viable alternative to capitalism.</u></strong>14</p>

2NC

Cap K

2NC Alternative

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

That spills over and crushes the US econ

Olson 9

Olson 9

Mexico also remains vital for the U.S. economy, although the current economic slowdown presents special challenges that will have to be addressed with great care Mexico is the second destination for U.S. exports, border states economies are particularly tied with Mexico’ This degree of integration creates opportunities for more focused economic cooperation, but also generates risks for spillover effects in times of economic crisis An economic slowdown in either country will inevitably affect the other and a full-scale crisis could send shockwaves across the border . The United States and Mexico have the opportunity to develop a framework for economic integration that helps to contain the effect of economic shocks, takes advantage of complementarities to increase the competitive position of both countries

Mexico remains vital for the U.S. economy Mexico is the second destination for U.S. exports border states economies ¶are tied with Mexico integration generates ¶risks for spillover effects in times of economic ¶ crisis.An economic slowdown will affect the other and a full-scale crisis could send shockwaves across the border

(Eric L., M.A., International Affairs, American University; B.A., History and Secondary Education, Trinity College, Associate Director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, as a Senior Specialist in the Department for Promotion of Good Governance at the Organization of American States, January 2009, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards%20a%20Strategic%20Partnership.pdf) Mexico also remains vital for the U.S. economy, ¶ although the current economic slowdown ¶presents special challenges that will have to be ¶addressed with great care. Mexico is the second destination for U.S. exports, and the first or ¶ second destination of exports for at least twenty two U.S. states. Over six million Americans live ¶ in cities and counties on the border and over ¶ 60 million in border states, whose economies ¶are particularly tied with Mexico’s. This degree ¶of integration creates opportunities for more ¶focused economic cooperation, but also generates ¶risks for spillover effects in times of economic ¶ crisis.An economic slowdown in either country will inevitably affect the other and a full-scale crisis could send shockwaves across the border. ¶ Moreover, the persistent wage gap between the ¶ two countries presents a long-term challenge that ¶ has been insufficiently addressed in past efforts at ¶ deepening cross-border economic ties. The United States and Mexico have the opportunity to develop ¶a framework for economic integration that helps ¶to contain the effect of economic shocks, takes ¶advantage of complementarities to increase the ¶competitive position of both countries, and, above ¶ all, places an emphasis on improving the well-being ¶ of average citizens in both countries.

<h4><strong>That spills over and crushes the US econ</h4><p>Olson 9 </p><p></strong>(Eric L., M.A., International Affairs, American University; B.A., History and Secondary Education, Trinity College, Associate Director of the Latin American Program at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, as a Senior Specialist in the Department for Promotion of Good Governance at the Organization of American States, January 2009, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards%20a%20Strategic%20Partnership.pdf)</p><p><u><strong><mark>Mexico</mark> also <mark>remains vital for the U.S. economy</mark>, </u></strong>¶ <u><strong>although the current economic slowdown </u></strong>¶<u><strong>presents special challenges that will have to be </u></strong>¶<u><strong>addressed with great care</u></strong>. <u><strong><mark>Mexico is the second destination for U.S. exports</mark>, </u></strong>and the first or ¶ second destination of exports for at least twenty two U.S. states. Over six million Americans live ¶ in cities and counties on the border and over ¶ 60 million in <u><strong><mark>border states</u></strong></mark>, whose <u><strong><mark>economies </u></strong>¶<u><strong>are</mark> particularly <mark>tied with Mexico</mark>’</u></strong>s. <u><strong>This degree </u></strong>¶<u><strong>of <mark>integration</mark> creates opportunities for more </u></strong>¶<u><strong>focused economic cooperation, but also <mark>generates </u></strong>¶<u><strong>risks for spillover effects in times of economic </u>¶<u> crisis</u></strong>.<u><strong>An economic slowdown</mark> in either country <mark>will</mark> inevitably <mark>affect the other and a full-scale crisis could send shockwaves across the border</u></strong></mark>. ¶ Moreover, the persistent wage gap between the ¶ two countries presents a long-term challenge that ¶ has been insufficiently addressed in past efforts at ¶ deepening cross-border economic ties<u><strong>. The United States and Mexico have the opportunity to develop </u></strong>¶<u><strong>a framework for economic integration that helps </u></strong>¶<u><strong>to contain the effect of economic shocks, takes </u></strong>¶<u><strong>advantage of complementarities to increase the </u></strong>¶<u><strong>competitive position of both countries</u></strong>, and, above ¶ all, places an emphasis on improving the well-being ¶ of average citizens in both countries.</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Mexico DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Evaluating political costs and understanding tradeoffs key to prevent genocide

Lanz 8

Lanz 8

The fi rst is that resources are scarce and effective confl ict management requires priorities We need to think about what is most important and concentrate our resources – money, political capital, personnel – to achieve this objective The second lesson is that actors working in or on confl ict, whatever approach they take, must be aware that their decisions and actions have opportunity costs and that they can “do harm well-intentioned people can fi nd themselves unwittingly entrenching the very things they have sought voice to denounce. those involved in the grand scheme of managing confl ict must realise that they are in essence projecting their morals and a Western political agenda and that, consequently, their good intentions may not be perceived as such, moving from selfcentred and self-righteous dogmatism to a pragmatic assessment of causes and consequences would be a big step, and it would certainly improve our ability to manage conflicts

resources are scarce and effective confl ict management requires priorities We need to think about what is most important and concentrate our resources – political capital to achieve this objective actors working in or on confl ict must be aware that their decisions and actions have opportunity costs and that they can “do harm.” well-intentioned people fi nd themselves unwittingly entrenching the very things they have sought voice to denounce.” those involved in the grand scheme of managing confl ict , moving from selfcentred and self-righteous dogmatism to a pragmatic assessment of causes and consequences would be a big step, and it would certainly improve our ability to manage conflicts

(David, Mediation Support Project for Swisspeace, “Conflict Management and Opportunity Cost: the International Response to the Darfur Crisis”) There are no simple solutions for the contradictions outlined above – they represent complicated dilemmas and tricky trade-offs. It would be naïve to call for more coordination among external actors in Darfur, as the difference of their approaches is structural and refl ects their respective interests and contexts. There are, however, two lessons that we can learn. The fi rst is that resources are scarce and effective confl ict management requires priorities. It is not possible to simultaneously run a humanitarian operation, deploy peacekeepers, try the Sudanese President in an international court, negotiate a peace agreement, and foster the democratic transition of Sudan. We need to think about what is most important and concentrate our resources – money, political capital, personnel – to achieve this objective. The second lesson is that actors working in or on confl ict, whatever approach they take, must be aware that their decisions and actions have opportunity costs and that they can “do harm.” As David Kennedy writes, “the darker sides can swamp the benefi ts of humanitarian work, and well-intentioned people can fi nd themselves unwittingly entrenching the very things they have sought voice to denounce.”30 Also, those involved in the grand scheme of managing confl ict Darfur must realise that they are in essence projecting their morals and a Western political agenda and that, consequently, their good intentions may not be perceived as such, especially in the Arab world. Indeed, moving from selfcentred and self-righteous dogmatism to a pragmatic assessment of causes and consequences would be a big step, and it would certainly improve our ability to manage conflicts in Darfur and elsewhere.

<h4><strong>Evaluating political costs and understanding tradeoffs key to prevent genocide</h4><p>Lanz 8</p><p></strong> (David, Mediation Support Project for Swisspeace, “Conflict Management and Opportunity Cost: the International Response to the Darfur Crisis”)</p><p>There are no simple solutions for the contradictions outlined above – they represent complicated dilemmas and tricky trade-offs. It would be naïve to call for more coordination among external actors in Darfur, as the difference of their approaches is structural and refl ects their respective interests and contexts. There are, however, two lessons that we can learn. <u>The fi rst is that <mark>resources are scarce and effective confl ict management requires priorities</u></mark>. It is not possible to simultaneously run a humanitarian operation, deploy peacekeepers, try the Sudanese President in an international court, negotiate a peace agreement, and foster the democratic transition of Sudan. <u><mark>We need to think about what is most important and concentrate our resources –</mark> money, <mark>political capital</mark>, personnel – <mark>to achieve this objective</u></mark>. <u>The second lesson is that <mark>actors working in or on confl ict</mark>, whatever approach they take, <mark>must be aware that their decisions and actions have opportunity costs and that they can “do harm</u>.”</mark> As David Kennedy writes, “the darker sides can swamp the benefi ts of humanitarian work, and <u><mark>well-intentioned people</mark> can <mark>fi nd themselves unwittingly entrenching the very things they have sought voice to denounce.</u>”</mark>30 Also, <u><mark>those involved in the grand scheme of managing confl ict</u></mark> Darfur <u>must realise that they are in essence projecting their morals and a Western political agenda and that, consequently, their good intentions may not be perceived as such,</u> especially in the Arab world. Indeed<mark>, <u>moving from selfcentred and self-righteous dogmatism to a pragmatic assessment of causes and consequences would be a big step, and it would certainly improve our ability to manage conflicts</u><strong></mark> in Darfur and elsewhere. </p></strong>

1NR

MT

1NR AT: K of Politics

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Only the alt solves—must foreground class struggle -- materialism forms the basis for all oppression, which then is subdivided by individual and collective structures

McLaren 4

McLaren 4

we are now in the midst of returning to the ‘most fundamental form of class struggle class struggle is ‘not yet a thing of the past’ those who seek to undermine its centrality are largely blind to the ‘needs of the large mass of people who are barely surviving capital's newly-honed mechanisms of globalized greed’ a more comprehensive and politically useful understanding of the contemporary historical juncture necessitates foregrounding class analysis This does not render as ‘secondary’ the concerns of those marginalized by race, ethnicity, etc It is often assumed that foregrounding capitalist social relations undermines the importance of attending to ‘difference’ and/or trivializes struggles against racism in favor of an abstractly defined class-based politics typically identified as ‘white.’ Yet, such formulations rest on a bizarre but generally unspoken logic that assumes that racial minorities’ are only conjuncturally related to the working class. This is absurd A good deal of post-Marxist critique is racist insofar as it implies that ‘people of color’ could not possibly be concerned with issues beyond racial’ difference This posits ‘people of color’ as single-minded, one-dimensional caricatures and assumes that their working lives are less crucial to their self-understanding than is the case with their ‘white male’ counterparts Marxism properly interpreted emphasizes the primacy of class One of course is the primacy of the working class as a revolutionary agent ]he primacy of class means building a multiracial, multi-gendered international working-class organization should be the goal of any revolutionary movement so that the primacy of class puts the fight against racism and sexism at the center. Oppression is multiple and intersecting but its causes are not. forms of exploitation and oppression are located in the same totality defined by capitalist rule. Capitalism is an overarching totality that is becoming increasingly invisible in post-Marxist ‘discursive’ narratives that valorize ‘difference’ as a primary explanatory construct. In the capitalist development of U.S. society, African, Mexican, and Asian bodies— their labor power and its reproductive efficacy—were colonized and racialized idea of ‘internal colonialism’ retains explanatory validity. Race’ is thus constructed out of raw materials furnished by class relations the history of class conflicts, and the building of imperial hegemony. The refunctioning of physical traits as ideological and political signifiers of class identity reifies social relations. Such ‘racial’ markers enter the field of the alienated labor process essentializing historical traditions and values which are contingent racism and nationalism are modalities in which class struggles articulate themselves at strategic points in history racial or ethnic group solidarity is given ‘meaning and value in terms of their place within the social organization of production and reproduction of the ideological-political order Harvey's criticism suggests that post-Marxists have been busy fiddling while Rome burns and echo the Young Hegelians who were, ‘in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering” statements, the staunchest conservatives.’ simply fighting ‘phrases’ One may speak of any number of disorientations and even oppressions, but one cultivates all kinds of politeness and indirection about the structure of capitalist class relations in which those oppressions are embedded while various post-Marxists have invited us to join their euphoric celebrations honoring the decentering of capitalism, the abandonment of class politics, and the decline of metanarratives they have failed to see that the most ‘meta of all metanarratives of the past three centuries, the- creeping annexation of the globe for the dominance of capital over laboring humanity if social change is the aim, progressive educators and theorists must cease displacing class analysis

a more comprehensive understanding of the historical juncture necessitates foregrounding class analysis This does not render secondary’ the concerns of those marginalized by race It is often assumed foregrounding capitalist social relations undermines the importance of attending to ‘difference’ or trivializes struggles against racism in favor of class-based politics identified as ‘white.’ such formulations rest on a generally unspoken logic that assumes racial minorities’ are only conjuncturally related to the working class post-Marxist critique is racist insofar as it implies people of color’ could not possibly be concerned with issues beyond racial’ difference This posits ‘people of color’ as one-dimensional caricatures primacy of class means building a multiracial, multi-gendered working-class organization should be the goal of any revolutionary movement so the primacy of class puts the fight against racism and sexism at the center Oppression is multiple and intersecting but its causes are not exploitation and oppression are defined by capitalist rule In capitalist development of U.S. society, African, Mexican, and Asian bodies were colonized and racialized Race’ is constructed out of raw materials furnished by class relations refunctioning of physical traits as signifiers of class identity reifies social relations racism and nationalism are modalities in which class struggles articulate themselves at strategic points One may speak of any number of oppressions but one cultivates politeness and indirection about the structure of capitalist class relations in which oppressions are embedded post-Marxists have failed to see the most ‘meta of all metanarratives of the past three centuries the annexation of the globe for the dominance of capital if social change is the aim, educators and theorists must cease displacing class analysis

Distinguished Fellow – Critical Studies @ Chapman U and UCLA urban schooling prof, and Scatamburlo-D’Annibale, associate professor of Communication – U Windsor, (Peter and Valerie, “Class Dismissed? Historical materialism and the politics of ‘difference’,” Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol. 36, Issue 2, p. 183-199) We have argued that it is virtually impossible to conceptualize class without attending to the forms and contents of difference, but we insist that this does not imply that class struggle is now outdated by the politics of difference. As Jameson (1998, p. 136) notes, we are now in the midst of returning to the ‘most fundamental form of class struggle’ in light of current global conditions. Today's climate suggests that class struggle is ‘not yet a thing of the past’ and that those who seek to undermine its centrality are not only ‘morally callous’ and ‘seriously out of touch with reality’ but also largely blind to the ‘needs of the large mass of people who are barely surviving capital's newly-honed mechanisms of globalized greed’ (Harvey, 1998, pp. 7–9). In our view, a more comprehensive and politically useful understanding of the contemporary historical juncture necessitates foregrounding class analysis and the primacy of the working class as the fundamental agent of change.8 This does not render as ‘secondary’ the concerns of those marginalized by race, ethnicity, etc. as is routinely charged by post-Marxists. It is often assumed that foregrounding capitalist social relations necessarily undermines the importance of attending to ‘difference’ and/or trivializes struggles against racism, etc., in favor of an abstractly defined class-based politics typically identified as ‘white.’ Yet, such formulations rest on a bizarre but generally unspoken logic that assumes that racial and ethnic ‘minorities’ are only conjuncturally related to the working class. This stance is patently absurd since the concept of the ‘working class’ is undoubtedly comprised of men and women of different races, ethnicities, etc. (Mitter, 1997). A good deal of post-Marxist critique is subtly racist (not to mention essentialist) insofar as it implies that ‘people of color’ could not possibly be concerned with issues beyond those related to their ‘racial’ or ‘ethnic’ ‘difference.’ This posits ‘people of color’ as single-minded, one-dimensional caricatures and assumes that their working lives are less crucial to their self-understanding (and survival) than is the case with their ‘white male’ counterparts.9 It also ignores ‘the fact that class is an ineradicable dimension of everybody's lives’ (Gimenez, 2001, p. 2) and that social oppression is much more than tangentially linked to class background and the exploitative relations of production. On this topic, Meyerson (2000) is worth quoting at length: Marxism properly interpreted emphasizes the primacy of class in a number of senses. One of course is the primacy of the working class as a revolutionary agent—a primacy which does not render women and people of color ‘secondary.’ This view assumes that ‘working class’ means white—this division between a white working class and all the others, whose identity (along with a corresponding social theory to explain that identity) is thereby viewed as either primarily one of gender and race or hybrid …[T]he primacy of class means … that building a multiracial, multi-gendered international working-class organization or organizations should be the goal of any revolutionary movement so that the primacy of class puts the fight against racism and sexism at the center. The intelligibility of this position is rooted in the explanatory primacy of class analysis for understanding the structural determinants of race, gender, and class oppression. Oppression is multiple and intersecting but its causes are not. The cohesiveness of this position suggests that forms of exploitation and oppression are related internally to the extent that they are located in the same totality—one which is currently defined by capitalist class rule. Capitalism is an overarching totality that is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly invisible in post-Marxist ‘discursive’ narratives that valorize ‘difference’ as a primary explanatory construct. For example, E. San Juan (2003) argues that race relations and race conflict are necessarily structured by the larger totality of the political economy of a given society, as well as by modifications in the structure of the world economy. He further notes that the capitalist mode of production has articulated ‘race’ with class in a peculiar way. He too is worth a substantial quotation: While the stagnation of rural life imposed a racial or castelike rigidity to the peasantry, the rapid accumulation of wealth through the ever more intensifying exploitation of labor by capital could not so easily ‘racialize’ the wage-workers of a particular nation, given the alienability of labor-power—unless certain physical or cultural characteristics can be utilized to divide the workers or render one group an outcast or pariah removed from the domain of ‘free labor.’ In the capitalist development of U.S. society, African, Mexican, and Asian bodies—more precisely, their labor power and its reproductive efficacy—were colonized and racialized; hence the idea of ‘internal colonialism’ retains explanatory validity. ‘Race’ is thus constructed out of raw materials furnished by class relations, the history of class conflicts, and the vicissitudes of colonial/capitalist expansion and the building of imperial hegemony. It is dialectically accented and operationalized not just to differentiate the price of wage labor within and outside the territory of the metropolitan power, but also to reproduce relations of domination–subordination invested with an aura of naturality and fatality. The refunctioning of physical or cultural traits as ideological and political signifiers of class identity reifies social relations. Such ‘racial’ markers enter the field of the alienated labor process, concealing the artificial nature of meanings and norms, and essentializing or naturalizing historical traditions and values which are contingent on mutable circumstances. For San Juan, racism and nationalism are modalities in which class struggles articulate themselves at strategic points¶ in history. He argues that racism arose with the creation and expansion of the capitalist world economy. He maintains, rightly in our view, that racial or ethnic group solidarity is given ‘meaning and value in terms of their place within the social organization of production and reproduction of the ideological-political order; ideologies of racism as collective social evaluation of solidarities arise to reinforce structural constraints which preserve the exploited and oppressed position of these “racial” solidarities’. It is remarkable, in our opinion, that so much of contemporary social theory has largely abandoned the problems of labor, capitalist exploitation, and class analysis at a time when capitalism is becoming more universal, more ruthless and more deadly. The metaphor of a contemporary ‘tower of Babel’ seems appropriate here—academics striking radical poses in the seminar rooms while remaining oblivious to the possibility that their seemingly radical discursive maneuvers do nothing to further the struggles ‘against oppression and exploitation which continue to be real, material, and not merely “discursive” problems of the contemporary world’ (Dirlik, 1997, p. 176). Harvey (1998, pp. 29–31) indicts the new academic entrepreneurs, the ‘masters of theory-in-and-for-itself’ whose ‘discourse radicalism’ has deftly side-stepped ‘the enduring conundrums of class struggle’ and who have, against a ‘sobering background of cheapened discourse and opportunistic politics,’ been ‘stripped of their self-advertised radicalism.’ For years, they ‘contested socialism,’ ridiculed Marxists, and promoted ‘their own alternative theories of liberatory politics’ but now they have largely been ‘reduced to the role of supplicants in the most degraded form of pluralist politics imaginable.’ As they pursue the politics of difference, the ‘class war rages unabated’ and they seem ‘either unwilling or unable to focus on the unprecedented economic carnage occurring around the globe.’ Harvey's searing criticism suggests that post-Marxists have been busy fiddling while Rome burns and his comments echo those made by Marx (1978, p. 149) in his critique of the Young Hegelians who were, ‘in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering” statements, the staunchest conservatives.’ Marx lamented that the Young Hegelians were simply fighting ‘phrases’ and that they failed to acknowledge that in offering only counter-phrases, they were in no way ‘combating the real existing world’ but merely combating the phrases of the world. Taking a cue from Marx and substituting ‘phrases’ with ‘discourses’ or ‘resignifications’ we would contend that the practitioners of difference politics who operate within exaggerated culturalist frameworks that privilege the realm of representation as the primary arena of political struggle question some discourses of power while legitimating others. Moreover, because they lack a class perspective, their gestures of radicalism are belied by their own class positions.10 As Ahmad (1997a, p. 104) notes: One may speak of any number of disorientations and even oppressions, but one cultivates all kinds of politeness and indirection about the structure of capitalist class relations in which those oppressions are embedded. To speak of any of that directly and simply is to be ‘vulgar.’ In this climate of Aesopian languages it is absolutely essential to reiterate that most things are a matter of class. That kind of statement is … surprising only in a culture like that of the North American university … But it is precisely in that kind of culture that people need to hear such obvious truths. Ahmad's provocative observations imply that substantive analyses of the carnage wrought by ‘globalized’ class exploitation have, for the most part, been marginalized by the kind of radicalism that has been instituted among the academic Left in North America. He further suggests that while various post-Marxists have invited us to join their euphoric celebrations honoring the decentering of capitalism, the abandonment of class politics, and the decline of metanarratives (particularly those of Marxism and socialism), they have failed to see that the most ‘meta of all metanarratives of the past three centuries, the- creeping annexation of the globe for the dominance of capital over laboring humanity has met, during those same decades, with stunning success’ (Ahmad, 1997b, p. 364). As such, Ahmad invites us to ask anew, the proverbial question: What, then, must be done? To this question we offer no simple theoretical, pedagogical or political prescriptions. Yet we would argue that if social change is the aim, progressive educators and theorists must cease displacing class analysis with the politics of difference.

<h4>Only the alt solves—must foreground class struggle -- materialism forms <u>the basis</u> for all oppression, which then is <u>subdivided</u><strong> by individual and collective structures</h4><p>McLaren</strong> <strong>4</p><p></strong>Distinguished Fellow – Critical Studies @ Chapman U and UCLA urban schooling prof, and Scatamburlo-D’Annibale, associate professor of Communication – U Windsor, (Peter and Valerie, “Class Dismissed? Historical materialism and the politics of ‘difference’,” Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol. 36, Issue 2, p. 183-199)</p><p>We have argued that it is virtually impossible to conceptualize class without attending to the forms and contents of difference, but we insist that this does not imply that class struggle is now outdated by the politics of difference. As Jameson (1998, p. 136) notes, <u><strong>we are now in the midst of returning to the ‘most fundamental form of class struggle</u></strong>’ in light of current global conditions. Today's climate suggests that <u><strong>class struggle is ‘not yet a thing of the past’ </u></strong>and that <u><strong>those who seek to undermine its centrality are</u></strong> not only ‘morally callous’ and ‘seriously out of touch with reality’ but also <u><strong>largely blind to the ‘needs of the large mass of people who are barely surviving capital's newly-honed mechanisms of globalized greed’</u></strong> (Harvey, 1998, pp. 7–9). In our view, <u><strong><mark>a more comprehensive</mark> and politically useful <mark>understanding of the</mark> contemporary <mark>historical juncture necessitates foregrounding class</mark> <mark>analysis</u></strong></mark> and the primacy of the working class as the fundamental agent of change.8 <u><strong><mark>This does not render</mark> as ‘<mark>secondary’ the concerns of those marginalized by race</mark>, ethnicity, etc</u></strong>. as is routinely charged by post-Marxists. <u><strong><mark>It is often assumed</mark> that <mark>foregrounding capitalist social relations</u></strong></mark> necessarily <u><strong><mark>undermines the importance of attending to ‘difference’</u></strong></mark> <u><strong>and/<mark>or trivializes struggles against racism</u></strong></mark>, etc., <u><strong><mark>in favor of</mark> an abstractly defined <mark>class-based politics</mark> typically <mark>identified as ‘white.’</mark> Yet, <mark>such formulations rest on a</mark> bizarre but <mark>generally unspoken logic that assumes</mark> that <mark>racial</mark> </u></strong>and ethnic ‘<u><strong><mark>minorities’ are only conjuncturally related to the working class</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>This</u></strong> stance <u><strong>is</u></strong> patently <u><strong>absurd</u></strong> since the concept of the ‘working class’ is undoubtedly comprised of men and women of different races, ethnicities, etc. (Mitter, 1997). <u><strong>A good deal of <mark>post-Marxist critique is</u></strong></mark> subtly <u><strong><mark>racist</u></strong></mark> (not to mention essentialist) <u><strong><mark>insofar as it implies</mark> that ‘<mark>people of color’ could not possibly be concerned with</mark> <mark>issues beyond</u></strong></mark> those related to their ‘<u><strong><mark>racial’</u></strong></mark> or ‘ethnic’ ‘<u><strong><mark>difference</u></strong></mark>.’ <u><strong><mark>This posits ‘people of color’ as</mark> single-minded, <mark>one-dimensional caricatures</mark> and assumes that their working lives are less crucial to their self-understanding</u></strong> (and survival) <u><strong>than is the case with their ‘white male’ counterparts</u></strong>.9 It also ignores ‘the fact that class is an ineradicable dimension of everybody's lives’ (Gimenez, 2001, p. 2) and that social oppression is much more than tangentially linked to class background and the exploitative relations of production. On this topic, Meyerson (2000) is worth quoting at length: <u><strong>Marxism properly interpreted emphasizes the primacy of class </u></strong>in a number of senses.<u><strong> One of course is the primacy of the working class as a revolutionary agent</u></strong>—a primacy which does not render women and people of color ‘secondary.’ This view assumes that ‘working class’ means white—this division between a white working class and all the others, whose identity (along with a corresponding social theory to explain that identity) is thereby viewed as either primarily one of gender and race or hybrid …[T<u><strong>]he <mark>primacy of class means</u></strong></mark> … that <u><strong><mark>building a multiracial, multi-gendered</mark> international <mark>working-class organization</mark> </u></strong>or organizations <u><strong><mark>should be the goal of any revolutionary movement so</mark> that <mark>the primacy of class puts the fight</mark> <mark>against racism and sexism at the center</mark>.</u></strong> The intelligibility of this position is rooted in the explanatory primacy of class analysis for understanding the structural determinants of race, gender, and class oppression. <u><strong><mark>Oppression is multiple and intersecting but its causes are not</mark>. </u></strong>The cohesiveness of this position suggests that <u><strong>forms of <mark>exploitation and oppression are</u></strong></mark> related internally to the extent that they are <u><strong>located in the same totality</u></strong>—one which is currently <u><strong><mark>defined by capitalist</u></strong></mark> class <u><strong><mark>rule</mark>. Capitalism is an overarching totality that i</strong>s</u>, unfortunately, <u><strong>becoming increasingly invisible in post-Marxist ‘discursive’ narratives that valorize ‘difference’ as a primary explanatory construct.</strong> </u>For example, E. San Juan (2003) argues that race relations and race conflict are necessarily structured by the larger totality of the political economy of a given society, as well as by modifications in the structure of the world economy. He further notes that the capitalist mode of production has articulated ‘race’ with class in a peculiar way. He too is worth a substantial quotation: While the stagnation of rural life imposed a racial or castelike rigidity to the peasantry, the rapid accumulation of wealth through the ever more intensifying exploitation of labor by capital could not so easily ‘racialize’ the wage-workers of a particular nation, given the alienability of labor-power—unless certain physical or cultural characteristics can be utilized to divide the workers or render one group an outcast or pariah removed from the domain of ‘free labor.’ <u><strong><mark>In</mark> the <mark>capitalist development of U.S. society,</mark> <mark>African, Mexican, and Asian bodies</mark>—</u></strong>more precisely, <u><strong>their labor power and its reproductive efficacy—<mark>were colonized and racialized</u></strong></mark>; hence the <u><strong>idea of ‘internal colonialism’ retains explanatory validity.</u></strong> ‘<u><strong><mark>Race’ is</mark> thus <mark>constructed out of raw materials furnished by class relations</u></strong></mark>, <u><strong>the history of class conflicts,</u></strong> and the vicissitudes of colonial/capitalist expansion <u><strong>and the building of imperial hegemony.</u></strong> It is dialectically accented and operationalized not just to differentiate the price of wage labor within and outside the territory of the metropolitan power, but also to reproduce relations of domination–subordination invested with an aura of naturality and fatality. <u><strong>The <mark>refunctioning of physical</u></strong></mark> or cultural <u><strong><mark>traits</mark> <mark>as</mark> ideological and political <mark>signifiers of class identity reifies social relations</mark>. Such ‘racial’ markers enter the field of the alienated labor process</u></strong>, concealing the artificial nature of meanings and norms, and <u><strong>essentializing</u></strong> or naturalizing <u><strong>historical traditions and values which are contingent</u></strong> on mutable circumstances. For San Juan, <u><strong><mark>racism and nationalism are modalities</u></strong> <u><strong>in which class struggles</mark> <mark>articulate themselves at strategic points</u></mark>¶<u> in history</u></strong>. He argues that racism arose with the creation and expansion of the capitalist world economy. He maintains, rightly in our view, that <u><strong>racial or ethnic group solidarity is given ‘meaning and value in terms of their place within the social organization of production and reproduction of the ideological-political order</u></strong>; ideologies of racism as collective social evaluation of solidarities arise to reinforce structural constraints which preserve the exploited and oppressed position of these “racial” solidarities’. It is remarkable, in our opinion, that so much of contemporary social theory has largely abandoned the problems of labor, capitalist exploitation, and class analysis at a time when capitalism is becoming more universal, more ruthless and more deadly. The metaphor of a contemporary ‘tower of Babel’ seems appropriate here—academics striking radical poses in the seminar rooms while remaining oblivious to the possibility that their seemingly radical discursive maneuvers do nothing to further the struggles ‘against oppression and exploitation which continue to be real, material, and not merely “discursive” problems of the contemporary world’ (Dirlik, 1997, p. 176). Harvey (1998, pp. 29–31) indicts the new academic entrepreneurs, the ‘masters of theory-in-and-for-itself’ whose ‘discourse radicalism’ has deftly side-stepped ‘the enduring conundrums of class struggle’ and who have, against a ‘sobering background of cheapened discourse and opportunistic politics,’ been ‘stripped of their self-advertised radicalism.’ For years, they ‘contested socialism,’ ridiculed Marxists, and promoted ‘their own alternative theories of liberatory politics’ but now they have largely been ‘reduced to the role of supplicants in the most degraded form of pluralist politics imaginable.’ As they pursue the politics of difference, the ‘class war rages unabated’ and they seem ‘either unwilling or unable to focus on the unprecedented economic carnage occurring around the globe.’ <u><strong>Harvey's</u></strong> searing <u><strong>criticism suggests that post-Marxists have been busy fiddling while Rome burns</u></strong> <u><strong>and</u></strong> his comments <u><strong>echo</u></strong> those made by Marx (1978, p. 149) in his critique of <u><strong>the Young Hegelians</u></strong> <u><strong>who were, ‘in spite of their allegedly “world-shattering” statements, the staunchest conservatives.’</u></strong> Marx lamented that the Young Hegelians were <u><strong>simply fighting ‘phrases’</u></strong> and that they failed to acknowledge that in offering only counter-phrases, they were in no way ‘combating the real existing world’ but merely combating the phrases of the world. Taking a cue from Marx and substituting ‘phrases’ with ‘discourses’ or ‘resignifications’ we would contend that the practitioners of difference politics who operate within exaggerated culturalist frameworks that privilege the realm of representation as the primary arena of political struggle question some discourses of power while legitimating others. Moreover, because they lack a class perspective, their gestures of radicalism are belied by their own class positions.10 As Ahmad (1997a, p. 104) notes: <u><strong><mark>One may speak of any number</mark> <mark>of </mark>disorientations and even <mark>oppressions</mark>, <mark>but one cultivates</mark> all kinds of <mark>politeness and</mark> <mark>indirection about</mark> <mark>the structure of capitalist class relations in which</mark> those <mark>oppressions are embedded</u></strong></mark>. To speak of any of that directly and simply is to be ‘vulgar.’ In this climate of Aesopian languages it is absolutely essential to reiterate that most things are a matter of class. That kind of statement is … surprising only in a culture like that of the North American university … But it is precisely in that kind of culture that people need to hear such obvious truths. Ahmad's provocative observations imply that substantive analyses of the carnage wrought by ‘globalized’ class exploitation have, for the most part, been marginalized by the kind of radicalism that has been instituted among the academic Left in North America. He further suggests that <u><strong>while various <mark>post-Marxists</mark> have invited us to join their euphoric celebrations honoring the decentering of capitalism, the abandonment of class politics, and the decline of metanarratives</u></strong> (particularly those of Marxism and socialism), <u><strong>they <mark>have failed to see</mark> that <mark>the most ‘meta of all metanarratives of the past three centuries</mark>, <mark>the</mark>- creeping <mark>annexation of the globe for</mark> <mark>the dominance of capital</mark> over laboring humanity</u></strong> has met, during those same decades, with stunning success’ (Ahmad, 1997b, p. 364). As such, Ahmad invites us to ask anew, the proverbial question: What, then, must be done? To this question we offer no simple theoretical, pedagogical or political prescriptions. Yet we would argue that <u><strong><mark>if social change is the aim,</mark> progressive <mark>educators and theorists must cease displacing class analysis</u></strong></mark> with the politics of difference.</p>

2NC

Cap K

2NC AT: Alt Bad

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Nuclear war

Merlini 11

Merlini 11 (Cesare Merlini, BA in humanities, holds a diploma for industrial engineering, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center on the United States at the Brookings Institute, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, President of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, founder and former Executive-Vice-Chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, former co-editor of Global-FP, an Italian magazine associated with Foreign Affairs, former member of the Trilateral Commission, member of the Board of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, previously held the chair of Nuclear Technologies at the Polytechnic University of Turin, nuclear scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, expert on transatlantic relations, European integration, nuclear non-proliferation, and the impact of change in society on international relations, 2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, published in Survival volume 53 number 2, page 117, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/04_international_relations_merlini/04_international_relations_merlini.pdf)

The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism Many commentators have identified anger or anxiety as a common driver of the Tea Party movement in the United States and the rise of xenophobic parties in Europe, perhaps stemming from a self-perception of decline. Anger has also been associated with grievances in the Middle East, following the failure of earlier reformist and secular movements

The scenario entails the crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. tensions evolves into conflict between states involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic system the rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes converging with nationalism

Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism. One symptom that makes such a scenario plausible has become visible. Many commentators have identified anger or anxiety as a common driver of the Tea Party movement in the United States and the rise of xenophobic parties in Europe, perhaps stemming from a self-perception of decline. Anger (directed towards the neo-colonialist or pro-Israeli West or – especially recently – domestic authoritarian regimes) has also been associated with grievances in the Middle East, following the failure of earlier reformist and secular movements. 10 Despite relative popular optimism, anger can also be detected in Asia, hand in hand with chauvinism and a sense of lack of appropriate recognition by others, stemming from a self-perception of rising influence and power.

<h4>Nuclear war</h4><p><strong>Merlini 11</strong> (Cesare Merlini, BA in humanities, holds a diploma for industrial engineering, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Center on the United States at the Brookings Institute, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, President of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, founder and former Executive-Vice-Chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, former co-editor of Global-FP, an Italian magazine associated with Foreign Affairs, former member of the Trilateral Commission, member of the Board of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, previously held the chair of Nuclear Technologies at the Polytechnic University of Turin, nuclear scientist at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, expert on transatlantic relations, European integration, nuclear non-proliferation, and the impact of change in society on international relations, 2011, “A Post-Secular World?”, published in Survival volume 53 number 2, page 117, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/04_international_relations_merlini/04_international_relations_merlini.pdf)</p><p>Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. <u><mark>The</mark> first <mark>scenario entails the </mark>premature <mark>crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. </mark>One or more of the acute <mark>tensions </mark>apparent today <mark>evolves into</mark> an open and traditional <mark>conflict between states</mark>, perhaps even <mark>involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic </mark>and financial <mark>system</mark>, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first</u>. Whatever the trigger, <u>the unlimited exercise of national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable.</u> Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, <u><mark>the</mark> secular <mark>rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes</mark>, competing or <mark>converging with</mark> secular absolutes such as unbridled <mark>nationalism</u></mark>. One symptom that makes such a scenario plausible has become visible. <u>Many commentators have identified anger or anxiety as a common driver of the Tea Party movement in the United States and the rise of xenophobic parties in Europe, perhaps stemming from a self-perception of decline. Anger</u> (directed towards the neo-colonialist or pro-Israeli West or – especially recently – domestic authoritarian regimes) <u>has also been associated with grievances in the Middle East, following the failure of earlier reformist and secular movements</u>. 10 Despite relative popular optimism, anger can also be detected in Asia, hand in hand with chauvinism and a sense of lack of appropriate recognition by others, stemming from a self-perception of rising influence and power.</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Mexico DA

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

You should evaluate our politics DA. Their dogmatic refusal to consider political process implications is grounded in the same destructive blindness the aff criticizes.

Chandler ‘3

David Chandler, Centre for the Study of Democracy - University of Westminster, ‘3

attention to a political mission, beyond petty partisanship through foreign policy activism has been an important resource of authority and credibility for western political leaders. The ability to project or symbolise unifying ‘values’ has become a core leadership attribute Bush’s shaky start was transformed by his speech in which he staked out his claim to represent and protect America’s ethical values against the terrorist ‘heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century’ The demise of the framework of party politics is directly associated with the search for an external source of legitimacy Ignatieff suggests that the external projection of moral mission stems from the collapse of the left/right political framework Governments This search for a moral grounding through solidarity has led to an increasingly moralised ‘black and white’ or ‘good versus evil’ view of crisis situations in the non-western world Blair, has been much criticised for appearing to deprioritise the domestic agenda in the wake of September 11, yet even his critics admit that his ‘moral mission’ in the international sphere has been crucial to enhancing his domestic standing. The emphasis on ethical foreign policy commitments enables western governments to declare an unequivocal moral stance, which helps to mitigate awkward questions of government mission and political coherence in the domestic sphere the lack of connection between rhetorical demands and accountability for policy-making or policy outcomes has made ethical foreign policy-making a strong card for western governments, under pressure to consolidate their standing and authority at home

attention to a political mission has been an important resource of credibility for political leaders. search for a moral grounding has led to an increasingly moralised good versus evil’ view of crisis situations The emphasis on ethical policy commitments enables governments to declare an unequivocal moral stance, which helps to mitigate awkward questions of government mission and political coherence in the domestic sphere the lack of connection between rhetorical demands and accountability for policy-making or policy outcomes has made ethical policy-making a strong card for western governments, under pressure to consolidate their authority at home.

(British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5.3, “Rhetoric without responsibility”) The attention to the articulation of a political mission, beyond the petty partisanship of left and right, through foreign policy activism abroad has been an important resource of authority and credibility for western political leaders. The ability to project or symbolise unifying ‘values’ has become a core leadership attribute. George W. Bush’s shaky start to the US presidency was transformed by his speech to Congress in the wake of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks, in which he staked out his claim to represent and protect America’s ethical values against the terrorist ‘heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century’ (Bush 2001). Similarly, Tony Blair was at his most presidential in the wake of the attacks, arguing that values were what distinguished the two sides of the coming conflict: ‘We are democratic. They are not. We have respect for human life. They do not. We hold essentially liberal values. They do not’ (The Guardian, 27 March 1999). Peter Hain, minister of state at the UK Foreign Office, also focused on the ‘values that the terrorists attacked’ in his call for political unity around ‘tough action’ (The Guardian, 24 September 2001). By association with the cause of the victims of international conflicts, western governments can easily gain a moral authority that cannot be secured through the domestic political process. Even general election victories, the defining point of the domestic political process, no longer bring authority or legitimacy. This was clear in the contested victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 elections, which turned on the problem of the ‘hanging’ chad in Florida. However, the problem of deriving legitimacy from elections is a much broader one, with declining voter turnouts. In the British elections in 2001 Tony Blair achieved a landslide second term mandate, but there was little sense of euphoria—this was a hollow victory on a 50 per cent turnout which meant only one in four of the electorate voted for New Labour. The demise of the framework of traditional party politics, the source of western governments’ domestic malaise, is directly associated with the search for an external source of legitimacy. This process is illustrated in Michael Ignatieff’s quote from the writings of British war reporter Don McCullin: But what are my politics? I certainly take the side of the underprivileged. I could never say I was politically neutral. But whether I’m of the right or the left—I can’t say ... I feel, in my guts, at one with the victims. And I find there’s integrity in that stance (Ignatieff 1998, 22–23). Ignatieff suggests that the external projection of legitimacy or moral mission stems from the collapse of the left/right political framework, stating that ‘there are no good causes left—only victims of bad causes’ (ibid., 23). Governments, like many gap-year students, seek to define and find themselves through their engagement with the problems experienced by those in far-off countries. This search for a moral grounding through solidarity with the ‘victims of bad causes’ has led to an increasingly moralised ‘black and white’ or ‘good versus evil’ view of crisis situations in the non-western world.10 The jet-setting UK prime minister, Tony Blair, has been much criticised for appearing to deprioritise the domestic agenda in the wake of September 11, yet even his critics admit that his ‘moral mission’ in the international sphere has been crucial to enhancing his domestic standing. The search for ethical or moral approaches emphasising the government’s moral authority has inexorably led to a domestic shift in priorities making international policy-making increasingly high profile in relation to other policy areas. The emphasis on ethical foreign policy commitments enables western governments to declare an unequivocal moral stance, which helps to mitigate awkward questions of government mission and political coherence in the domestic sphere. The contrast between the moral certainty possible in selected areas of foreign policy and the uncertainties of domestic policy-making was unintentionally highlighted when President George Bush congratulated Tony Blair on his willingness to take a stand over Afghanistan and Iraq: ‘The thing I admire about this prime minister is that he doesn’t need a poll or a focus group to convince him of the difference between right and wrong’ (UKGovernment 2002). Tony Blair, like Bush himself, of course relies heavily on polls and focus groups for every domestic initiative. It is only in the sphere of foreign policy that it appears there are opportunities for western leaders to project a self-image of purpose, mission and political clarity. This is because it is easier to promote a position which can be claimed to be based on clear ethical values, rather than the vagaries of compromise and political pragmatism, in foreign policy than it is in domestic policy. There are three big advantages: first, the object of policy activism, and criticism, is a foreign government; second, the British or American government is not so accountable for matching rhetoric to international actions; and third, credit can be claimed for any positive outcome of international policy, while any negative outcome can be blamed on the actions or inaction of the government or population of the country concerned. The following sections highlight that the lack of connection between rhetorical demands and accountability for policy-making or policy outcomes has made selected high-profile examples of ethical foreign policy-making a strong card for western governments, under pressure to consolidate their standing and authority at home.

<h4>You should evaluate our politics DA. Their dogmatic refusal to consider political process implications is grounded in the same destructive blindness the aff criticizes.</h4><p>David <u><strong>Chandler</u></strong>, Centre for the Study of Democracy - University of Westminster, <u><strong>‘3</p><p></u></strong>(British Journal of Politics and International Relations 5.3, “Rhetoric without responsibility”)</p><p>The <u><mark>attention to</u></mark> the articulation of <u><mark>a political mission</mark>, beyond</u> the <u>petty partisanship</u> of left and right, <u>through foreign policy activism</u> abroad <u><mark>has been an important resource of</mark> authority and <mark>credibility for</mark> western <mark>political leaders.</mark> The ability to project or symbolise unifying ‘values’ has become a core leadership attribute</u>. George W. <u>Bush’s shaky start</u> to the US presidency <u>was transformed by his speech</u> to Congress in the wake of the World Trade Centre and Pentagon attacks, <u>in which he staked out his claim to represent and protect America’s ethical values against the terrorist ‘heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century’</u> (Bush 2001). Similarly, Tony Blair was at his most presidential in the wake of the attacks, arguing that values were what distinguished the two sides of the coming conflict: ‘We are democratic. They are not. We have respect for human life. They do not. We hold essentially liberal values. They do not’ (The Guardian, 27 March 1999). Peter Hain, minister of state at the UK Foreign Office, also focused on the ‘values that the terrorists attacked’ in his call for political unity around ‘tough action’ (The Guardian, 24 September 2001). By association with the cause of the victims of international conflicts, western governments can easily gain a moral authority that cannot be secured through the domestic political process. Even general election victories, the defining point of the domestic political process, no longer bring authority or legitimacy. This was clear in the contested victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 elections, which turned on the problem of the ‘hanging’ chad in Florida. However, the problem of deriving legitimacy from elections is a much broader one, with declining voter turnouts. In the British elections in 2001 Tony Blair achieved a landslide second term mandate, but there was little sense of euphoria—this was a hollow victory on a 50 per cent turnout which meant only one in four of the electorate voted for New Labour. <u>The demise of the framework of</u> traditional <u>party politics</u>, the source of western governments’ domestic malaise, <u>is directly associated with the search for an external source of legitimacy</u>. This process is illustrated in Michael Ignatieff’s quote from the writings of British war reporter Don McCullin: But what are my politics? I certainly take the side of the underprivileged. I could never say I was politically neutral. But whether I’m of the right or the left—I can’t say ... I feel, in my guts, at one with the victims. And I find there’s integrity in that stance (Ignatieff 1998, 22–23). <u>Ignatieff suggests that the external projection of</u> legitimacy or <u>moral mission stems from the collapse of the left/right political framework</u>, stating that ‘there are no good causes left—only victims of bad causes’ (ibid., 23). <u>Governments</u>, like many gap-year students, seek to define and find themselves through their engagement with the problems experienced by those in far-off countries. <u>This <mark>search for a moral grounding</mark> through solidarity</u> with the ‘victims of bad causes’ <u><mark>has led to an increasingly moralised</mark> ‘black and white’ or ‘<mark>good versus evil’ view of crisis situations</mark> in the non-western world</u>.10 The jet-setting UK prime minister, Tony <u>Blair, has been much criticised for appearing to deprioritise the domestic agenda in the wake of September 11, yet even his critics admit that his ‘moral mission’ in the international sphere has been crucial to enhancing his domestic standing.</u> The search for ethical or moral approaches emphasising the government’s moral authority has inexorably led to a domestic shift in priorities making international policy-making increasingly high profile in relation to other policy areas. <u><mark>The emphasis on ethical</mark> foreign <mark>policy commitments enables</mark> western <mark>governments to declare an <strong>unequivocal</strong> moral stance, which helps to <strong>mitigate</strong> <strong>awkward</strong> <strong>questions</strong> of government mission and <strong>political</strong> <strong>coherence</strong> in the domestic sphere</u></mark>. The contrast between the moral certainty possible in selected areas of foreign policy and the uncertainties of domestic policy-making was unintentionally highlighted when President George Bush congratulated Tony Blair on his willingness to take a stand over Afghanistan and Iraq: ‘The thing I admire about this prime minister is that he doesn’t need a poll or a focus group to convince him of the difference between right and wrong’ (UKGovernment 2002). Tony Blair, like Bush himself, of course relies heavily on polls and focus groups for every domestic initiative. It is only in the sphere of foreign policy that it appears there are opportunities for western leaders to project a self-image of purpose, mission and political clarity. This is because it is easier to promote a position which can be claimed to be based on clear ethical values, rather than the vagaries of compromise and political pragmatism, in foreign policy than it is in domestic policy. There are three big advantages: first, the object of policy activism, and criticism, is a foreign government; second, the British or American government is not so accountable for matching rhetoric to international actions; and third, credit can be claimed for any positive outcome of international policy, while any negative outcome can be blamed on the actions or inaction of the government or population of the country concerned. The following sections highlight that <u><mark>the lack of connection between rhetorical demands and accountability for policy-making or <strong>policy</strong> <strong>outcomes</strong> has made</u></mark> selected high-profile examples of <u><mark>ethical</mark> foreign <mark>policy-making a <strong>strong card</strong> for western governments, under pressure to consolidate their</mark> standing and <mark>authority at home</u>.</p></mark>

1NR

MT

1NR AT: K of Politics

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The 1AC misreads history—slavery was not based on racial antagonism but economic exploitation

Alexander 2010 , The New Press 2010, pages 23-25

Alexander 2010 (Michelle, associate professor of law, Ohio State University, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, former direct of ACLU’S Racial Justice Project, J.D., Stanford Law School) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, The New Press 2010, pages 23-25

Only in the past few centuries, owing largely to European imperialism, have people been classified along racial lines in America, the idea of race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery as well as the extermination of American Indians—with ideals of freedom when settlements remained small, indentured servitude was the dominant means of securing labor. whites and blacks struggled to survive against a common enemy the big planter apparatus Initially, blacks brought to this country were not all enslaved As plantation farming expanded demand increased greatly for both labor and land. The demand for land was met by invading territory. The growing demand for labor was met through slavery. American Indians were unsuitable because tribes were in a position to fight back. The fear of raids by Indian tribes led plantation owners to grasp for alternative labor. European immigrants were poor candidates they were in short supply and enslavement would interfere with voluntary immigration The systematic enslavement of Africans emerged with all deliberate speed In an effort to protect their superior status and economic position, the planters shifted their strategy for maintaining dominance. slaves were shipped directly from Africa. These slaves would be far easier to control and far less likely to form alliances with poor whites. Fearful that such measures might not be sufficient the planter class took an additional precautionary step, a “racial bribe.” Deliberately and strategically, the planter class extended special privileges to poor whites in an effort to drive a wedge between them and black slaves. These measures effectively eliminated the risk of future alliances between black slaves and poor whites. Poor whites suddenly had a direct, personal stake in the existence of a race-based system of slavery. Their own plight had not improved but at least they were not slaves. Once the planter elite split the labor force, poor whites sought ways to expand their racially privileged position.

Only in the past few centuries, owing to European imperialism, have people been classified along racial lines in America, race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery as well as extermination of American Indians with freedom when settlements remained small, indentured servitude was the dominant means of labor Initially, blacks were not enslaved As plantation expanded demand increased for labor and land. demand for land was met by invading territory demand for labor was met through slavery Indians were unsuitable because tribes were in a position to fight back European immigrants were poor candidates they were in short supply enslavement would, interfere with voluntary immigration to protect their status and economic position planters shifted their strategy slaves were shipped from Africa slaves would be easier to control and less likely to form alliances with poor whites the planter class extended special privileges to poor whites to drive a wedge between them and slaves Poor whites had a direct stake in race-based slavery

The concept of race is a relatively recent development. Only in the past few centuries, owing largely to European imperialism, have the world’s people been classified along racial lines. Here, in America, the idea of race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery—as well as the extermination of American Indians—with ideals of freedom preached by whites in the new colonies. In the early colonial period, when settlements remained relatively small, indentured servitude was the dominant means of securing cheap labor. Under this system, whites and blacks struggled to survive against a common enemy, what historian Lerone Bennett Jr. describes as “the big planter apparatus and a social system that legalized terror against black and white bondsmen.” Initially, blacks brought to this country were not all enslaved; many were treated as indentured servants. As plantation farming expanded, particular tobacco and cotton farming, demand increased greatly for both labor and land. The demand for land was met by invading and conquering larger and larger swaths of territory. American Indians became a growing impediment to white European “progress,” and during this period, the images of American Indians promoted in books, newspapers, and magazines became increasingly negative. As sociologists Keith Kilty and Eric Swank have observed, eliminating “savages” is less of a moral problem than eliminating human beings, and therefore American Indians came to be understood as a lesser race—uncivilized savages—thus providing a justification for the extermination of a native peoples. The growing demand for labor on plantations was met through slavery. American Indians were considered unsuitable as slaves, largely because native tribes were clearly in a position to fight back. The fear of raids by Indian tribes led plantation owners to grasp for an alternative source of free labor. European immigrants were also deemed poor candidates for slavery, not because of their race, but rather because they were in short supply and enslavement would, quite naturally, interfere with voluntary immigration to the new colonies. Plantation owners thus viewed African, who were relatively powerless, as the ideal slaves. The systematic enslavement of Africans, and the rearing of their children under bondage, emerged with all deliberate speed—quickened by events such as Bacon’s Rebellion. Nathaniel Bacon was a white property owner in Jamestown, Virginia, who managed to unite slaves, indentured servants, and poor whites in a revolutionary effort to overthrow the planter elite. Although slaves clearly occupied the lowest position in the social hierarchy and suffered the most under the plantation system, the condition of indentured whites was barely better, and the majority of free whites lived in extreme poverty. As explained by historian Edmund Morgan, in colonies like Virginia, the planter elite, with huge land grants, occupied a vastly superior position to workers of all colors. Southern colonies did not hesitate to invent ways to extend the terms of servitude, and the planter class accumulated uncultivated lands to restrict the options of free workers. The simmering resentment against the planter class created conditions that were ripe for revolt. Varying accounts of Bacon’s rebellion abound, but the basic facts are these: Bacon developed plans in 1675 to seize Native American lands in order to acquire more property for himself and others and nullify the threat of Indian raids. When the planter elite in Virginia refused to provide militia support for his scheme, Bacon retaliated, leading an attack on the elite, their homes, and their property. He openly condemned the rich for their oppression of the poor and inspired an alliance of white and black bond laborers, as well as slaves, who demanded an end to their servitude. The attempted revolution was ended by force and false promises of amnesty. A number of people who participated in the revolt were hanged. The events in Jamestown were alarming to the planter elite, who were deeply fearful of the multiracial alliance of bond workers and slaves. Word of Bacon’s Rebellion spread far and wide, and several more uprisings of a similar type followed. In an effort to protect their superior status and economic position, the planters shifted their strategy for maintaining dominance. They abandon their heavy reliance on indentured servants in favor of the importation of more black slaves. Instead of importing English-speaking slaves from the West Indies, who were more likely to be familiar with European language and culture, many more slaves were shipped directly from Africa. These slaves would be far easier to control and far less likely to form alliances with poor whites. Fearful that such measures might not be sufficient to protect their interests, the planter class took an additional precautionary step, a step that would later become known as a “racial bribe.” Deliberately and strategically, the planter class extended special privileges to poor whites in an effort to drive a wedge between them and black slaves. White settlers were allowed greater access to Native American lands, white servants were allowed to police slaves through slave patrols and militias, and barriers were created so that free labor would not be placed in competition with slave labor. These measures effectively eliminated the risk of future alliances between black slaves and poor whites. Poor whites suddenly had a direct, personal stake in the existence of a race-based system of slavery. Their own plight had not improved by much, but at least they were not slaves. Once the planter elite split the labor force, poor whites responded to the logic of their situation and sought ways to expand their racially privileged position.

<h4>The 1AC misreads history—slavery was not based on racial antagonism but economic exploitation</h4><p><strong>Alexander 2010</strong> (Michelle, associate professor of law, Ohio State University, Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, former direct of ACLU’S Racial Justice Project, J.D., Stanford Law School) The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness<u><strong>, The New Press 2010, pages 23-25</p><p></u></strong>The concept of race is a relatively recent development. <u><strong><mark>Only in the past few centuries, owing</mark> largely <mark>to</mark> <mark>European imperialism, have</u></strong></mark> the world’s <u><strong><mark>people been classified along racial lines</u></strong></mark>. Here, <u><strong><mark>in America,</mark> the idea of <mark>race emerged as a means of reconciling chattel slavery</u></strong></mark>—<u><strong><mark>as well as</mark> the</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>extermination of American Indians</mark>—<mark>with</mark> ideals of <mark>freedom</u></strong></mark> preached by whites in the new colonies. In the early colonial period, <u><strong><mark>when settlements remained</u></strong></mark> relatively <u><strong><mark>small, indentured servitude was the</mark> <mark>dominant means of</mark> securing</u></strong> cheap <u><strong><mark>labor</mark>.</u></strong> Under this system, <u><strong>whites and blacks struggled to survive against a common enemy</u></strong>, what historian Lerone Bennett Jr. describes as “<u><strong>the big planter apparatus </u></strong>and a social system that legalized terror against black and white bondsmen.” <u><strong><mark>Initially, blacks</mark> brought to this country <mark>were not</mark> all <mark>enslaved</u></strong></mark>; many were treated as indentured servants. <u><strong><mark>As plantation</mark> farming <mark>expanded</u></strong></mark>, particular tobacco and cotton farming, <u><strong><mark>demand increased</mark> greatly <mark>for </mark>both <mark>labor and land.</mark> The <mark>demand for land was met by invading</u></strong></mark> and conquering larger and larger swaths of <u><strong><mark>territory</mark>.</u></strong> American Indians became a growing impediment to white European “progress,” and during this period, the images of American Indians promoted in books, newspapers, and magazines became increasingly negative. As sociologists Keith Kilty and Eric Swank have observed, eliminating “savages” is less of a moral problem than eliminating human beings, and therefore American Indians came to be understood as a lesser race—uncivilized savages—thus providing a justification for the extermination of a native peoples. <u><strong>The growing <mark>demand for</mark> <mark>labor</u></strong></mark> on plantations <u><strong><mark>was met through slavery</mark>. American <mark>Indians were</u></strong></mark> considered <u><strong><mark>unsuitable</u></strong></mark> as slaves, largely <u><strong><mark>because</u></strong></mark> native <u><strong><mark>tribes were</u></strong></mark> clearly <u><strong><mark>in a position to fight back</mark>. The fear of raids by Indian tribes led plantation owners to grasp for</u></strong> an <u><strong>alternative</u></strong> source of free <u><strong>labor. <mark>European immigrants</mark> <mark>were</u></strong></mark> also deemed <u><strong><mark>poor candidates</u></strong></mark> for slavery, not because of their race, but rather because <u><strong><mark>they were in</mark> <mark>short supply</mark> and <mark>enslavement would</u></strong>,</mark> quite naturally, <u><strong><mark>interfere with voluntary immigration</u></strong></mark> to the new colonies. Plantation owners thus viewed African, who were relatively powerless, as the ideal slaves. <u><strong>The systematic enslavement of Africans</u></strong>, and the rearing of their children under bondage, <u><strong>emerged with all deliberate speed</u></strong>—quickened by events such as Bacon’s Rebellion. Nathaniel Bacon was a white property owner in Jamestown, Virginia, who managed to unite slaves, indentured servants, and poor whites in a revolutionary effort to overthrow the planter elite. Although slaves clearly occupied the lowest position in the social hierarchy and suffered the most under the plantation system, the condition of indentured whites was barely better, and the majority of free whites lived in extreme poverty. As explained by historian Edmund Morgan, in colonies like Virginia, the planter elite, with huge land grants, occupied a vastly superior position to workers of all colors. Southern colonies did not hesitate to invent ways to extend the terms of servitude, and the planter class accumulated uncultivated lands to restrict the options of free workers. The simmering resentment against the planter class created conditions that were ripe for revolt. Varying accounts of Bacon’s rebellion abound, but the basic facts are these: Bacon developed plans in 1675 to seize Native American lands in order to acquire more property for himself and others and nullify the threat of Indian raids. When the planter elite in Virginia refused to provide militia support for his scheme, Bacon retaliated, leading an attack on the elite, their homes, and their property. He openly condemned the rich for their oppression of the poor and inspired an alliance of white and black bond laborers, as well as slaves, who demanded an end to their servitude. The attempted revolution was ended by force and false promises of amnesty. A number of people who participated in the revolt were hanged. The events in Jamestown were alarming to the planter elite, who were deeply fearful of the multiracial alliance of bond workers and slaves. Word of Bacon’s Rebellion spread far and wide, and several more uprisings of a similar type followed. <u><strong>In an effort <mark>to protect their</mark> superior <mark>status and economic</mark> <mark>position</mark>, the <mark>planters shifted their strategy</mark> for maintaining dominance.</u></strong> They abandon their heavy reliance on indentured servants in favor of the importation of more black slaves. Instead of importing English-speaking slaves from the West Indies, who were more likely to be familiar with European language and culture, many more <u><strong><mark>slaves were shipped</mark> directly <mark>from Africa</mark>. These <mark>slaves would be</mark> far <mark>easier to control</mark> <mark>and</mark> far <mark>less likely to form alliances with poor whites</mark>. Fearful that such measures might not be sufficient</u></strong> to protect their interests, <u><strong>the planter class took an additional precautionary step,</u></strong> a step that would later become known as <u><strong>a “racial bribe.”</u></strong> <u><strong>Deliberately and strategically, <mark>the planter class</mark> <mark>extended special privileges to poor whites</mark> in an effort <mark>to drive a wedge</u></strong> <u><strong>between them and</mark> black <mark>slaves</mark>.</u></strong> White settlers were allowed greater access to Native American lands, white servants were allowed to police slaves through slave patrols and militias, and barriers were created so that free labor would not be placed in competition with slave labor. <u><strong>These measures effectively eliminated the risk of future alliances between black slaves and poor whites. <mark>Poor whites</mark> suddenly <mark>had a direct</mark>, personal <mark>stake in</mark> the existence of a <mark>race-based</mark> system of <mark>slavery</mark>. Their own plight had not improved</u></strong> by much, <u><strong>but at least they were not slaves. Once the planter elite split the labor force, poor whites</u></strong> responded to the logic of their situation and <u><strong>sought ways to expand their racially privileged position.</p></u></strong>

2NC

Cap K

2NC AT: History

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

CP Text: The United States should hold a binding national referendum to coincide with the 2014 midterm elections on the legalization of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin through federal policy waivers. The United States should legalize the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin through federal policy waivers if and only if the referendum receives more than 50% of the popular vote.

<h4>CP Text: The United States should hold a binding national referendum to coincide with the 2014 midterm elections on the legalization of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin through federal policy waivers. The United States should legalize the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin through federal policy waivers if and only if the referendum receives more than 50% of the popular vote. </h4>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Referendum CP

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The CP solves 100% of the case, avoids the midterms DA and provides Uniqueness for it. A national referendum on marijuana legalization would pass – that’s the 1NC Marczyk. That means that legalization still happens, it just happens three months from now – no 1AC card is specific enough to give a warrant for why that would be insufficient to solve the aff.

<h4>The CP solves 100% of the case, avoids the midterms DA and provides Uniqueness for it. A national referendum on marijuana legalization would pass – that’s the 1NC Marczyk. That means that legalization still happens, it just happens three months from now – no 1AC card is specific enough to give a warrant for why that would be insufficient to solve the aff.</h4>

1NR

CP

2NC Overview

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Extinction justifies sacrificing the lesser number

Kateb 92 – Prof Politics, Princeton (George, The Inner Ocean, p 12)

The main point, however, is that utilitarianism has a necessary pace in any democratic country's normal political deliberations. But its advocates must know its place, which ordinarily is only to help to decide what the theory of rights leaves alone. When may rights be overridden by government? I have two sorts of cases in mind: overriding a particular right of some persons for the sake of preserving the same right of others, and overriding the same right of everyone for the sake of what I will clumsily call "civilization values." An advocate of rights could countenance, perhaps must countenance, the state's overriding of rights for these two reasons. The subject is painful and liable to dispute every step of the way. For the state to override is, sacrifice—a right of some so that others may keep it. The situation must be desperate. I have in mind, say,circumstances in which the choice is between sacrificing a right of some and letting a right of all be lost. The state (or some other agent) may kill some (or allow them to be killed), if the only alternative is letting every-one die. It is the right to life which most prominently figures in thinking about desperate situations. I cannot see any resolution but to heed the precept that "numbers count." Just as one may prefer saving one's own life to saving that of another when both cannot be saved, so a third party—let us say, the state—can (perhaps must) choose to save the greater number of lives and at the cost of the lesser number, when there is otherwise no hope for either group. That choice does not mean that those to be sacrificed are immoral if they resist being sacrificed. It follows, of course, that if a third party is right to risk or sacrifice the lives of the lesser for the lives of the greater number when the lesser would otherwise live, the lesser are also not wrong if they resist being sacrificed.

<h4>Extinction justifies sacrificing the lesser number</h4><p>Kateb 92<strong> </strong>– Prof Politics, Princeton<strong> </strong>(George, The Inner Ocean, p 12)</p><p>The main point, however, is that utilitarianism has a necessary pace in any democratic country's normal political deliberations. But its advocates must know its place, which ordinarily is only to help to decide what the theory of rights leaves alone. When may rights be overridden by government? I have two sorts of cases in mind: overriding a particular right of some persons for the sake of preserving the same right of others, and overriding the same right of everyone for the sake of what I will clumsily call "civilization values." An advocate of rights could countenance, perhaps must countenance, the state's overriding of rights for these two reasons. The subject is painful and liable to dispute every step of the way. For the state to override is, sacrifice—a right of some so that others may keep it. The situation must be desperate. I have in mind, say,circumstances in which the choice is between sacrificing a right of some and letting a right of all be lost. The state (or some other agent) may kill some (or allow them to be killed), if the only alternative is letting every-one die. It is the right to life which most prominently figures in thinking about desperate situations. I cannot see any resolution but to heed the precept that "numbers count." Just as one may prefer saving one's own life to saving that of another when both cannot be saved, so a third party—let us say, the state—can (perhaps must) choose to save the greater number of lives and at the cost of the lesser number, when there is otherwise no hope for either group. That choice does not mean that those to be sacrificed are immoral if they resist being sacrificed. It follows, of course, that if a third party is right to risk or sacrifice the lives of the lesser for the lives of the greater number when the lesser would otherwise live, the lesser are also not wrong if they resist being sacrificed. </p>

1NR

MT

1NR – Util F/L

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The referendum passes and provides uniqueness to the midterms disad

Marczyk 13

Marczyk 13

The writing is on the wall; marijuana will be completely legal in the U.S. within 10 years. Demographics project legalization with a 2-1 majority among younger voters legalization is just a matter of time You cannot legislate against a social movement that is on the right side of history. prohibition seems to be crumbling before our eyes This current vote is the start of correcting the original ignorance that allowed marijuana prohibition to become a law As 60+ people in my generation die off, our replacements view marijuana use as harmless Marijuana is an idea whose time has come; this new marijuana majority social movement is a political force that politicians who want to get elected must now listen to; they need to start a conversation with us if they want votes. Going against the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans who worked though the system is not something to be taken lightly by any elected official who wants to be voted into office Think we don’t vote? Think again! Marijuana legalization polled 3 points higher than Obama in Colorado marijuana was voted more popular than either presidential candidate in November 2012 it’s time for the media and politicians to lose the DEA The majority pro-marijuana vote that took place in Colorado and Washington state is a directive to the federal government to stand down These two states are a strong representative sample of the country as a whole. Put it to a national referendum and the numbers would be about the same– a majority of Americans want legalized cannabis

marijuana will be legal in 10 years Demographics project legalization with a 2-1 majority legalization is just a matter of time You cannot legislate against a social movement prohibition seems to be crumbling The majority vote in Colorado is a directive to the fed to stand down. These states are a strong representative sample of the country as a whole. Put it to a national referendum and the numbers would be the same– a majority of Americans want legalized cannabis

Ron, former drug education specialist and M.S. in cardiac rehabilitation and exercise physiology, “Worth Repeating: ‘Marijuana Spring’ Will Save Future of Earth”, http://www.tokesignals.com/worth-repeating-marijuana-spring-will-save-future-of-earth/, October 18th, AB The writing is on the wall; marijuana will be completely legal in the U.S. within 10 years. “Demographics project legalization with a 2-1 majority among younger voters,” and legalization is just a matter of time. Hey… Have you ever tried putting toothpaste back into the tube? The new marijuana spring is here to stay… You cannot legislate against a social movement that is on the right side of history. “The Berlin Wall of pot prohibition seems to be crumbling before our eyes.” This current vote also is the start of correcting the original ignorance that allowed marijuana prohibition to become a law back in the 1937. The hidden agency that originally made cannabis illegal was designed to replace a plant that was in use by humans for 10,000 years and to replace it worldwide with petroleum and plastics for profit by the oligarchies of the day. You see where that got us? As 60+ people in my generation die off, our replacements view marijuana use as harmless as gay marriage is to society, a normal, and good for you, healthy behavior. Trying to outlaw marijuana is like trying to outlaw gay. Marijuana as a social movement is an idea whose time has come; this new marijuana majority social movement is a political force that politicians who want to get elected must now listen to; they need to start a conversation with us if they want our votes. Going against the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans who worked though the system is not something to be taken lightly by any elected official who wants to be voted into office. Think we don’t vote? Think again! Marijuana legalization polled 3 points higher than President Obama did in Colorado. As a matter of fact, marijuana was voted more popular than either presidential candidate in November 2012. Americans are in love with this gentle plant. Maybe it’s time for the media and politicians to lose the DEA misinformation that frames people who use cannabis as addicted, apathetic, criminals. We are your mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters; we are your family. Marijuana prohibition destroys families; that’s why it is a failure. And one more thing: historically, the word “marijuana” was a made-up word to discriminate and demonize Hispanics who are now the upcoming new racial majority in the U.S. Remember, the word “marijuana” was used to discriminate against your great-grandparents who picked fruit in the hot sun, and whose purpose was to profile them as lazy, degenerate and violent marijuana-smokers who should be deported. I would like to watch any prohibitionist explain to a Hispanic town meeting how marijuana first became illegal and why and then ask for their support and vote. Karma can be a real bitch. The majority pro-marijuana vote that took place in Colorado and Washington state is a directive to the federal government to stand down. These two states are a strong representative sample of the country as a whole. Put it to a national referendum and the numbers would be about the same– a majority of Americans want legalized cannabis. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

<h4>The referendum passes and provides uniqueness to the midterms disad<strong> </h4><p>Marczyk 13</p><p></strong>Ron, former drug education specialist and M.S. in cardiac rehabilitation and exercise physiology, “Worth Repeating: ‘Marijuana Spring’ Will Save Future of Earth”, http://www.tokesignals.com/worth-repeating-marijuana-spring-will-save-future-of-earth/, October 18th, AB </p><p><u><strong>The writing is on the wall; <mark>marijuana will be</mark> completely <mark>legal in</mark> the U.S. within <mark>10 years</mark>. </u></strong>“<u><strong><mark>Demographics project legalization with a 2-1 majority</mark> among younger voters</u></strong>,” and <u><strong><mark>legalization is just a matter of time</u></strong></mark>. Hey… Have you ever tried putting toothpaste back into the tube? The new marijuana spring is here to stay… <u><strong><mark>You cannot legislate against a social movement</mark> that is on the right side of history. </u></strong>“The Berlin Wall of pot <u><strong><mark>prohibition seems to be crumbling</mark> before our eyes</u></strong>.” <u><strong>This current vote</u></strong> also <u><strong>is the start of correcting the original ignorance that allowed marijuana prohibition to become a law</u></strong> back in the 1937. The hidden agency that originally made cannabis illegal was designed to replace a plant that was in use by humans for 10,000 years and to replace it worldwide with petroleum and plastics for profit by the oligarchies of the day. You see where that got us? <u><strong>As 60+ people in my generation die off, our replacements view marijuana use as harmless</u></strong> as gay marriage is to society, a normal, and good for you, healthy behavior. Trying to outlaw marijuana is like trying to outlaw gay. <u><strong>Marijuana</u></strong> as a social movement <u><strong>is an idea whose time has come; this new marijuana majority social movement is a political force that politicians who want to get elected must now listen to; they need to start a conversation with us if they want</u></strong> our<u><strong> votes. Going against the will of an overwhelming majority of Americans who worked though the system is not something to be taken lightly by any elected official who wants to be voted into office</u></strong>. <u><strong>Think we don’t vote? Think again!</u></strong> <u><strong>Marijuana legalization polled 3 points higher than </u></strong>President <u><strong>Obama</u></strong> did <u><strong>in Colorado</u></strong>. As a matter of fact, <u><strong>marijuana was voted more popular than either presidential candidate in November 2012</u></strong>. Americans are in love with this gentle plant. Maybe <u><strong>it’s time for the media and politicians to lose the DEA</u></strong> misinformation that frames people who use cannabis as addicted, apathetic, criminals. We are your mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters; we are your family. Marijuana prohibition destroys families; that’s why it is a failure. And one more thing: historically, the word “marijuana” was a made-up word to discriminate and demonize Hispanics who are now the upcoming new racial majority in the U.S. Remember, the word “marijuana” was used to discriminate against your great-grandparents who picked fruit in the hot sun, and whose purpose was to profile them as lazy, degenerate and violent marijuana-smokers who should be deported. I would like to watch any prohibitionist explain to a Hispanic town meeting how marijuana first became illegal and why and then ask for their support and vote. Karma can be a real bitch. <u><strong><mark>The majority</mark> pro-marijuana <mark>vote</mark> that took place <mark>in Colorado</mark> and Washington state <mark>is a directive to the</mark> <mark>fed</mark>eral government <mark>to stand down</u></strong>.</mark> <u><strong><mark>These</mark> two <mark>states are a strong representative sample of the country as a whole.</u></strong> <u><strong>Put it to a national referendum and the numbers would be</mark> about <mark>the same– a majority of Americans want legalized cannabis</u></strong></mark>. You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.</p>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Referendum CP

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Life should be valued as apriori – it precedes the ability to value anything else

Kacou 8

Kacou 8 Amien Kacou. 2008. WHY EVEN MIND? On The A Priori Value Of “Life”, Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol 4, No 1-2 (2008) cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/92/184

finding things good can certainly not exist in any world without consciousness (i.e., without “life,” pleasure is, not only uniquely characteristic of life but also, the core expression of goodness in life—the most general sign or phenomenon for favorable conscious valuation something primitively valuable is attainable in living—that is, pleasure itself. we can now also articulate a foundation for a security interest in our life: since the good of pleasure can be found in living and only in living, therefore, a priori, life ought to be continuously (and indefinitely) pursued at least for the sake of preserving the possibility of finding that good. the fact that we already have some (subjective) desire for life shows life to have some (objective) value.

finding things good can not exist without consciousness without “life only in living therefore, a priori, life ought to be indefinitely) pursued for the sake of preserving the possibility of finding good the fact that we have (subjective) desire for life shows life to have (objective) value

Furthermore, that manner of finding things good that is in pleasure can certainly not exist in any world without consciousness (i.e., without “life,” as we now understand the word)—slight analogies put aside. In fact, we can begin to develop a more sophisticated definition of the concept of “pleasure,” in the broadest possible sense of the word, as follows: it is the common psychological element in all psychological experience of goodness (be it in joy, admiration, or whatever else). In this sense, pleasure can always be pictured to “mediate” all awareness or perception or judgment of goodness: there is pleasure in all consciousness of things good; pleasure is the common element of all conscious satisfaction. In short, it is simply the very experience of liking things, or the liking of experience, in general. In this sense, pleasure is, not only uniquely characteristic of life but also, the core expression of goodness in life—the most general sign or phenomenon for favorable conscious valuation, in other words. This does not mean that “good” is absolutely synonymous with “pleasant”—what we value may well go beyond pleasure. (The fact that we value things needs not be reduced to the experience of liking things.) However, what we value beyond pleasure remains a matter of speculation or theory. Moreover, we note that a variety of things that may seem otherwise unrelated are correlated with pleasure—some more strongly than others. In other words, there are many things the experience of which we like. For example: the admiration of others; sex; or rock-paper-scissors. But, again, what they are is irrelevant in an inquiry on a priori value—what gives us pleasure is a matter for empirical investigation. Thus, we can see now that, in general, something primitively valuable is attainable in living—that is, pleasure itself. And it seems equally clear that we have a priori logical reason to pay attention to the world in any world where pleasure exists. Moreover, we can now also articulate a foundation for a security interest in our life: since the good of pleasure can be found in living (to the extent pleasure remains attainable),[17] and only in living, therefore, a priori, life ought to be continuously (and indefinitely) pursued at least for the sake of preserving the possibility of finding that good. However, this platitude about the value that can be found in life turns out to be, at this point, insufficient for our purposes. It seems to amount to very little more than recognizing that our subjective desire for life in and of itself shows that life has some objective value. For what difference is there between saying, “living is unique in benefiting something I value (namely, my pleasure); therefore, I should desire to go on living,” and saying, “I have a unique desire to go on living; therefore I should have a desire to go on living,” whereas the latter proposition immediately seems senseless? In other words, “life gives me pleasure,” says little more than, “I like life.” Thus, we seem to have arrived at the conclusion that the fact that we already have some (subjective) desire for life shows life to have some (objective) value. But, if that is the most we can say, then it seems our enterprise of justification was quite superficial, and the subjective/objective distinction was useless—for all we have really done is highlight the correspondence between value and desire. Perhaps, our inquiry should be a bit more complex.

<h4><strong>Life should be valued as apriori – it precedes the ability to value anything else</h4><p>Kacou 8</p><p></strong>Amien Kacou. 2008. WHY EVEN MIND? On The A Priori Value Of “Life”, Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, Vol 4, No 1-2 (2008) cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/92/184</p><p>Furthermore, that manner of <u><strong><mark>finding things good</u></strong> </mark>that is in pleasure <u><strong><mark>can </mark>certainly <mark>not exist </mark>in any world <mark>without consciousness </mark>(i.e., <mark>without “life</mark>,”</u></strong> as we now understand the word)—slight analogies put aside. In fact, we can begin to develop a more sophisticated definition of the concept of “pleasure,” in the broadest possible sense of the word, as follows: it is the common psychological element in all psychological experience of goodness (be it in joy, admiration, or whatever else). In this sense, pleasure can always be pictured to “mediate” all awareness or perception or judgment of goodness: there is pleasure in all consciousness of things good; pleasure is the common element of all conscious satisfaction. In short, it is simply the very experience of liking things, or the liking of experience, in general. In this sense, <u><strong>pleasure is, not only uniquely characteristic of life but also, the core expression of goodness in life—the most general sign or phenomenon for favorable conscious valuation</u></strong>, in other words. This does not mean that “good” is absolutely synonymous with “pleasant”—what we value may well go beyond pleasure. (The fact that we value things needs not be reduced to the experience of liking things.) However, what we value beyond pleasure remains a matter of speculation or theory. Moreover, we note that a variety of things that may seem otherwise unrelated are correlated with pleasure—some more strongly than others. In other words, there are many things the experience of which we like. For example: the admiration of others; sex; or rock-paper-scissors. But, again, what they are is irrelevant in an inquiry on a priori value—what gives us pleasure is a matter for empirical investigation. Thus, we can see now that, in general, <u><strong>something primitively valuable is attainable in living—that is, pleasure itself.</u></strong> And it seems equally clear that we have a priori logical reason to pay attention to the world in any world where pleasure exists. Moreover, <u><strong>we can now also articulate a foundation for a security interest in our life: since the good of pleasure can be found in living</u></strong> (to the extent pleasure remains attainable),[17] <u><strong>and <mark>only in living</mark>, <mark>therefore, a priori, life ought to be </mark>continuously (and <mark>indefinitely) pursued </mark>at least <mark>for the sake of preserving the possibility of finding </mark>that<mark> good</mark>.</u></strong> However, this platitude about the value that can be found in life turns out to be, at this point, insufficient for our purposes. It seems to amount to very little more than recognizing that our subjective desire for life in and of itself shows that life has some objective value. For what difference is there between saying, “living is unique in benefiting something I value (namely, my pleasure); therefore, I should desire to go on living,” and saying, “I have a unique desire to go on living; therefore I should have a desire to go on living,” whereas the latter proposition immediately seems senseless? In other words, “life gives me pleasure,” says little more than, “I like life.” Thus, we seem to have arrived at the conclusion that <u><strong><mark>the fact that we </mark>already <mark>have </mark>some <mark>(subjective) desire for life shows life to have </mark>some <mark>(objective) value</mark>.</u></strong> But, if that is the most we can say, then it seems our enterprise of justification was quite superficial, and the subjective/objective distinction was useless—for all we have really done is highlight the correspondence between value and desire. Perhaps, our inquiry should be a bit more complex.</p>

1NR

MT

1NR – Util F/L

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Debating over the specific merits of policies using empirical evidence is necessary to solve propagandist takeover and serial policy failure. Evaluating opportunity costs is key.

Anderson 3 – Lisa Anderson, Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia, former President of the Middle East Studies Association, November 2003, online: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/871

We have a special responsibility, in fostering intellectual exchange, promoting high standards of scholarship, enhancing education and encouraging public awareness of the Middle East to ensure that our academic collaborators and colleagues are not treated like enemy aliens, their religions maligned and motives impugned assertively deploy our unparalleled expertise to provide unique insight and understanding of the Middle East the academy and the policy world cannot afford to be mutually incomprehensible policy can shape the arena in which scholarship takes place, for good and for ill, and there is a widespread presumption that scholarship should also shape policy. we should speak publicly about such topics because our opinions are likely to be much better informed than most citizens policy should be based on empirical, scientifically developed evidence--as opposed to religious conviction, ideology, personal whims or merely guesswork. The ability of policy-makers to draw on university-based expertise --has been the rationale for government support of university-based research in the United States and around the world for the six decades since that war In the wars on terror and on Iraq, evidence has been scarce and little regarded. From the questions about "sexed-up" intelligence reports; the suggestion that claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction were really rationales of bureaucratic convenience in creating constituents for the war on Iraq; the cavalier willingness to lock up terror suspects for months or years without any verifiable evidence of wrongdoing Public policy in the United States in recent years has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology Discussion surrounding even much-vaunted bipartisan initiatives focuses on the politics of the compromise instead of the substance or impact of the policy. The fundamental question--will the policy work?--too often gets short shrift or is ignored altogether. As Reischauer points out, the evidence produced by scholarship and science does not create policy or guarantee its success--it merely frames the choices and identifies the costs of various alternatives--but in its absence, policies are, as he put it, "likely to fail because they may not be grounded in the economic, institutional and social reality of a problem ."[24] Informing policy debates with the sort of evidence scholars bring to bear is an essential part of responsible policymaking in the modern world. To be responsible citizens, deploying our expertise effectively, we need not agree with a policy--or even with each other. Some of us may testify before Congress or write op-ed pieces in the newspapers or appear on television as "experts." Others will organize campus debates, We must train our successors in this discipline and educate the broader public about the value of evidence and the various ways to critically assess it. This is how we contribute to the public good . We must encourage and celebrate efforts to collect evidence and to refine how we assess it, and to bring those efforts to bear in the classroom and in vigorous public debates about the policies of governments throughout the region as well as here at home

We have a responsibility, in fostering intellectual exchange, promoting high standards of scholarship the academy and the policy world cannot afford to be mutually incomprehensible policy can shape scholarship and scholarship should shape policy we should speak publicly because our opinions are much better informed than most citizens policy should be based on empirical, evidence--as opposed to ideology, personal whims or guesswork In the wars on terror and on Iraq evidence has been scarce and little regarded claims about W M D were rationales of bureaucratic convenience in creating constituents for the war on Iraq willingness to lock up terror suspects without evidence Public policy has increasingly been debated through the lenses of ideology Discussion focuses on the politics instead of the substance of the policy The question will the policy work?-- gets short shrift evidence frames costs of various alternatives in its absence, policies fail Informing policy debates with the evidence scholars bring is responsible policymaking Some of us may testify before Congress or write op-ed pieces Others will organize campus debates

Yet, there is far more that we must do, as an institution and as individuals. We have a special responsibility, in fostering intellectual exchange, promoting high standards of scholarship, enhancing education and encouraging public awareness of the Middle East to ensure that our academic collaborators and colleagues are not treated like enemy aliens, their religions maligned and motives impugned. Scientific and scholarly exchange should not be impeded and dissemination of ideas must be respected without regard to the national origin, political persuasion or disciplinary loyalty of their authors. We need to be able to acknowledge the failings of our work without embarrassment--remember that no bench scientist is afraid to report negative experimental results--but we must also assertively deploy our unparalleled expertise to provide unique insight and understanding of the Middle East. The Middle East Studies Association is, in fact, where people congregate who speak the languages, fathom the economies, know the histories (and the debates about the histories), appreciate the jokes, understand the insults, and recognize the aspirations in the Middle East today. What does that unique insight and understanding mean, and what relationship might it have to policy? This question is worth reflecting on carefully, for the academy and the policy world cannot afford to be mutually incomprehensible. Certainly, scholars are often dismissive of the lack of analytical rigor that typifies the conduct of public policy--the need to act before all the answers are known--while policy practitioners are bemused by the theoretical pretensions of scholars--the reluctance to act in the absence of all the answers.[20] Yet we have already seen how policy can shape the arena in which scholarship takes place, for good and for ill, and there is a widespread presumption that scholarship should also shape policy. On the part of policymakers, for example, Representative Pete Hoekstra in his press release announcing that the authorization of Title VI has passed the House subcommittee describes the purposes of the Title VI centers: "to advance knowledge of world regions, encourage the study of foreign languages, and train Americans to have the international expertise and understanding to fulfill pressing national security needs."[21] From the scholar's perspective, just last year, my predecessor as MESA President, Joel Beinin, while acknowledging that " we cannot and should not speak with one voice as authorities whose academic expertise give us exact knowledge of the best way to protect Americans from acts of terror, to remove Saddam Husayn from power, to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, or other desirable goals" nonetheless argued that "we should speak publicly about such topics because our opinions are likely to be much better informed than most citizens."[22] Clearly we all believe that knowledge, understanding and issues of public moment should somehow be linked. And, in fact, ever since the creation of research universities in the United States, more than a century ago, academic research, particularly but not exclusively scientific and social scientific research, has been presumed to serve important purposes for policy and policy-makers. Probably since the rise of the early modern state, and certainly since the development of the modern welfare state, it has been assumed that policy should be based on empirical, scientifically developed evidence--as opposed to religious conviction, ideology, personal whims or merely guesswork. This search for evidence in the formulation and conduct of policy led quite naturally to scholars. During the Second World War, for example, as Alexander Stille tells us, The United States, which did not even have a foreign intelligence service before the war, hired numerous professors, scholars and intellectuals of varying backgrounds to prepare reports to help them understand Germany [and Japan], including Herbert Marcuse (even though he was a well-know Marxist philosopher), the psychologist Erik Ericson, the Great German art historian Richard Krautheimer and the anthropologists Margaret Mead [and Ruth Benedict].[23] The ability of policy-makers to draw on university-based expertise–independent, it should be noted, of the partisan or ideological preferences of its authors--has been the rationale for government support of university-based research in the United States and around the world for the six decades since that war. What makes the disputes today so exceptionally troubling is not that they reflect debates about whether partisan preferences should be a filter or standard by which the contributions of scholarship should be evaluated, although that is often how the issue is framed. Nor is it really a question of whether scholars and policymakers even acknowledge their mutual reliance. No, far more profoundly, this debate is about whether evidence is important in policy-making at all. In the wars on terror and on Iraq, evidence has been scarce and little regarded. From the questions about "sexed-up" intelligence reports; the suggestion that claims about Weapons of Mass Destruction were really rationales of bureaucratic convenience in creating constituents for the war on Iraq; the cavalier willingness to lock up terror suspects for months or years without any verifiable evidence of wrongdoing; to the deliberate efforts to create popular perceptions of links between Saddam Husayn and al-Qa'ida, we have been living in an era in which evidence plays little or no part in policymaking. Robert Reischauer reflected earlier this year on the importance of evidence in policy in a very different arena--domestic social programs--but his observations are worth pondering for a moment: Public policy in the United States in recent years has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology--policies are Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, free market or government controlled. Discussion surrounding even much-vaunted bipartisan initiatives focuses on the politics of the compromise instead of the substance or impact of the policy. The fundamental question--will the policy work?--too often gets short shrift or is ignored altogether. As Reischauer points out, the evidence produced by scholarship and science does not create policy or guarantee its success--it merely frames the choices and identifies the costs of various alternatives--but in its absence, policies are, as he put it, "likely to fail because they may not be grounded in the economic, institutional and social reality of a problem....Politically acceptable doesn't necessarily mean effective, affordable, or otherwise viable."[24] Informing policy debates with the sort of evidence scholars bring to bear is an essential part of responsible policymaking in the modern world. We, as the community of scientists and scholars devoted to the production and deployment of evidence, a project we sometimes call the search for truth, must remain faithful to that purpose even, perhaps especially, when policymakers seem distracted or uninterested. We must also make that evidence accessible. This neither requires nor excludes scholars, or their students, serving on the government payroll or endorsing a particular policy position. On the contrary, particularly in a democracy, the fulfillment of what we call "national security needs" is as much about meeting an obligation to contribute to the education of citizens--voters and taxpayers--as it is assessing or adopting particular policy stances. This we can do in the private and not-for-profit sectors, in think tanks and advocacy organizations, in the media and private businesses, in classrooms and research journals--wherever our work informs open and vigorous debates about the merits of policy perspectives and proposals–as well, of course, as in government. To be responsible citizens, deploying our expertise effectively, we need not agree with a policy--or even with each other. Some of us may testify before Congress or write op-ed pieces in the newspapers or appear on television as "experts." Others will organize campus debates, seminars and demonstrations. Still others will simply equip their students with knowledge and insight enough to be better citizens of their county and the world, more knowledgeable, more critical, armed with better evidence and more refined analytical skills. To sustain the remarkable–and remarkably important–position we hold in society, as both scholars and citizens, we have two obligations. We must do what we do--proudly, confidently, and energetically. We must be constantly, restlessly open to new ideas, searching for new evidence, critical of received wisdom, old orthodoxies, and ancient bigotries, always creating and criticizing ourselves, each other and our world. This is the life of scholarship and we must embrace it for what it is and do it well. We must train our successors in this discipline and educate the broader public about the value of evidence and the various ways to critically assess it. This is how we contribute to the public good, directly and indirectly. At the same time, we must be absolutely uncompromising in upholding the rights that permit us to fulfill that first responsibility: the rights to freedom of information, expression and association, in the United States and around the world, for ourselves and our colleagues. If MESA is to accomplish its purposes in this difficult time, we as an institution must devise ways to support and defend our members both individually and as a scholarly community. We must encourage and celebrate efforts to collect evidence and to refine how we assess it, and to bring those efforts to bear in the classroom and in vigorous public debates about the policies of governments throughout the region as well as here at home. We cannot be idle when polltakers are roughed up or jailed because their findings are politically unpalatable, when students are told to report on faculty whose partisan commitments may be politically unpopular, when research is discredited not on its merits but by the sources of its funding, whether in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the United States.

<h4>Debating over the specific merits of policies using empirical evidence is necessary to solve propagandist takeover and serial policy failure. Evaluating opportunity costs is key.</h4><p>Anderson 3 – Lisa Anderson, Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia, former President of the Middle East Studies Association, November 2003, online: http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/871</p><p>Yet, there is far more that we must do, as an institution and as individuals. <u><strong><mark>We have a</mark> special <mark>responsibility, in fostering</mark> <mark>intellectual exchange, promoting high standards of scholarship</mark>, enhancing education and encouraging public awareness </strong>of the Middle East to ensure that<strong> our academic collaborators and colleagues are not treated like enemy aliens, their religions maligned and motives impugned</u></strong>. Scientific and scholarly exchange should not be impeded and dissemination of ideas must be respected without regard to the national origin, political persuasion or disciplinary loyalty of their authors. We need to be able to acknowledge the failings of our work without embarrassment--remember that no bench scientist is afraid to report negative experimental results--but we must also <u><strong>assertively deploy our unparalleled expertise to provide unique insight and understanding of the Middle East</u></strong>. The Middle East Studies Association is, in fact, where people congregate who speak the languages, fathom the economies, know the histories (and the debates about the histories), appreciate the jokes, understand the insults, and recognize the aspirations in the Middle East today. What does that unique insight and understanding mean, and what relationship might it have to policy? This question is worth reflecting on carefully, for <u><strong><mark>the academy and the policy world cannot afford to be mutually incomprehensible</u></strong></mark>. Certainly, scholars are often dismissive of the lack of analytical rigor that typifies the conduct of public policy--the need to act before all the answers are known--while policy practitioners are bemused by the theoretical pretensions of scholars--the reluctance to act in the absence of all the answers.[20] Yet we have already seen how <u><strong><mark>policy can shape</mark> the arena in which <mark>scholarship</mark> takes place, for good and for ill, <mark>and</mark> there is a widespread presumption that <mark>scholarship should</mark> also <mark>shape policy</mark>.</u></strong> On the part of policymakers, for example, Representative Pete Hoekstra in his press release announcing that the authorization of Title VI has passed the House subcommittee describes the purposes of the Title VI centers: "to advance knowledge of world regions, encourage the study of foreign languages, and train Americans to have the international expertise and understanding to fulfill pressing national security needs."[21] From the scholar's perspective, just last year, my predecessor as MESA President, Joel Beinin, while acknowledging that " we cannot and should not speak with one voice as authorities whose academic expertise give us exact knowledge of the best way to protect Americans from acts of terror, to remove Saddam Husayn from power, to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, or other desirable goals" nonetheless argued that "<u><strong><mark>we should speak publicly</mark> about such topics <mark>because our opinions are</mark> likely to be <mark>much better informed than most citizens</u></strong></mark>."[22] Clearly we all believe that knowledge, understanding and issues of public moment should somehow be linked. And, in fact, ever since the creation of research universities in the United States, more than a century ago, academic research, particularly but not exclusively scientific and social scientific research, has been presumed to serve important purposes for policy and policy-makers. Probably since the rise of the early modern state, and certainly since the development of the modern welfare state, it has been assumed that <u><strong><mark>policy should be based on empirical,</mark> scientifically developed <mark>evidence--as opposed to</mark> religious conviction, <mark>ideology, personal whims or</mark> merely <mark>guesswork</mark>.</u></strong> This search for evidence in the formulation and conduct of policy led quite naturally to scholars. During the Second World War, for example, as Alexander Stille tells us, The United States, which did not even have a foreign intelligence service before the war, hired numerous professors, scholars and intellectuals of varying backgrounds to prepare reports to help them understand Germany [and Japan], including Herbert Marcuse (even though he was a well-know Marxist philosopher), the psychologist Erik Ericson, the Great German art historian Richard Krautheimer and the anthropologists Margaret Mead [and Ruth Benedict].[23] <u><strong>The ability of policy-makers to draw on university-based expertise</u></strong>–independent, it should be noted, of the partisan or ideological preferences of its authors<u><strong>--has been the rationale for government support of university-based research in the United States and around the world for the six decades since that war</u></strong>. What makes the disputes today so exceptionally troubling is not that they reflect debates about whether partisan preferences should be a filter or standard by which the contributions of scholarship should be evaluated, although that is often how the issue is framed. Nor is it really a question of whether scholars and policymakers even acknowledge their mutual reliance. No, far more profoundly, this debate is about whether evidence is important in policy-making at all. <u><strong><mark>In the wars on terror and on Iraq</mark>, <mark>evidence has been scarce and little regarded</mark>. From the questions about "sexed-up" intelligence reports; the suggestion that <mark>claims about</mark> <mark>W</mark>eapons of <mark>M</mark>ass <mark>D</mark>estruction <mark>were</mark> really <mark>rationales of bureaucratic convenience</mark> <mark>in creating constituents for the war on Iraq</mark>; the cavalier <mark>willingness to lock up terror suspects</mark> for months or years <mark>without</mark> any verifiable <mark>evidence</mark> of wrongdoing</u></strong>; to the deliberate efforts to create popular perceptions of links between Saddam Husayn and al-Qa'ida, we have been living in an era in which evidence plays little or no part in policymaking. Robert Reischauer reflected earlier this year on the importance of evidence in policy in a very different arena--domestic social programs--but his observations are worth pondering for a moment: <u><strong><mark>Public policy</mark> in the United States in recent years <mark>has increasingly been</mark> conceived, <mark>debated</mark>, and evaluated <mark>through the lenses of</mark> politics and <mark>ideology</u></strong></mark>--policies are Democratic or Republican, liberal or conservative, free market or government controlled. <u><strong><mark>Discussion</mark> surrounding even much-vaunted bipartisan initiatives <mark>focuses on the politics</mark> of the compromise <mark>instead of the substance</mark> or impact <mark>of the policy</mark>. <mark>The</mark> fundamental <mark>question</mark>--<mark>will the policy work?--</mark>too often <mark>gets short shrift</mark> or is ignored altogether.</u></strong> <u><strong>As Reischauer points out, the <mark>evidence</mark> produced by scholarship and science does not create policy or guarantee its success--it merely <mark>frames</mark> the choices and identifies the <mark>costs of various alternatives</mark>--but <mark>in its absence,</u></strong> <u><strong>policies</mark> are, as he put it, "likely to <mark>fail</mark> because they may not be grounded in the economic, institutional and social reality of a problem</u></strong>....Politically acceptable doesn't necessarily mean effective, affordable, or otherwise viable<u><strong>."[24] <mark>Informing policy debates with</mark> <mark>the</mark> sort of <mark>evidence</mark> <mark>scholars bring</mark> to bear <mark>is</mark> an essential part of <mark>responsible policymaking</mark> in the modern world.</u></strong> We, as the community of scientists and scholars devoted to the production and deployment of evidence, a project we sometimes call the search for truth, must remain faithful to that purpose even, perhaps especially, when policymakers seem distracted or uninterested. We must also make that evidence accessible. This neither requires nor excludes scholars, or their students, serving on the government payroll or endorsing a particular policy position. On the contrary, particularly in a democracy, the fulfillment of what we call "national security needs" is as much about meeting an obligation to contribute to the education of citizens--voters and taxpayers--as it is assessing or adopting particular policy stances. This we can do in the private and not-for-profit sectors, in think tanks and advocacy organizations, in the media and private businesses, in classrooms and research journals--wherever our work informs open and vigorous debates about the merits of policy perspectives and proposals–as well, of course, as in government. <u><strong>To be responsible citizens, deploying our expertise effectively, we need not agree with a policy--or even with each other. <mark>Some of us may</mark> <mark>testify before Congress or write op-ed pieces</mark> in the newspapers or appear on television as "experts." <mark>Others</mark> <mark>will</mark> <mark>organize campus debates</mark>, </u></strong>seminars and demonstrations. Still others will simply equip their students with knowledge and insight enough to be better citizens of their county and the world, more knowledgeable, more critical, armed with better evidence and more refined analytical skills. To sustain the remarkable–and remarkably important–position we hold in society, as both scholars and citizens, we have two obligations. We must do what we do--proudly, confidently, and energetically. We must be constantly, restlessly open to new ideas, searching for new evidence, critical of received wisdom, old orthodoxies, and ancient bigotries, always creating and criticizing ourselves, each other and our world. This is the life of scholarship and we must embrace it for what it is and do it well. <u><strong>We must train our successors in this discipline and educate the broader public about the value of evidence and the various ways to critically assess it. This is how we contribute to the public good</u></strong>, directly and indirectly. At the same time, we must be absolutely uncompromising in upholding the rights that permit us to fulfill that first responsibility: the rights to freedom of information, expression and association, in the United States and around the world, for ourselves and our colleagues. If MESA is to accomplish its purposes in this difficult time, we as an institution must devise ways to support and defend our members both individually and as a scholarly community<u><strong>. We must encourage and celebrate efforts to collect evidence and to refine how we assess it, and to bring those efforts to bear in the classroom and in vigorous public debates about the policies of governments throughout the region as well as here at home</u></strong>. We cannot be idle when polltakers are roughed up or jailed because their findings are politically unpalatable, when students are told to report on faculty whose partisan commitments may be politically unpopular, when research is discredited not on its merits but by the sources of its funding, whether in Iran or Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the United States.</p>

1NR

CP

2NC Process Over Product

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Their epistemology of threat production justifies nuclear lashout to eliminate the threat -- causes extinction

Massumi 07

Massumi 07

Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States. preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency Preemption is not prevention. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought Prevention operates in an objectively knowable world in which uncertainty is a function of a lack of information, and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect. this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption Deterrence has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised. The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself. The quickest and most direct way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one. The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic ). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause. This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself by precipitating a "nuclear winter." the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain the enemy will follow your lead Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out. You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. You have to race foward it ever faster. You have to build more weapons, faster and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's The process soon becomes self-driving. The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).

Preemption is not prevention Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats Prevention operates in an knowable world in uncertainty is a lack of information, The quickest way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one , the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself the enemy will follow your lead MAD is squared objectively a threat is added You to race foward it ever faster. build more weapons, faster and The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. What began as an epistemological condition dynamizes into a a race for dear life

Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption” It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States. It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. Preemption is not prevention. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ epistemologically and ontologically. Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought to avoid their realization. Prevention operates in an objectively knowable world in which uncertainty is a function of a lack of information, and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect. As we will see, this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. Deterrence makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised. Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself. The quickest and most direct way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one. The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic (deterrence). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause. Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start by translating the threat into a clear and present danger. You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself by precipitating a "nuclear winter." In fact, the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain the enemy will follow your lead in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." MAD is certainty squared: to the certainty that there is objectively a threat is added the certainty that it is balanced out. The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. You have to race foward it ever faster. You have to build more weapons, faster and better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's, give or take a few half-lives. The process soon becomes self-driving. The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling. Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. What began as an epistemological condition (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) dynamizes into an ontology or mode of being (a race for dear life).

<h4>Their epistemology of threat production justifies nuclear lashout to eliminate the threat -- causes extinction </h4><p><strong><mark>Massumi 07</strong></mark> </p><p>Brian, Communication Department of the Université de Montréal, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/ v010/10.2massumi.html, “Potential Politics and the Primacy of Preemption”</p><p>It is certain that there will be adjustments. But it should be remembered that Bush referred to a change in "tactics," not a change in "strategy." <u>Preemption remains the official military strategy of the United States.</u> It can be argued that preemption is in any case far more than a specific military doctrine of a particular administration. It can be plausibly argued that <u>preemption is an operative logic of power defining a political age</u> in as infinitely space-filling and insiduously infiltrating a way as the logic of "deterrence" defined the Cold War era. By an "operative" logic I mean <u>one that combines an ontology with an epistemology in such a way as to trace itself out as a self-propelling tendency</u> that is not in the sway of any particular existing formation but sweeps across them all and where possible sweeps them up in its own dynamic. <u><mark>Preemption is not prevention</mark>. Although the goal of both is to neutralize threat, they fundamentally differ</u> epistemologically and ontologically. <u><mark>Epistemologically, prevention assumes an ability to assess threats </mark>empirically and identify their causes. Once the causes are identified, appropriate curative methods are sought</u> to avoid their realization. <u><mark>Prevention</mark> <mark>operates</mark> <mark>in an</mark> objectively <mark>knowable world</mark> <mark>in</mark> which <mark>uncertainty</mark> <mark>is a</mark> function of a <mark>lack of information,</mark> and in which events run a predictable, linear course from cause to effect.</u> As we will see, <u>this is very different from the epistemological premise of preemption</u>, and entails a divergence from it on the ontological level as well. Prevention, in fact, has no ontology of its own because it assumes that what it must deal with has an objectively given existence prior to its own intervention. In practice, this means that its object is given to it predefined by other formations, in whose terms and on whose terrain it must then operate. A preventive approach to social conflict might analyze it, for example, as an effect of poverty, objectively quantifiable in terms of economic and health indexes. Each index is defined by a specialist formation (economics, medicine) in relation to a norm specific to that domain and against which goals may be set and success measured (annual income, mortality rates, life expectancy, etc.). The preventive measures will then operate as a political extension of the concerned specialist domains (economic analysis extended into politics as aid and development, medicine extended into vaccination programs, etc.). They will be regulated by the specialist logics proper to those fields. Prevention has no proper object, no operational sphere of its own, and no proprietary logic. It is derivative. It is a means toward a given end. Because of this, preventive measures are not self-sustaining. They must be applied. They must be leveraged from an outside source with outside force. They are not an organizing force in their own right. They run on borrowed power. Deterrence takes over at the end of this same process, when the means of prevention have failed. <u>Deterrence</u> makes use of the same epistemology prevention does, in that it assumes knowability and objective measurability. However, because it starts where prevention ends, it <u>has no margin of error. It must know with certainty because the threat is fully formed and ready to detonate: the enemy has the bomb and the means to deliver it. The imminence of the threat means that deterrence cannot afford to subordinate itself to objects, norms, and criteria passed on to it from other domains. If it did, its ability to respond with an immediacy proportional to the imminence of the threat would be compromised.</u> Since it would not hold the key to its own knowledge, in the urgency of the situation it would be haunted internally by the spectre of a possible incompleteness of the knowledge coming from the outside. Since its operations would be mediated by that outside domain, neither would it hold a direct key to its own actions. Since it would be responding to causes outside its specific purview, it would not be master of its own effects. <u>The only way to have the kind of epistemological immediacy necessary for deterrence is for its process to have its own cause and to hold it fast within itself.</u> <u><mark>The quickest</mark> and most direct <mark>way for a process to acquire its own cause is for it to produce one</mark>.</u> <u>The easiest way to do this is to take the imminence of the very threat prevention has failed to neutralize and make it the foundation of a new process. In other words<mark>, the process must take the effect it seeks to avoid (nuclear annihilation) and organize itself around it, as the cause of its very own dynamic</u></mark> (deterrence<u>). It must convert an effect that has yet to eventuate into a cause: a future cause.</u> Past causes are in any case already spoken for. They have been claimed as objects of knowledge and operational spheres by a crowded world of other already-functioning formations. Now for a future cause to have any palpable effect it must somehow be able act on the present. <u>This is much easier to do and much less mysterious than it might sound. You start <mark>by translating the threat into a clear and present danger.</mark> You do this by acquiring a capability to realize the threat rather than prevent it. If your neighbor has a nuke, <mark>you build the nuclear weaponry that would enable you to annihilate the adversary, even at the price of annihilating yourself</mark> by precipitating a "nuclear winter." </u>In fact, <u>the more capable you are of destroying yourself along with your enemy, the better. You can be certain <mark>the enemy will follow your lead </u></mark>in acquiring the capability to annihilate you, and themselves as well. The imminent threat is then so imminent on both sides, so immediately present in its menacing futurity, that only a madman or suicidal regime would ever tip the balance and press the button. This gives rise to a unique logic of mutuality: "mutually assured destruction" (MAD). <u>Mutually assured destruction is equilibrium-seeking. It tends toward the creation of a "balance of terror." <mark>MAD</mark> <mark>is</mark> certainty <mark>squared</mark>: to the certainty that there is <mark>objectively a threat is added</mark> the certainty that it is balanced out.</u> The second certainty is dynamic, and requires maintenance. The assurance must be maintained by continuing to producing the conditions that bring the cause so vividly into the present. <u>You have to keep moving into the dangerous future. <mark>You</mark> have <mark>to race foward it ever faster.</mark> You have to <mark>build more weapons, faster and</mark> better, to be sure that your systems match the lethality of your opponent's</u>, give or take a few half-lives. <u>The process soon becomes self-driving. <mark>The logic of mutually assured destruction becomes its own motor. It becomes self-propelling.</mark> Now that you've started, you can't very well stop. <mark>What began as an epistemological condition</mark> (a certainty about what you and your opponent are capable of doing) <mark>dynamizes into a</mark>n ontology or mode of being (<mark>a race for dear life</mark>). </p></u>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Security K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Dems win- Blumenthal and Wang both project

TDS 9/12

TDS 9/12

when Huffpost Pollster joins the Princeton Election Consortium in forecasting that Democrats are more likely to keep their Senate majority, that's good news Huffpost calculates a 56 percent "chance that Democrats will keep control of the Senate." 56 percent doesn't allow all that much breathing space. But 8 weeks from election day, it's fair to say that it's a sign that Dems are in a much better position in the battle for Senate control than many pundits thought they would be in in mid-September, given the lopsided Democratic vulnerabilities this year. there are respected poll analysts who still believe the odds favor a GOP takeover of the U.S. Senate But with both Mark Blumenthal and Sam Wang arguing otherwise, Dems have cause for optimism

when Huffpost joins the Princeton Election Consortium in forecasting Dem s are more likely to keep their Senate majority, that's good news Huffpost calculates a 56 percent "chance Democrats will keep control of the Senate." 56 percent doesn't allow much breathing space. But 8 weeks from election day it's a sign Dems are in a much better position than many pundits thought they would be Dems have cause for optimism

The Democratic Strategist: Huffpost Pollster Sees 56 Percent Chance Dems Will Hold Senate Majority http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2014/09/huffpost_pollster_sees_56_perc.php 09/12/14 [AW] Don't bet the ranch on it just yet, but when Huffpost Pollster joins the Princeton Election Consortium in forecasting that Democrats are more likely to keep their Senate majority, that's good news. Today Huffpost Pollster calculates a 56 percent "chance that Democrats will keep control of the Senate." Of course 56 percent doesn't allow all that much breathing space. But 8 weeks from election day, it's fair to say that it's a sign that Dems are in a much better position in the battle for Senate control than many pundits thought they would be in in mid-September, given the lopsided Democratic vulnerabilities this year. Huffpost Pollster's Mark Blumenthal and Natalie Jackson explore the ramifications of "the Orman factor" (Independent U.S. Senate candidate Greg Orman in Kansas) in their calculations, and conclude: ...Now, however, in the simulations that project an Orman win, our model will usually assign him to the party in the majority...In the rare scenario in which Orman wins and the chamber is split with 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, we give Orman a 50 percent chance of caucusing with the Democrats and a 50 percent chance of caucusing with the Republicans. (Thus, the overall probabilities of each party's winning the majority still add to 100 percent.) But we also note the probability of this situation occurring -- we call it "the Orman factor." On the Senate model dashboard, this number appears right below the probabilities for Democratic and Republican majorities. Other models have also assigned Orman to one side or the other in the case of 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, but in slightly different ways: Daily Kos similarly assumes there is a 50/50 chance Orman will caucus with each party, but FiveThirtyEight assumes a 75 percent chance he will caucus with the Democrats, and The Upshot assigns him to the Democrats 100 percent of the time. Sure, as noted elsewhere there are respected poll analysts who still believe the odds favor a GOP takeover of the U.S. Senate. But with both Mark Blumenthal and Sam Wang arguing otherwise, Dems have cause for optimism -- especially if they mobilize an energetic GOTV effort where it counts.

<h4><strong>Dems win- Blumenthal and Wang both project</h4><p>TDS 9/12</p><p></strong>The Democratic Strategist: Huffpost Pollster Sees 56 Percent Chance Dems Will Hold Senate Majority http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/strategist/2014/09/huffpost_pollster_sees_56_perc.php 09/12/14 [AW]</p><p>Don't bet the ranch on it just yet, but <u><strong><mark>when Huffpost</mark> Pollster <mark>joins the Princeton Election Consortium in forecasting</mark> that <mark>Dem</mark>ocrat<mark>s</mark> <mark>are more likely to keep their Senate majority, that's good news</u></strong></mark>. Today <u><strong><mark>Huffpost</u></strong></mark> Pollster <u><strong><mark>calculates a 56 percent "chance</mark> that <mark>Democrats will keep control of the Senate."</mark> </u></strong>Of course <u><strong><mark>56 percent doesn't allow</mark> all that <mark>much breathing space. But 8 weeks from election day</mark>, it's fair to say that <mark>it's a sign</mark> that <mark>Dems are in a much better position</mark> in the battle for Senate control <mark>than many pundits thought they would be</mark> in in mid-September, given the lopsided Democratic vulnerabilities this year. </u></strong>Huffpost Pollster's Mark Blumenthal and Natalie Jackson explore the ramifications of "the Orman factor" (Independent U.S. Senate candidate Greg Orman in Kansas) in their calculations, and conclude: ...Now, however, in the simulations that project an Orman win, our model will usually assign him to the party in the majority...In the rare scenario in which Orman wins and the chamber is split with 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, we give Orman a 50 percent chance of caucusing with the Democrats and a 50 percent chance of caucusing with the Republicans. (Thus, the overall probabilities of each party's winning the majority still add to 100 percent.) But we also note the probability of this situation occurring -- we call it "the Orman factor." On the Senate model dashboard, this number appears right below the probabilities for Democratic and Republican majorities. Other models have also assigned Orman to one side or the other in the case of 49 Democrats and 50 Republicans, but in slightly different ways: Daily Kos similarly assumes there is a 50/50 chance Orman will caucus with each party, but FiveThirtyEight assumes a 75 percent chance he will caucus with the Democrats, and The Upshot assigns him to the Democrats 100 percent of the time. Sure, as noted elsewhere <u><strong>there are respected poll analysts who still believe the odds favor a GOP takeover of the U.S. Senate</u></strong>. <u><strong>But with both Mark Blumenthal and Sam Wang arguing otherwise, <mark>Dems have cause for optimism</mark> </u></strong>-- especially if they mobilize an energetic GOTV effort where it counts.</p>

1NR

MT

1NR Uniqueness Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Refusing to calculate masks the most totalitarian calculations. Refusal to be responsible for all the potential outcomes of our actions is the worst for violence and totally unethical

Campbell, Professor of International Politics at the University of Newcastle, 1999

Campbell, Professor of International Politics at the University of Newcastle, 1999 (David, “The Deterritorialization of Responsibility,” Moral Spaces, Eds. Michael J. Shapiro & David Campbell, p. 45-7)

Derrida argues, "that justice exceeds law and calculation, that the unpresentable exceeds the determinable cannot and should not serve as alibi for staying out of juridico-political battles, within an institution or a state, or between institutions or states and others incalculable justice requires us to calculate It is both the character of infinite justice as a heteronomic relationship to the other, a relationship that because of its undecidability multiplies responsibility, and the fact that "left to itself, the incalculable and giving idea of justice is always very close to the bad, even to the worst, for it can always be re-appropriated by the most perverse calculation The necessity of calculating the incalculable thus responds to a duty, a duty that inhabits the instant of madness and compels the decision to avoid "the bad," the "perverse calculation," even "the worst." This is the duty that also dwells with deconstruction and makes it the starting point, the "at least necessary condition," for the organization of resistance to totalitarianism in all its forms we recognize all too well without yet having thought them through, the crimes of xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious or nationalist fanaticism this responsibility commissions a "utopian" strategy. Not a strategy that is beyond all bounds of possibility so as to be considered "unrealistic," but one which in respecting the necessity of calculation, takes the possibility summoned by the calculation as far as possible beyond the place we find ourselves and beyond the already identifiable zones of morality or politics or law, beyond the distinction between national and international, public and private As Derrida declares, "The condition of possibility of this thing called responsibility is a certain experience and experiment of the possibility of the impossible: the testing of the aporia from which one may invent the only possible invention, the impossible invention

justice requires us to calculate left to itself, the incalculable and giving ) idea of justice can always be re-appropriated by the most perverse calculation The necessity of calculating the incalculable thus responds to a duty, that compels the decision to avoid "the bad calculation This is the necessary condition," for resistance to totalitarianism we recognize all too well the crimes of xenophobia, racism, this responsibility commissions a " strategy that is which in respecting the necessity of calculation, takes the possibility summoned by the calculation as far as possible

That undecidability resides within the decision, Derrida argues, "that justice exceeds law and calculation, that the unpresentable exceeds the determinable cannot and should not serve as alibi for staying out of juridico-political battles, within an institution or a state, or between institutions or states and others."91 Indeed, "incalculable justice requires us to calculate." From where does this insistence come? What is behind, what is animating, these imperatives? It is both the character of infinite justice as a heteronomic relationship to the other, a relationship that because of its undecidability multiplies responsibility, and the fact that "left to itself, the incalculable and giving (donatrice) idea of justice is always very close to the bad, even to the worst, for it can always be re-appropriated by the most perverse calculation."92 The necessity of calculating the incalculable thus responds to a duty, a duty that inhabits the instant of madness and compels the decision to avoid "the bad," the "perverse calculation," even "the worst." This is the duty that also dwells with deconstruction and makes it the starting point, the "at least necessary condition," for the organization of resistance to totalitarianism in all its forms. And it is a duty that responds to practical political concerns when we recognize that Derrida names the bad, the perverse, and the worst as those violences "we recognize all too well without yet having thought them through, the crimes of xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, religious or nationalist fanaticism."93Furthermore, the duty within the decision, the obligation that recognizes the necessity of negotiating the possibilities provided by the impossibilities of justice, is not content with simply avoiding, containing, combating, or negating the worst violence — though it could certainly begin with those strategies. Instead, this responsibility, which is the responsibility of responsibility, commissions a "utopian" strategy. Not a strategy that is beyond all bounds of possibility so as to be considered "unrealistic," but one which in respecting the necessity of calculation, takes the possibility summoned by the calculation as far as possible, "must take it as far as possible, beyond the place we find ourselves and beyond the already identifiable zones of morality or politics or law, beyond the distinction between national and international, public and private, and so on."94 As Derrida declares, "The condition of possibility of this thing called responsibility is a certain experience and experiment of the possibility of the impossible: the testing of the aporia from which one may invent the only possible invention, the impossible invention."'1'' This leads Derrida to enunciate a proposition that many, not the least of whom are his Habermasian critics, could hardly have expected: "Nothing seems to me less outdated than the classical emancipatory ideal. We cannot attempt to disqualify it today, whether crudely or with sophistication, at least not without treating it too lightly and forming the worst complicities."96>

<h4><strong>Refusing to calculate masks the most totalitarian calculations. Refusal to be responsible for all the potential outcomes of our actions is the worst for violence and totally unethical</h4><p><mark>Campbell</mark>, Professor of International Politics at the University of Newcastle, 19<mark>99</mark> </p><p></strong>(David, “The Deterritorialization of Responsibility,” Moral Spaces, Eds. Michael J. Shapiro & David Campbell, p. 45-7)</p><p>That undecidability resides within the decision, <u><strong>Derrida argues, "that justice exceeds law and calculation, that the unpresentable exceeds the determinable cannot and should not serve as alibi for staying out of juridico-political battles, within an institution or a state, or between institutions or states and others</u></strong>."91 Indeed, "<u><strong>incalculable <mark>justice requires us to calculate</u></strong></mark>." From where does this insistence come? What is behind, what is animating, these imperatives? <u><strong>It is both the character of infinite justice as a heteronomic relationship to the other, a relationship that because of its undecidability multiplies responsibility, and the fact that "<mark>left to itself, the incalculable and giving</u></strong></mark> (donatrice<mark>) <u><strong>idea of justice </mark>is always very close to the bad, even to the worst, for it <mark>can always be re-appropriated by the most perverse calculation</u></strong></mark>."92 <u><strong><mark>The necessity of calculating the incalculable thus responds to a duty, </mark>a duty <mark>that </mark>inhabits the instant of madness and <mark>compels the decision to avoid "the bad</mark>," the "perverse <mark>calculation</mark>," even "the worst." <mark>This</mark> <mark>is</mark> the duty that also dwells with deconstruction and makes it the starting point, <mark>the</mark> "at least <mark>necessary condition," for </mark>the organization of <mark>resistance to totalitarianism </mark>in all its forms</u></strong>. And it is a duty that responds to practical political concerns when we recognize that Derrida names the bad, the perverse, and the worst as those violences "<u><strong><mark>we recognize all too well </mark>without yet having thought them through,<mark> the crimes of xenophobia, racism, </mark>anti-Semitism, religious or nationalist fanaticism</u></strong>."93Furthermore, the duty within the decision, the obligation that recognizes the necessity of negotiating the possibilities provided by the impossibilities of justice, is not content with simply avoiding, containing, combating, or negating the worst violence — though it could certainly begin with those strategies. Instead, <u><strong><mark>this responsibility</u></strong></mark>, which is the responsibility of responsibility, <u><strong><mark>commissions a "</mark>utopian" strategy. Not a <mark>strategy that is </mark>beyond all bounds of possibility so as to be considered "unrealistic," but one <mark>which in respecting the necessity of calculation, takes the possibility summoned by the calculation as far as possible</u></strong></mark>, "must take it as far as possible, <u><strong>beyond the place we find ourselves and beyond the already identifiable zones of morality or politics or law, beyond the distinction between national and international, public and private</u></strong>, and so on."94 <u><strong>As Derrida declares, "The condition of possibility of this thing called responsibility is a certain experience and experiment of the possibility of the impossible: the testing of the aporia from which one may invent the only possible invention, the impossible invention</u></strong>."'1'' This leads Derrida to enunciate a proposition that many, not the least of whom are his Habermasian critics, could hardly have expected: "Nothing seems to me less outdated than the classical emancipatory ideal. We cannot attempt to disqualify it today, whether crudely or with sophistication, at least not without treating it too lightly and forming the worst complicities."96></p>

1NR

CP

2NC Process Over Product

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s security logic

Neocleous 08

Neocleous 08

Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6] Security politics is, , an anti-politics,"' reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add yet more 'sectors' to it you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever The real task is not to fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language the negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security politics would allow us to forge another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. ; it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, learning to tolerate the uncertainties, that come with being human; 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'

Security politics is anti-politics," We need to get beyond security politics not add more 'sectors' to it The task is not to fill the hole with another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which allow us to forge another kind of politics it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition

Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6] could be told - what might count as having achieved it. Security politics is, in this sewnse, an anti-politics,"' dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. We therefore need to get beyond security politics, not add yet more 'sectors' to it in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter asks: if you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. The real task is not to fill the supposed hole with yet another vision of security, but to fight for an alternative political language which takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language more adequate to the kind of society we want. Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that the negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security politics would allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising of social and political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the existing forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also allow us to forge another kind of politics centred on a different conception of the good. We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= that security is not the same as solidarity; it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition, and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead learning to tolerate the uncertainties, ambiguities and 'insecurities' that come with being human; it requires accepting that 'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'

<h4>The alternative is to reject the affirmative’s security logic </h4><p><strong><mark>Neocleous 08</strong></mark> </p><p><u>Mark, Prof. of Government @ Brunel, [Critique of Security, 185-6]</p><p></u>could be told - what might count as having achieved it. <u><mark>Security politics is</mark>,</u> in this sewnse<u>, an <mark>anti-politics,"</mark>'</u> dominating political discourse in much the same manner as the security state tries to dominate human beings, <u>reinforcing security fetishism and the monopolistic character of security on the political imagination. <mark>We</mark> therefore <mark>need to get beyond security politics</mark>, <mark>not add</mark> yet <mark>more 'sectors' to it</u></mark> in a way that simply expands the scope of the state and legitimises state intervention in yet more and more areas of our lives. Simon Dalby reports a personal communication with Michael Williams, co-editor of the important text Critical Security Studies, in which the latter asks: if <u>you take away security, what do you put in the hole that's left behind? But I'm inclined to agree with Dalby: maybe there is no hole."' The mistake has been to think that there is a hole and that this hole needs to be filled with a new vision or revision of security in which it is re-mapped or civilised or gendered or humanised or expanded or whatever</u>. All of these ultimately remain within the statist political imaginary, and consequently end up reaffirming the state as the terrain of modern politics, the grounds of security. <u><mark>The</mark> real <mark>task is</mark> <mark>not to fill the</mark> supposed <mark>hole with</mark> yet <mark>another vision of security, but</mark> <mark>to fight for an alternative political language which</mark> </u>takes us beyond the narrow horizon of bourgeois security and which therefore <u>does not constantly throw us into the arms of the state. That's the point of critical politics: to develop a new political language</u> more adequate to the kind of society we want. Thus while much of what I have said here has been of a negative order, part of the tradition of critical theory is that <u>the negative may be as significant as the positive in setting thought on new paths. For if security really is the supreme concept of bourgeois society and the fundamental thematic of liberalism, then to keep harping on about insecurity and to keep demanding 'more security' (while meekly hoping that this increased security doesn't damage our liberty) is to blind ourselves to the possibility of building real alternatives to the authoritarian tendencies in contemporary politics. To situate ourselves against security politics would </u>allow us to circumvent the debilitating effect achieved through the constant securitising of social and political issues, debilitating in the sense that 'security' helps consolidate the power of the existing forms of social domination and justifies the short-circuiting of even the most democratic forms. It would also<u> <mark>allow us to forge another kind of politics </mark>centred on a different conception of the good. </u>We need a new way of thinking and talking about social being and politics that moves us beyond security. This would perhaps be emancipatory in the true sense of the word. What this might mean, precisely, must be open to debate. But it certainly requires recognising that security is an illusion that has forgotten it is an illusion; it requires recognising= that security is not the same as solidarity<u>; <mark>it requires accepting that insecurity is part of the human condition</mark>, </u>and thus giving up the search for the certainty of security and instead <u>learning to tolerate the uncertainties, </u>ambiguities and 'insecurities'<u> that come with being human;</u> it requires accepting that <u>'securitizing' an issue does not mean dealing with it politically, but bracketing it out and handing it to the state; it requires us to be brave enough to return the gift."'</p></u>

1NC

OFF CASE

1NC Security K

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Poll based models are better than fundamentals

Wang 5/27

Wang 5/27 <Sam, data scientist, a co-founder of the Princeton Election Consortium and an associate professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University, better predictor of midterms than Silver, “The War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senate-models-107132.html#ixzz3CyZaIN3f>#SPS

because of this reliance on national public opinion, as a general rule, with a Democratic president in power, the more a model relies on non-poll-based assumptions, the more it will favor the Republicans. When it comes to extremely close races Type 1 models are of limited use Modelers put in lots of factors that have been shown to affect election outcomes such as the economy and incumbency. But each factor you add also contributes “noise”—accumulating uncertainties that, once added, cannot be taken out. these are simplifications. From a reader’s standpoint, probabilities in Type 1 models should never be read with more certainty than, say, the National Weather Service’s numbers. Once we have a sufficient amount of polling data, fundamentals lose their importance for prediction purposes. All the fundamentals are naturally baked into the polling data. Even 160 days before the election, polls are fairly predictive, and are enough by themselves to form a clear snapshot of the current state of play. One question faced by all the models is when to start phasing in polling data and phasing out fundamentals. In 2012, I used a polls-only Type 2 approach to get all 10 close Senate races correct, while the election-eve FiveThirtyEight calculations, which leaned heavily on fundamentals, got two races wrong.

because of reliance on public opinion with a Democratic president the more a model relies on non-poll-based assumptions, the more it will favor Republicans each factor you add contributes “noise”—accumulating uncertainties Once we have a sufficient amount of polling data fundamentals lose their importance for prediction purposes Even 160 days before the election, polls are fairly predictive, and enough to form a clear snapshot of the current state of play In 2012, I used a polls-only approach to get all 10 close Senate races correct, while FiveThirtyEight which leaned heavily on fundamentals, got two races wrong

Type 1: Fundamentals only. Type 1 models, which rely on no polling data at all, have the advantage that they can be created before the campaign even starts. The Monkey Cage model is currently pure Type 1, relying on a large number of fundamentals, from candidate “quality” to economic growth. This year, the most important fundamental is that, in midterm elections, national public opinion tends to go against the president’s party. That gives us some idea of the range of possible outcomes: Basically, Democrats are going to lose seats. Interestingly, because of this reliance on national public opinion, as a general rule, with a Democratic president in power, the more a model relies on non-poll-based assumptions, the more it will favor the Republicans. Note that the probability of a GOP takeover is higher in the Monkey Cage model than it is in the others. When it comes to extremely close races, though, Type 1 models are of limited use. Modelers put in lots of factors that have been shown to affect election outcomes (“signals,” in engineering parlance), such as the economy and incumbency. But each factor you add also contributes “noise”—accumulating uncertainties that, once added, cannot be taken out. For example, during a midterm election year, the generic congressional poll (Would you rather vote for a Democrat or a Republican?) tends to move against the president’s party—but the range of actual outcomes on Election Day ranges from an 11 percentage-point loss to a 4 percentage-point gain in the national popular vote margin. Fundamentals can be national factors, such as the generic congressional ballot, which captures a general national mood. Or they can be local, such as whether an incumbent is in the race, a factor that attempts to capture how well known a candidate is. But these are simplifications. From a reader’s standpoint, probabilities in Type 1 models should never be read with more certainty than, say, the National Weather Service’s numbers. Rain forecast probabilities are good enough to help us plan our weekend outings—and even they are uncertain enough always to be rounded to the nearest 10 percent. Rather, Type 1 models are hypotheses about where a campaign is naturally headed. You can think of them as asking, “Do our assumptions about how politics works give the correct prediction?” They tend to be of most use after the results are in.In 2012, Type 1 presidential models ranged from predicting a Romney win to an Obama landslide—and everything in between. If past history is any guide, FiveThirtyEight comes up with a more exact model, it will have a strong Type 1 component but will also include some polling data. That probably explains why FiveThirtyEight’s state-by-state win probabilities seem to give Democrats a better shot than the Monkey Cage does. Type 2: Polls only. Once we have a sufficient amount of polling data, fundamentals lose their importance for prediction purposes. All the fundamentals are naturally baked into the polling data. Even today, about 160 days before the election, polls are fairly predictive, and are enough by themselves to form a clear snapshot of the current state of play. The Upshot is closer to a Type 2 model. It focuses on polling data, using fundamentals about candidate quality and national trends to set expectations for how voter sentiment might change between now and the election. (This is an excellent approach to combining polls with fundamentals, one that was pioneered by Drew Linzer’s Votamatic.) The Upshot’s method is likely to be more accurate than the others, though the Monkey Cage does plan to update its model to reflect new polling data. One question faced by all the models is when to start phasing in polling data and phasing out fundamentals. To estimate the possible range of outcomes, it is even possible to skip using fundamentals at all, simply by using the ups and downs of polls to estimate the range of likely movement between now and Election Day. In 2012, I used a polls-only Type 2 approach to get all 10 close Senate races correct, while the election-eve FiveThirtyEight calculations, which leaned heavily on fundamentals, got two races wrong. What does a pure Type 2 approach for 2014 look like? Using my time-tested methods, I took a shot at it.

<h4>Poll based models are better than fundamentals</h4><p><strong>Wang 5/27</strong> <Sam, data scientist, a co-founder of the Princeton Election Consortium and an associate professor of neuroscience and molecular biology at Princeton University, better predictor of midterms than Silver, “The War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senate-models-107132.html#ixzz3CyZaIN3f>#SPS</p><p>Type 1: Fundamentals only. Type 1 models, which rely on no polling data at all, have the advantage that they can be created before the campaign even starts. The Monkey Cage model is currently pure Type 1, relying on a large number of fundamentals, from candidate “quality” to economic growth. This year, the most important fundamental is that, in midterm elections, national public opinion tends to go against the president’s party. That gives us some idea of the range of possible outcomes: Basically, Democrats are going to lose seats. Interestingly, <u><strong><mark>because of</mark> this <mark>reliance on</mark> national <mark>public opinion</mark>, as a general rule, <mark>with a Democratic president</mark> in power, <mark>the more a model relies on non-poll-based assumptions, the more it will favor</mark> the <mark>Republicans</mark>.</u></strong> Note that the probability of a GOP takeover is higher in the Monkey Cage model than it is in the others. <u><strong>When it comes to extremely close races</u></strong>, though, <u><strong>Type 1 models are of limited use</u></strong>. <u><strong>Modelers put in lots of factors that have been shown to affect election outcomes</u></strong> (“signals,” in engineering parlance), <u><strong>such as the economy and incumbency. But <mark>each factor you add </mark>also <mark>contributes “noise”—accumulating uncertainties</mark> that, once added, cannot be taken out.</u></strong> For example, during a midterm election year, the generic congressional poll (Would you rather vote for a Democrat or a Republican?) tends to move against the president’s party—but the range of actual outcomes on Election Day ranges from an 11 percentage-point loss to a 4 percentage-point gain in the national popular vote margin. Fundamentals can be national factors, such as the generic congressional ballot, which captures a general national mood. Or they can be local, such as whether an incumbent is in the race, a factor that attempts to capture how well known a candidate is. But <u><strong>these are simplifications.</u></strong> <u><strong>From a reader’s standpoint, probabilities in Type 1 models should never be read with more certainty than, say, the National Weather Service’s numbers. </u></strong>Rain forecast probabilities are good enough to help us plan our weekend outings—and even they are uncertain enough always to be rounded to the nearest 10 percent. Rather, Type 1 models are hypotheses about where a campaign is naturally headed. You can think of them as asking, “Do our assumptions about how politics works give the correct prediction?” They tend to be of most use after the results are in.In 2012, Type 1 presidential models ranged from predicting a Romney win to an Obama landslide—and everything in between. If past history is any guide, FiveThirtyEight comes up with a more exact model, it will have a strong Type 1 component but will also include some polling data. That probably explains why FiveThirtyEight’s state-by-state win probabilities seem to give Democrats a better shot than the Monkey Cage does. Type 2: Polls only. <u><strong><mark>Once we have a sufficient amount of polling data</mark>, <mark>fundamentals lose their importance for prediction purposes</mark>.</u></strong> <u><strong>All the fundamentals are naturally baked into the polling data.</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>Even</u></strong></mark> today, about <u><strong><mark>160 days before the election, polls are fairly predictive, and</mark> are <mark>enough</mark> by themselves <mark>to form a clear snapshot of the current state of play</mark>.</u></strong> The Upshot is closer to a Type 2 model. It focuses on polling data, using fundamentals about candidate quality and national trends to set expectations for how voter sentiment might change between now and the election. (This is an excellent approach to combining polls with fundamentals, one that was pioneered by Drew Linzer’s Votamatic.) The Upshot’s method is likely to be more accurate than the others, though the Monkey Cage does plan to update its model to reflect new polling data. <u><strong>One question faced by all the models is when to start phasing in polling data and phasing out fundamentals.</u></strong> To estimate the possible range of outcomes, it is even possible to skip using fundamentals at all, simply by using the ups and downs of polls to estimate the range of likely movement between now and Election Day. <u><strong><mark>In 2012, I used a polls-only</mark> Type 2 <mark>approach to get all 10 close Senate races correct, while</mark> the election-eve <mark>FiveThirtyEight</mark> calculations, <mark>which leaned heavily on fundamentals, got two races wrong</mark>. </u></strong>What does a pure Type 2 approach for 2014 look like? Using my time-tested methods, I took a shot at it.</p>

1NR

MT

1NR Uniqueness Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Focusing on the details of policy implementation is key to solve inevitable extinction. Awareness of the issue is insufficient – debating rules and procedures is key to engaging the political

Beres 2003 Louis Rene, Journal and Courier, June 5 ln)

Beres 2003 (professor of international law @ Purdue University, ’03; Louis Rene, Journal and Courier, June 5 ln)

within a few short years, expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons will generate one or more regional nuclear wars. various governments will try to deflect our attention, but it will be a vain effort. What shall we do? For a start, we must all begin to look carefully behind the news. Rejecting superficial analyses of day-to-day events in favor of penetrating assessments of world affairs, we must learn quickly to distinguish what is truly important from what is merely entertainment. With such learning, we Americans could prepare for growing worldwide anarchy not as immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet. We must also look closely at higher education in the United States from the urgent perspective of confronting extraordinary threats to human survival some college students are exposed to an occasional course in what is fashionably described as "global awareness," but such exposure usually sidesteps the overriding issues: We now face a deteriorating world system that cannot be mended through sensitivity alone; our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with catastrophic deterioration; our schools are altogether incapable of transmitting the indispensable visions of planetary restructuring.To institute productive student confrontations with survival imperatives, colleges and universities must soon take great risks, detaching themselves from a time-dishonored preoccupation with "facts" in favor of grappling with true life-or-death questions Rather, all students must be made aware - as a primary objective of the curriculum - of where we are heading, as a species, and where our limited survival alternatives may yet be discovered. Before international law can be taken seriously, and before "the blood-dimmed tide" can be halted, America's future leaders must at least have some informed acquaintance with pertinent rules and procedures. Otherwise we shall surely witness the birth of a fully ungovernable world order, an unheralded and sinister arrival in which only a shadowy legion of gravediggers would wield the forceps.

expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons will generate one or more regional nuclear wars , we must Reject analyses of day-to-day events in favor of penetrating assessments of world affairs some college students are exposed to an occasional course in "global awareness," but exposure sidesteps the overriding issues: our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with catastrophic deterioration; colleges and universities must soon take great risks, detaching themselves from a time-dishonored preoccupation with "facts" in favor of grappling with true life-or-death questions. Rather, all students must be made aware of where our limited survival alternatives may yet be discovered America's future leaders must at least have some informed acquaintance with pertinent rules and procedures Otherwise we shall surely witness the birth of a fully ungovernable world order, .

For us, other rude awakenings are unavoidable, some of which could easily overshadow the horrors of Sept. 11. There can be little doubt that, within a few short years, expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons will generate one or more regional nuclear wars. Paralyzed by fear and restrained by impotence, various governments will try, desperately, to deflect our attention, but it will be a vain effort. Caught up in a vast chaos from which no real escape is possible, we will learn too late that there is no durable safety in arms, no ultimate rescue by authority, no genuine remedy in science or technology. What shall we do? For a start, we must all begin to look carefully behind the news. Rejecting superficial analyses of day-to-day events in favor of penetrating assessments of world affairs, we must learn quickly to distinguish what is truly important from what is merely entertainment. With such learning, we Americans could prepare for growing worldwide anarchy not as immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet. Nowhere is it written that we people of Earth are forever, that humankind must thwart the long-prevailing trend among all planetary life-forms (more than 99 percent) of ending in extinction. Aware of this, we may yet survive, at least for a while, but only if our collective suppression of purposeful fear is augmented by a complementary wisdom; that is, that our personal mortality is undeniable and that the harms done by one tribal state or terror group against "others" will never confer immortality. This is, admittedly, a difficult concept to understand, but the longer we humans are shielded from such difficult concepts the shorter will be our time remaining. We must also look closely at higher education in the United States, not from the shortsighted stance of improving test scores, but from the urgent perspective of confronting extraordinary threats to human survival. For the moment, some college students are exposed to an occasional course in what is fashionably described as "global awareness," but such exposure usually sidesteps the overriding issues: We now face a deteriorating world system that cannot be mended through sensitivity alone; our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with catastrophic deterioration; our schools are altogether incapable of transmitting the indispensable visions of planetary restructuring.To institute productive student confrontations with survival imperatives, colleges and universities must soon take great risks, detaching themselves from a time-dishonored preoccupation with "facts" in favor of grappling with true life-or-death questions. In raising these questions, it will not be enough to send some students to study in Paris or Madrid or Amsterdam ("study abroad" is not what is meant by serious global awareness). Rather, all students must be made aware - as a primary objective of the curriculum - of where we are heading, as a species, and where our limited survival alternatives may yet be discovered. There are, of course, many particular ways in which colleges and universities could operationalize real global awareness, but one way, long-neglected, would be best. I refer to the study of international law. For a country that celebrates the rule of law at all levels, and which explicitly makes international law part of the law of the United States - the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution and certain Supreme Court decisions - this should be easy enough to understand. Anarchy, after all, is the absence of law, and knowledge of international law is necessarily prior to adequate measures of world order reform. Before international law can be taken seriously, and before "the blood-dimmed tide" can be halted, America's future leaders must at least have some informed acquaintance with pertinent rules and procedures. Otherwise we shall surely witness the birth of a fully ungovernable world order, an unheralded and sinister arrival in which only a shadowy legion of gravediggers would wield the forceps.

<h4>Focusing on the details of policy implementation is key to solve inevitable extinction. Awareness of the issue is insufficient – debating rules and procedures is key to engaging the political</h4><p><u><strong>Beres 2003</u></strong> (professor of international law @ Purdue University, ’03; <u><strong>Louis Rene, Journal and Courier, June 5 ln)</p><p></u></strong>For us, other rude awakenings are unavoidable, some of which could easily overshadow the horrors of Sept. 11. There can be little doubt that, <u><strong>within a few short years, <mark>expanding tribalism will produce several new genocides and proliferating nuclear weapons will generate one or more regional nuclear wars</strong></mark>.</u> Paralyzed by fear and restrained by impotence, <u>various governments will try</u>, desperately,<u> to deflect our attention, but it will be a vain effort.</u> Caught up in a vast chaos from which no real escape is possible, we will learn too late that there is no durable safety in arms, no ultimate rescue by authority, no genuine remedy in science or technology. <u><strong>What shall we do? For a start<mark>, we must</mark> all begin to look carefully behind the news. <mark>Reject</mark>ing superficial <mark>analyses of day-to-day events in favor of penetrating assessments of world affairs</mark>, we must learn quickly to distinguish what is truly important from what is merely entertainment. With such learning, we Americans could prepare for growing worldwide anarchy not as immobilized objects of false contentment, but as authentic citizens of an endangered planet</strong>.</u> Nowhere is it written that we people of Earth are forever, that humankind must thwart the long-prevailing trend among all planetary life-forms (more than 99 percent) of ending in extinction. Aware of this, we may yet survive, at least for a while, but only if our collective suppression of purposeful fear is augmented by a complementary wisdom; that is, that our personal mortality is undeniable and that the harms done by one tribal state or terror group against "others" will never confer immortality. This is, admittedly, a difficult concept to understand, but the longer we humans are shielded from such difficult concepts the shorter will be our time remaining. <u>We must also look closely at higher education in the United States</u>, not from the shortsighted stance of improving test scores, but <u>from the urgent perspective of confronting extraordinary <strong>threats to human survival</u></strong>. For the moment, <u><strong><mark>some college students are exposed to an occasional course in </mark>what is fashionably described as<mark> "global awareness," but </mark>such <mark>exposure </mark>usually <mark>sidesteps the overriding issues: </mark>We now face a deteriorating world system that cannot be mended through sensitivity alone; <mark>our leaders are dangerously unprepared to deal with catastrophic deterioration;</mark> our schools are altogether incapable of transmitting the indispensable visions of planetary restructuring</strong>.<strong>To institute productive student confrontations with survival imperatives, <mark>colleges and universities must soon take great risks, detaching themselves from a time-dishonored preoccupation with "facts" in favor of grappling with true life-or-death questions</u></strong>.</mark> In raising these questions, it will not be enough to send some students to study in Paris or Madrid or Amsterdam ("study abroad" is not what is meant by serious global awareness). <u><strong><mark>Rather, all students must be made aware</mark> - as a primary objective of the curriculum - <mark>of</mark> where we are heading, as a species, and <mark>where our limited survival alternatives may yet be discovered</mark>. </u></strong>There are, of course, many particular ways in which colleges and universities could operationalize real global awareness, but one way, long-neglected, would be best. I refer to the study of international law. For a country that celebrates the rule of law at all levels, and which explicitly makes international law part of the law of the United States - the "supreme law of the land" according to the Constitution and certain Supreme Court decisions - this should be easy enough to understand. Anarchy, after all, is the absence of law, and knowledge of international law is necessarily prior to adequate measures of world order reform.<u><strong> Before international law can be taken seriously, and before "the blood-dimmed tide" can be halted, <mark>America's future leaders must at least have some informed acquaintance with pertinent rules and procedures</mark>. <mark>Otherwise we shall surely witness the birth of a fully ungovernable world order, </mark>an unheralded and sinister arrival in which only a shadowy legion of gravediggers would wield the forceps<mark>.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NR

CP

2NC Process Over Product

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Advantage is non unique – doesn’t account for august 2013 memo that created fed-state co-op

Flatow 13

Nicole Flatow 8-29-13 Journalist, “BREAKING: Justice Department Won’t Challenge State Marijuana Laws, Announces Major Shift In Law Enforcement Policy”, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/29/2551851/breaking-justice-department-wont-challenge-state-marijuana-laws-announces-major-shift-law-enforcement-policy/ Accessed 8-30-14

the Department of Justice also issued new guidance to prosecutors today calling for scaled back prosecution not just of users of marijuana, but also of distributors and growers complying with state law: prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system. this is a change from DOJ’s previous position. Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, “While the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the president and the administration believe that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers, is not the best allocation of federal law enforcement resources.” Now, we can add state-compliant growers and distributors to that list who are not otherwise violating the federal government’s rules.

the Department of Justice also issued new guidance to prosecutors today calling for scaled back prosecution not just of users of marijuana, but also of distributors and growers complying with state law: prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system. this is a change from DOJ’s previous position Now, we can add state-compliant growers and distributors to that list who are not otherwise violating the federal government’s rules.

More than six months after Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today he would not sue to block the implementation of the laws — at least not until he sees how the laws operate in effect. This announcement came as little surprise, after reports from earlier communication between DOJ and the governor. More significantly, the Department of Justice also issued new guidance to prosecutors today calling for scaled back prosecution not just of users of marijuana, but also of distributors and growers complying with state law: [T]he previous guidance drew a distinction between the serious ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operations’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system. As the memo points out, this is a change from DOJ’s previous position. When asked just last week about the administration’s position on marijuana, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, “While the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the president and the administration believe that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers, is not the best allocation of federal law enforcement resources.” Now, we can add state-compliant growers and distributors to that list who are not otherwise violating the federal government’s rules. This would ostensibly mean that prosecutors would no longer go after large medical marijuana dispensaries that have been viewed as models for state compliance, as they have on several previous occasions.

<h4>Advantage is non unique – doesn’t account for august 2013 memo that created fed-state co-op</h4><p>Nicole <strong>Flatow</strong> 8-29-<strong>13 </strong>Journalist, “BREAKING: Justice Department Won’t Challenge State Marijuana Laws, Announces Major Shift In Law Enforcement Policy”, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/29/2551851/breaking-justice-department-wont-challenge-state-marijuana-laws-announces-major-shift-law-enforcement-policy/ Accessed 8-30-14</p><p>More than six months after Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives to legalize and regulate recreational marijuana, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today he would not sue to block the implementation of the laws — at least not until he sees how the laws operate in effect. This announcement came as little surprise, after reports from earlier communication between DOJ and the governor. More significantly, <u><strong><mark>the Department of Justice also issued new guidance to prosecutors today calling for scaled back prosecution not just of users of marijuana, but also of distributors and growers complying with state law:</u></strong></mark> [T]he previous guidance drew a distinction between the serious ill and their caregivers, on the one hand, and large-scale, for-profit commercial enterprises, on the other, and advised that the latter continued to be appropriate targets for federal enforcement and prosecution. In drawing this distinction, the Department relied on the common-sense judgment that the size of a marijuana operation was a reasonable proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the federal enforcement priorities set forth above. As explained above, however, both the existence of a strong and effective state regulatory system and an operation’s compliance with such a system, may allay the threat that an operations’s size poses to federal enforcement interests. Accordingly, in exercising prosecutorial discretion, prosecutors should not consider the size or commercial nature of a marijuana operation alone as a proxy for assessing whether marijuana trafficking implicates the Department’s enforcement priorities listed above. Rather, <u><strong><mark>prosecutors should continue to review marijuana cases and on a case-by-case basis</mark> and weigh all available information and evidence, including, but not limited to, whether the operation is demonstrably <mark>in compliance with a strong and effective regulatory system.</mark> </u></strong>As the memo points out, <u><strong><mark>this is a change from DOJ’s previous position</mark>. </u></strong>When asked just last week about the administration’s position on marijuana, <u><strong>Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said, “While the prosecution of drug traffickers remains an important priority, the president and the administration believe that targeting individual marijuana users, especially those with serious illnesses and their caregivers, is not the best allocation of federal law enforcement resources.” <mark>Now, we can add state-compliant growers and distributors to that list who are not otherwise violating the federal government’s rules.</mark> </u></strong>This would ostensibly mean that prosecutors would no longer go after large medical marijuana dispensaries that have been viewed as models for state compliance, as they have on several previous occasions. </p>

1NC

CASE

AT: Federalism

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

No

Kurtz 9/12 -save-democrats-this-fall/>#SPS

Kurtz 9/12 <Howard, Fox, “Why Obama’s assault on ISIS probably won’t save the Democrats this fall,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/why-obamas-assault-on-isis-probably-wont-save-democrats-this-fall/>#SPS

People don’t usually vote on foreign policy unless we’re engaged in a full-fledged war. If the assault on ISIS doesn’t have that feel by November, most folks will do what they usually do by voting their pocketbooks and rendering a judgment on the incumbent.

People don’t usually vote on foreign policy unless we’re engaged in a full-fledged war. If the assault on ISIS doesn’t have that feel by November, most folks will do what they usually do by voting their pocketbooks and rendering a judgment on the incumbent.

People don’t usually vote on foreign policy unless we’re engaged in a full-fledged war. If the assault on ISIS doesn’t have that feel by November, most folks will do what they usually do by voting their pocketbooks and rendering a judgment on the incumbent.

<h4><strong>No</h4><p>Kurtz 9/12</strong> <Howard, Fox, “Why Obama’s assault on ISIS probably won’t save the Democrats this fall,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/12/why-obamas-assault-on-isis-probably-wont<u><strong>-save-democrats-this-fall/>#SPS</p><p><mark>People don’t usually vote on foreign policy unless we’re engaged in a full-fledged war. If the assault on ISIS doesn’t have that feel by November, most folks will do what they usually do by voting their pocketbooks and rendering a judgment on the incumbent.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NR

MT

1NR AT: Obama Foreign Policy

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

B.) Certainty --

<h4>B.) <u>Certainty</u> --</h4>

1NR

CP

AT: Perm Do The CP

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Pot is irrelevant- tons of alt causes

Natelson 14

Natelson 14 (Rob, Independence Institute's Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, 1-4-14, "Lessons for Federalism from Colorado's Pot Legalization" The American Thinker) www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/lessons_for_federalism_from_colorados_pot_legalization.html

From Colorado's marijuana "legalization" some federalism advocates draw a conclusion that the only way to restore constitutional limits is for constitutionalists to form alliances with hard core "progressives" in areas of common concern There are, however, at least two problems with this approach. the few areas of common concern are mostly very small and of limited importance. "Progressives" very rarely take a genuine pro-federalism position, and when they do, the issue is usually narrow. By any objective measure, marijuana legalization is small compared to massive programs like Obamacare.

From Colorado's legalization" some draw a conclusion that the only way to restore constitutional limits is for constitutionalists to form alliances with progressives the few areas of common concern are mostly very small and of limited importance. "Progressives" very rarely take a genuine pro-federalism position, and when they do, the issue is usually narrow. marijuana legalization is small compared to massive programs like Obamacare

From Colorado's marijuana "legalization" some federalism advocates draw a conclusion that is both (1) obvious and (2) wrong. The conclusion is that the only way to restore constitutional limits is for constitutionalists to form alliances with hard core "progressives" in areas of common concern. After all, wasn't it a right-and-left-wing coalition that successfully repealed Colorado's marijuana ban? There are, however, at least two problems with this approach. First, the few areas of common concern are mostly very small and of limited importance. "Progressives" very rarely take a genuine pro-federalism position, and when they do, the issue is usually narrow. By any objective measure, marijuana legalization is small POT-atoes compared to massive programs like Obamacare.

<h4>Pot is irrelevant- tons of alt causes</h4><p><strong>Natelson 14<u></strong> (Rob, Independence Institute's Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence, 1-4-14, "Lessons for Federalism from Colorado's Pot Legalization" The American Thinker) www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/lessons_for_federalism_from_colorados_pot_legalization.html</p><p><strong><mark>From Colorado's</mark> marijuana "<mark>legalization" some</mark> federalism advocates <mark>draw a conclusion</u></strong></mark> that is both (1) obvious and (2) wrong. The conclusion is <u><strong><mark>that the only way to restore constitutional limits is for constitutionalists to form alliances with</mark> hard core "<mark>progressives</mark>" in areas of common concern</u></strong>. After all, wasn't it a right-and-left-wing coalition that successfully repealed Colorado's marijuana ban? <u><strong>There are, however, at least two problems with this approach.</u></strong> First, <u><strong><mark>the few areas of common concern are mostly very small and of limited importance. "Progressives" very rarely take a genuine pro-federalism position, and when they do, the issue is usually narrow.</mark> By any objective measure,</u></strong> <u><strong><mark>marijuana legalization is small</u></strong></mark> POT-atoes <u><strong><mark>compared to massive programs like Obamacare</mark>.</p></u></strong>

1NC

CASE

AT: Federalism

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

First - “Resolved” means

re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\

: to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something) to make a definite decision to do something

to make a definite decision to do something

: to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something) : to make a definite and serious decision to do something That’s Merriam Webster 14 [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]

<h4>First - “Resolved” means </h4><p>re·solve verb \ri-ˈzälv, -ˈzȯlv also -ˈzäv or -ˈzȯv\</p><p><u><strong>: to find an answer or solution to (something) : to settle or solve (something)</p><p></u></strong>: <u><strong><mark>to make a definite</u></strong></mark> and serious <u><strong><mark>decision to do something</p><p></u></mark>That’s Merriam Webster 14 </strong>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved]</p>

1NR

CP

AT: Perm Do The CP

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

N

UMKC

2

Cal MS

Jake Justice

1AC - Marijuana Prohibition is Racist 1NC - Reeferendum Midterms (Dems Good - EPA) T-FW Cap K Mexico Econ DA 2NC - T-FW Cap K Case 1NR - Midterms DA Refeerendum CP 2NR - Cap K

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round2.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

GOP Majority would cut Obama EPA Regs

The Hill, 9/6

The Hill, 9/6

Republican Senate candidate Dan Sullivan blamed Obama and Senate Democrats for locking up the country's energy resources , vowing that a GOP-controlled Senate would be the best fix The Obama-Reid agenda has locked up America’s natural resources, burdened small businesses throughout the country with an avalanche of regulations and suffocated job growth through a complete disrespect for the rule of law He added that the Environmental Protection Agency, and Washington, D.C., are trying to "dictate how we manage our state-owned lands. That could all change, he explains, if voters put him, and fellow Republicans in charge If Republicans win the Senate in November, Sullivan says the GOP will make energy a priority. A Republican Senate would approve Keystone XL pipeline jobs, because Canada is our neighbor and ally," We’ll authorize more offshore development, because it’s good for coastal states and the rest of the country. We’ll seize the opportunity to expand our energy trade, because that will benefit our nation, and others who need energy – like Ukraine Republicans won't stop there, they will also work to block the administration's carbon pollution proposal for existing power plants, and other regulations the EPA is trying to finalize by next year

Sullivan blamed Obama and Senate Democrats for locking up the country's energy resources vowing that a GOP-controlled Senate would be the best fix He added that the E P A are trying to "dictate how we manage our state-owned lands That could all change if voters put Republicans in charge If Republicans win the Senate he GOP will make energy a priority Republicans will block the administration's carbon pollution proposal and other regulations the EPA is trying to finalize

[Laura Barron-Lopez, “Senate hopeful: GOP-majority would squash Obama's climate agenda” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/216827-senate-hopeful-gop-majority-would-squash-obamas-climate-agenda, CBE] Republican Senate candidate Dan Sullivan (Alaska) blamed President Obama and Senate Democrats for locking up the country's energy resources in the party's weekly address, vowing that a GOP-controlled Senate would be the best fix. Sullivan, who is challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) this year, worries for his three teenage daughters, who he claims won't be able to take advantage of the state's wealth of oil, natural gas, hydropower, and more, if the administration's regulatory agenda continues unchecked. "The Obama-Reid agenda has locked up America’s natural resources, burdened small businesses throughout the country with an avalanche of regulations and suffocated job growth through a complete disrespect for the rule of law," Sullivan said during the address on Saturday. He added that the Environmental Protection Agency, and Washington, D.C., are trying to "dictate how we manage our state-owned lands." That could all change, he explains, if voters put him, and fellow Republicans in charge. "The American Dream is resilient," he said. "All we need is new leadership in Washington to make it happen once again." If Republicans win the Senate in November, Sullivan says the GOP will make energy a priority. "A Republican Senate would approve Keystone XL pipeline jobs, because Canada is our neighbor and ally," Sullivan said. “We’ll authorize more offshore development, because it’s good for coastal states and the rest of the country. We’ll seize the opportunity to expand our energy trade, because that will benefit our nation, and others who need energy – like Ukraine," he added. Republicans won't stop there, they will also work to block the administration's carbon pollution proposal for existing power plants, and other regulations the EPA is trying to finalize by next year. Sullivan accused the administration and Democrats of being "stuck in the last century" tied to a system of "burdensome federal regulations" that is "stifling" the nation.

<h4><strong>GOP Majority would cut Obama EPA Regs</h4><p>The Hill, 9/6</p><p></strong>[Laura Barron-Lopez, “Senate hopeful: GOP-majority would squash Obama's climate agenda” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/216827-senate-hopeful-gop-majority-would-squash-obamas-climate-agenda, CBE]</p><p><u><strong>Republican Senate candidate Dan <mark>Sullivan</u></strong></mark> (Alaska) <u><strong><mark>blamed</u></strong></mark> President <u><strong><mark>Obama</u></strong></mark> <u><strong><mark>and</u></strong> <u><strong>Senate Democrats for locking up the country's energy resources</u></strong></mark> in the party's weekly address<u><strong>, <mark>vowing that a GOP-controlled Senate would be the best fix</u></strong></mark>. Sullivan, who is challenging Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) this year, worries for his three teenage daughters, who he claims won't be able to take advantage of the state's wealth of oil, natural gas, hydropower, and more, if the administration's regulatory agenda continues unchecked. "<u><strong>The Obama-Reid agenda has locked up America’s natural resources, burdened small businesses throughout the country with an avalanche of regulations and suffocated job growth through a complete disrespect for the rule of law</u></strong>," Sullivan said during the address on Saturday. <u><strong><mark>He added that the E</mark>nvironmental <mark>P</mark>rotection <mark>A</mark>gency, and Washington, D.C., <mark>are trying to "dictate how we manage our state-owned lands</mark>.</u></strong>" <u><strong><mark>That could all change</mark>, he explains, <mark>if voters put</mark> him, and fellow <mark>Republicans in charge</u></strong></mark>. "The American Dream is resilient," he said. "All we need is new leadership in Washington to make it happen once again." <u><strong><mark>If Republicans win the Senate</mark> in November, Sullivan says t<mark>he GOP will make energy a priority</mark>. </u></strong>"<u><strong>A Republican Senate would approve Keystone XL pipeline jobs, because Canada is our neighbor and ally,"</u></strong> Sullivan said. “<u><strong>We’ll authorize more offshore development, because it’s good for coastal states and the rest of the country. We’ll seize the opportunity to expand our energy trade, because that will benefit our nation, and others who need energy – like Ukraine</u></strong>," he added. <u><strong><mark>Republicans</mark> won't stop there, they <mark>will</mark> also work to <mark>block the administration's carbon pollution proposal</mark> for existing power plants, <mark>and other regulations the EPA is trying to finalize</mark> by next year</u></strong>. Sullivan accused the administration and Democrats of being "stuck in the last century" tied to a system of "burdensome federal regulations" that is "stifling" the nation.</p>

1NR

MT

1NR Internal Link Wall

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

N

UMKC

6

UCO SW

Brian Box

1AC Prostitution Feminist Standpoint 1NC T-FW Decrim CP Brothels PIC Midterms DA Cap K 2NC Case Cap 1NR Case Midterms 2NR Cap

ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round6.docx

BaSh

Baylor BaSh

An.....

Ba.....

Si.....

Sh.....

Baylor

Baylor

ndtceda14

NDT/CEDA 2014-15

cx

college

Cooperative federalism is resilient

Greve 2K (Michael, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University, 1987, “Against Cooperative Federalism” Mississippi Law Journal, 70 Miss. L.J. 557, Lexis)

Greve 2K (Michael, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University, 1987, “Against Cooperative Federalism” Mississippi Law Journal, 70 Miss. L.J. 557, Lexis)

Cooperative federalism is enormously resilient and self-stabilizing. The range of conflict within the system is defined by the participant-beneficiaries' fight over the terms of cooperation. State and local governments will complain about federal imposition; national interest groups and congressional patrons will complain about state shirking and non-compliance. Furor over unfunded mandates produces more money and less onerous federal conditions; interest group complaints leads to the re-categorization of federal programs Either way, the system returns to its bargaining equilibrium cooperative arrangements are virtually immune to political reform In Germany and in the United States, cooperative federalism came under challenge during periods of serious economic malaise and manifest civic alienation The record strongly suggests that cooperative federalism is impregnable even under those disadvantageous conditions.

Cooperative federalism is enormously resilient and self-stabilizing Furor over unfunded mandates produces more money and less onerous federal conditions; interest group complaints leads to the re-categorization of federal programs system returns to its bargaining equilibrium cooperative arrangements are virtually immune to political reform cooperative federalism came under challenge during periods of serious economic malaise and manifest civic alienation The record strongly suggests that cooperative federalism is impregnable even under those disadvantageous conditions.

Cooperative federalism is enormously resilient and, moreover, self-stabilizing. The range of conflict within the system is defined by the participant-beneficiaries' fight over the terms of cooperation. State and local governments will complain about unfunded mandates and federal imposition; national interest groups and their congressional patrons will complain about state shirking and non-compliance. Furor over unfunded mandates produces more money and less onerous federal conditions; interest group complaints over the states' failure to use federal block grants for their intended purposes leads to the re-categorization of federal programs. n150 Either way, the system returns to its bargaining equilibrium, typically at a higher level of aggregate spending. Under ordinary political conditions, cooperative arrangements are virtually immune to political reform. In Germany and in the United States, cooperative federalism came under challenge during periods of serious economic malaise and manifest civic alienation, coupled with exogenous shocks (re-unification and European integration in Germany's case, and the ascent of a determined, ideological administration in the United States). The record strongly suggests that cooperative federalism is impregnable even under those disadvantageous conditions.

<h4>Cooperative federalism is resilient</h4><p><strong>Greve 2K<u> (Michael, John G. Searle Scholar, American Enterprise Institute; Ph.D. (Government) Cornell University, 1987, “Against Cooperative Federalism” Mississippi Law Journal, 70 Miss. L.J. 557, Lexis)</p><p><mark>Cooperative federalism is enormously resilient and</u></strong></mark>, moreover, <u><strong><mark>self-stabilizing</mark>. The range of conflict within the system is defined by the participant-beneficiaries' fight over the terms of cooperation. State and local governments will complain</u></strong> <u><strong>about </u></strong>unfunded mandates and <u><strong>federal imposition; national interest groups and</u></strong> their <u><strong>congressional patrons will complain about state shirking and non-compliance. <mark>Furor over unfunded mandates produces more money and less onerous federal conditions; interest group complaints</u></strong></mark> over the states' failure to use federal block grants for their intended purposes <u><strong><mark>leads to the re-categorization of federal programs</u></strong></mark>. n150 <u><strong>Either way, the <mark>system returns to its bargaining equilibrium</u></strong></mark>, typically at a higher level of aggregate spending. Under ordinary political conditions, <u><strong><mark>cooperative arrangements are virtually immune to political reform</u></strong></mark>. <u><strong>In Germany and in the United States, <mark>cooperative federalism came under challenge during periods of serious economic malaise and manifest civic alienation</u></strong></mark>, coupled with exogenous shocks (re-unification and European integration in Germany's case, and the ascent of a determined, ideological administration in the United States). <u><strong><mark>The record strongly suggests that cooperative federalism is impregnable even under those disadvantageous conditions.</p></u></strong></mark>

1NC

CASE

AT: Federalism

./documents/ndtceda14/Baylor/BaSh/Baylor-Barron-Sheaff-Neg-UMKC-Round4.docx

N

UMKC

4

Kansas KY

Jacob Thompson

1AC Marijuana Hemp Enviro Federalism 1NC T-Hemp Spec Security K Midterms DA Reeferendum Mexico Econ 2NC Security K Reeferendum 1NR Mexico Econ Turn Midterms DA 2NR Midterms DA Reeferendum