Datasets:

tvergho

/

DebateCards

like 0

ceeb237f1a135ac09dcd25be843fa4e41270ad50d63fbb6aa64a69501b9e8fb9

Unchecked pandemics guarantee extinction.

Kiseong Kim et al. 21. Department of Bio and Brain Engineering, KAIST; R&D Center, BioBrain Inc.; Department of ICT Convergence System Engineering, Chonnam National University; Bio-Synergy Research Center; Moon Soul Graduate School of Future Strategy. “Network Analysis to Identify the Risk of Epidemic Spreading.” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 7, 7, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 01/2021, p. 2997

epidemics threaten human life we present a simulation experiment certain diseases can infect all nodes in human networks These lead to human extinction the Black Death smallpox SARS and Ebola affected a large population risk increases with mobility threatening humankind extinctive spread will infect every person previous studies made stochastic models However did not conduct quantitative assessment we consider various disease characteristics results reveal certain diseases lead to human extinction

epidemics , such as the Black Death and the Spanish flu, have threaten ed human life throughout history ; however, it is unclear if humans will remain safe from the sudden and fast spread of epidemic diseases the transmission characteristics of epidemics remain undiscovered we present a n epidemic simulation experiment revealing the relationship between epidemic parameters and pandemic risk certain diseases can infect all nodes in the human social networks these cause a pandemic when the average degree is larger than the threshold value. These diseases lead to human extinction The emergence of a pandemic is a human extinction event one of the global catastrophic risks in studies regarding the future several such as the Black Death Spanish flu smallpox SARS and Ebola have affected a large population throughout history. The risk of pandemics increases with an increase in population mobility threatening humankind It is essential to analyze the epidemic spread in society to minimize damage when the epidemic spreads to all nodes it can increase the pandemic risk We designed an epidemic simulation process We adapted the Monte Carlo method to determine the status of the transition Diseases causing extinctive spread are potential candidates of high pandemic risk extinctive spreading indicates disease will infect every person in the society Many previous studies have made stochastic SIR models to analyze the dynamics or stability of epidemic diseases However , they did not conduct a quantitative assessment of pandemic risk taking into account physical contact between people we consider various connectivity and disease characteristics The results reveal ed that certain infectious diseases can lead to extinction human extinction is possible Based on the simulation results we confirmed certain infectious diseases can lead to extinction identifying candidate diseases is crucial in addressing epidemic prevention activities

epidemics threaten human life throughout history unclear remain sudden fast spread of epidemic diseases characteristics undiscovered a simulation experiment certain can infect all nodes in the human social networks larger than the threshold lead to human extinction pandemic human extinction event catastrophic Black Death smallpox SARS Ebola large population increases mobility humankind society minimize damage nodes pandemic simulation process Monte Carlo method high pandemic risk infect every person in the society previous stochastic quantitative physical contact between people various disease reveal certain infectious diseases can lead to extinction human extinction simulation results confirmed certain can lead to extinction candidate crucial

['Several epidemics, such as the Black Death and the Spanish flu, have threatened human life throughout history; however, it is unclear if humans will remain safe from the sudden and fast spread of epidemic diseases. Moreover, the transmission characteristics of epidemics remain undiscovered. In this study, we present the results of an epidemic simulation experiment revealing the relationship between epidemic parameters and pandemic risk. To analyze the time-dependent risk and impact of epidemics, we considered two parameters for infectious diseases: the recovery time from infection and the transmission rate of the disease. Based on the epidemic simulation, we identified two important aspects of human safety with regard to the threat of a pandemic. First, humans should be safe if the fatality rate is below 100%. Second, even when the fatality rate is 100%, humans would be safe if the average degree of human social networks is below a threshold value. Nevertheless, certain diseases can potentially infect all nodes in the human social networks, and these diseases cause a pandemic when the average degree is larger than the threshold value. These results indicated that certain infectious diseases lead to human extinction and can be prevented by minimizing human contact. 1. Introduction The emergence of a pandemic is one of the various scenarios frequently discussed as a human extinction event, and it is listed as one of the global catastrophic risks in studies regarding the future [1,2,3]. In particular, several pandemics, such as the Black Death [4,5], Spanish flu [6], and those caused by smallpox [7], severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) [8], and Ebola [9], have affected a large population throughout history. The risk of pandemics increases with an increase in population mobility between cities, nations, and continents, thereby threatening humankind [10,11,12]. It is essential to analyze the epidemic spread in society to minimize the damage from epidemic disasters; however, extinctive epidemic spreading experiments have limitations in real-world situations, as they predict stochastic effects on the spread without considering the structure of human society. Network-based approaches have been proposed to overcome these limitations and perform epidemic spreading simulations by considering the network structure of numerous real-world connections [13,14,15]. These methods use various models of epidemic spreading, such as the susceptible–infectious–susceptible (SIS) [16,17,18], susceptible–infectious–recovered (SIR) [19,20,21], and Watts threshold models [22]. While these methods are mathematically convenient, they are epidemiologically unrealistic for various infections because they require exponentially distributed incubation and infectious periods [23,24,25]. Moreover, previous epidemic studies did not perform quantitative assessment of the pandemic risk depending on the network connectivity in individuals and fatality rate of various diseases [26]. In the present study, we applied an SIR epidemic model to a scale-free network with Monte Carlo simulation to identify the quantitative relationship between infectious diseases and human existence. Our fundamental hypothesis states that when the epidemic spreads to all nodes of the network and the fatality rate is 100%, it can increase the pandemic risk. To address this, we initially constructed a scale-free network to simulate a society. Moreover, for the epidemic spreading simulation, an SIR model was applied to the network to describe the immune state of an individual after infection. From the simulation study, we found that the mean degree of a scale-free network was an essential factor in determining whether epidemics threaten humans. This approach provides important insights into epidemic spreading analysis by investigating the relationship between epidemic and scale-free network parameters. Furthermore, it highlights the necessity of determining information flow during an epidemic. 2. Materials and Methods We designed an epidemic simulation process to identify the relationship between pandemic risk and network parameters. This study was performed in four steps (Figure 1): (i) generating a scale-free network model to reflect real-world conditions; (ii) applying an SIR model to the scale-free network for epidemic spreading simulations; (iii) adapting the Monte Carlo method to reflect the stochastic process in the node status of the SIR model; and (iv) iteratively performing simulation for every parameter set and analyzing the results. We have provided the source code and sample results of epidemic simulation in Supplementary Materials.', '', 'Figure 1. Overview of epidemic simulation process based on the Monte Carlo method. (A) We generated scale-free networks for a fixed population (N = 1,000,000) and various node degrees (k = 2, 5, 7, and 10). (B) Epidemic spreading was simulated by applying a susceptible–infectious–recovered (SIR) model to the scale-free network. We set the epidemic parameters, β and γd. β represents the spreading rate of epidemics, and γd is the reciprocal of γ and reflects the time interval between infection and recovery. Randomly, 0.05% of nodes were initially infected. (C) We adapted the Monte Carlo method to determine the status of the transition from the infection node to immunization node. Repeated simulations were performed until a steady state was achieved. (D) For every parameter set, 10,000 simulations were performed. 2.1. Network Generation Based on a Scale-Free Model We constructed a network model for the epidemic spreading simulation (Figure 1). The nodes and edges of the network represent people in the society and their physical contacts, respectively. We used a scale-free network model, which follows the preferential attachment property observed in numerous real-world networks, such as social networks, physical systems, and economic networks [27,28,29]. In the scale-free network, when a node is added to the network, its likelihood of connecting to existing nodes increases with an increase in the node’s degree. Hub nodes, which lead to fast and vast spreading of epidemics, exist. Two characteristic parameters, including N and k, affect the form of scale-free networks. The parameter N denotes all nodes in the network. In the real world, N indicates the whole population size. The parameter k is the average degree of the network, which determines the degree of the newly attached node for each step during network generation. Following the characteristics of the network model, we generated scale-free networks representing human contacts for epidemic spread. The scale-free network was generated by the Barabasi–Albert graph distribution, in which the network is constructed from a cycle graph with three vertices, followed by the addition of k edges at each construction step [30]. The k edges are randomly attached to the vertex based on the degree distribution of the vertex. After network generation, we investigated the degree distribution properties of the network (Figure 2). The results indicate that the degree distributions have similar tendency for networks with varying number of nodes and edges. This study constructed scale-free networks with the largest number of nodes considering computational complexity (N = 1,000,000). [FIGURE 2 OMITTED] Figure 2. Degree distribution of the scale-free network. We analyzed the degree distribution of the network based on the number of nodes (N) and mean degree (k). 2.2. Epidemic Spreading Based on the SIR Model For the epidemic spreading simulations, we applied an SIR model to the generated scale-free network. The classical SIR model can be expressed by the following nonlinear differential equations [21]: [EQUATIONS OMITTED] where S, I, and R represent susceptible, infected, and recovered compartments, respectively, in the whole population. S represents people who have not been infected yet but can be infected in future. I represents infected people who can spread the epidemic to susceptible people through physical contact. R denotes people who have recovered or died from the epidemic and who no longer participate in the epidemic spreading process. The sum of the S, I, and R values represents the whole population size N. Epidemics have two parameters in the SIR model, transmission rate (β) and recovery rate (γ), which arise from the basic reproduction number R0 (Figure 1B). The basic reproduction number is the number of infections caused by one infective node [31,32,33]. If the R0 is more than 1, the infection can spread in a population, whereas if R0 is less than 1, the infection cannot spread. We express the basic reproduction number as R0 = β/γ, where β represents the spreading rate of epidemics between infective nodes and adjacent susceptible nodes and γ represents the probability of recovery from infection [34]. We mainly used γd, which is the reciprocal of γ and reflects the time interval between infection and recovery. 2.3. Investigation of Epidemic Status Based on the Monte Carlo Method The epidemic simulation was performed for a time series event by constructing epidemic status matrix (z) to represent the status of the nth node at time step t. For each node, the value of epidemic status matrix at time step t can be 0, 1, or 2, indicating that a node is susceptible, infective, or recovered, respectively. We initially (t = 0) set every value of epidemic status matrix to 0 because all nodes are susceptible before the epidemic spreads. At the initial infection stage, randomly selected 0.05% of nodes were infected. At every time period, we performed immunization and observed the infection stages (Figure 3). [FIGURE 3 OMITTED] At the immunization stage, we identified infective nodes and determined whether these nodes would be recovered in the next time step. To calculate the transition probability of infected and recovered phenomena, the Monte Carlo method was applied [35,36]. When infection and recovery parameters are provided, it is possible to investigate whether a node transitions from an epidemic state to another state. To accomplish this, we compared the method revealing the change in each population in every compartment over time (Figure 4). [FIGURE 4 OMITTED] The final steady state of the epidemic spreading simulation model indicates the total number of casualties of the epidemic who either are dead or have recovered from the disease. Infective nodes at time t (zn [t] = 1) are transformed to recovered nodes at time t + 1 (zn [t + 1] = 2) when 1/γd is larger than a random real number between 0 and 1. We determined whether the neighbor nodes of the infection node would be infected by identifying susceptible nodes adjacent to the infective nodes at time t (zn [t] = 0, with the adjacent infective node) (Figure 5). When β is larger than a random real number between 0 and 1, a susceptible node becomes an infective node at time t + 1 (zn [t + 1] = 1); this scenario represents epidemic spread. For each time step, we recorded the number of susceptible, infective, and recovered nodes during epidemic spread. [FIGURE 5 OMITTED] 2.4. Simulation Parameters We carried out simulation trials for various mean degrees of networks (k = 2, 5, 7, and 10). Each network considered the following epidemic parameters: β ranges from 0.05 to 0.95 and γd ranges from 1 to 10. The Monte Carlo model was repeatedly simulated to observe saturation of the recovery process. Considering that the simulation pipeline contains random processes such as initial infection and Monte Carlo trials, we performed the simulation iteratively until the status of nodes remained unchanged. After simulation, time series data from every simulation were interpolated in the time domain. The fatality rate determines the ratio of deceased and recovered individuals in the final population [37,38,39]. If the fatality rate is below 100%, the recovered population contains both dead and recovered individuals. Such a situation does not always cause a pandemic. In this simulation, we assumed a 100% fatality rate. To accomplish this, we enumerated the recovered nodes as dead for considering the pandemic risk. 3. Results Through our method, we obtained epidemic spreading data with various network and epidemic parameter sets. In the present study, we focused on the case where the epidemic infects all nodes and defined this phenomenon as “extinctive spread”. Diseases causing extinctive spread are potential candidates of high pandemic risk. In the real world, extinctive spreading indicates that the disease will infect every person in the society. From the simulation data, we calculated the extinctive spread score by dividing the total number of simulation trials by the number of extinctive spread cases. Thereafter, we identified that the number of extinctive spread cases is mainly influenced by spreading speed, which is determined by β, γd, and k (Figure 6). [FIGURE 6 OMITTED] The extinctive spread region (brown area in Figure 6) is expanded as the value of mean degree of network (k) is increased, thereby indicating that the area of extinctive spread becomes noticeably wider in a dense network than in a sparse network. Thus, the more contact between people, the higher the risk of epidemics. Moreover, high γd and high β cause extinctive spread across a large region, indicating that the high spreading rate and short time interval between infection and recovery are risk factors of epidemic diseases. In contrast, the infective nodes recover before they transmit the disease to their neighbors in low β and low γd scenarios, thus disconnecting the network and preventing extinctive spread. This occurs because the infective nodes need more time to transmit the disease in low β and high γd scenarios. Therefore, the disease begins to subside due to a lack of new infective nodes. Furthermore, we investigated the range of β and γd for existing epidemics of the common cold [40,41] and fatal diseases, namely, cholera [42,43], Marburg [44,45], Ebola (Congo and Uganda) [46,47,48,49], SARS [50], and MERS [51] (Table 1). We selected diseases with relatively well-known epidemic parameters, such as average duration of infection and basic number of reproductions from previous studies. Transmission rates were calculated using the mean duration of infectious periods and basic reproduction numbers of the epidemics. Different studies reveal multiple values of infectious period and transmission rate for some of these diseases; we considered these values separately [40,41,42,43,46,47,48,49]. For example, the infectious period of a common cold is from 3 to 7 days and that of Ebola is 6.5 days. Next, we placed the possible regions of these epidemics as a disease band for various k values (colored lines in Figure 6). When k > 5, fatal diseases have an opportunity to cause a pandemic. Even when k = 5, diseases such as cholera and Ebola (Congo) can be threatening in regions of low γd and high, thus demonstrating that the knowledge of network parameters of the society and the characteristics of epidemic diseases can aid in quantifying the risk of epidemics. [TABLE 1 OMITTED] 4. Discussion Many previous studies have made stochastic SIR models to analyze the dynamics or stability of epidemic diseases. They investigated the distribution of susceptible, infected, and removed populations for specific epidemic disease spreading, such as cholera, SARS, Marburg, and MERS, based on mathematical modelling [52,53,54,55]. However, they did not conduct a quantitative assessment of pandemic risk taking into account physical contact between people. To solve this limitation, we performed epidemic spreading simulations by applying an SIR model to scale-free networks with Monte Carlo simulation. In the simulation, we consider various connectivity and disease characteristics on scale-free networks. For each network and epidemic parameter set, the probability of extinctive spread was calculated. The results revealed that certain infectious diseases can lead to extinction. Moreover, even if the disease band extends over the extinctive spread regions, it does not indicate that human extinction results from the disease, as the fatality rate is below 100%; however, in the case of 100% fatality, the disease can cause a human extinction event. The risk of infectious disease is influenced by the network structure. A dense network has a higher risk of spreading infectious disease than a sparse network, as we observed in the extinctive spreading maps. According to our results, when the average degree of human social networks is below the risk threshold, i.e., less than 4 in this study, human society is safe from an extinctive outbreak based on our knowledge regarding the epidemic parameters of the infectious disease. Nevertheless, in other cases, human extinction is possible. For example, if the population is 1,000,000 and there are 4 or more instances of physical contact between people, human extinction events may occur, depending on the fatality rate of the epidemics. Hence, physical contact between people is closely related to an extinction event of infectious diseases. Eventually, from a public health perspective, lowering the average contact level of society is an appropriate way to increase the robustness of strategies against the occurrence of extinction. In the real world, reducing network density can be accomplished by epidemic prevention activity, such as isolation and quarantine treatment. This action prevents epidemic risk to the society, thereby avoiding human extinction. Additional considerations may improve our analysis. First, large population size and various proportions of initial infective nodes were not considered in the experiments. We have confirmed that the result was consistent when the proportion of initial infective nodes was 0.05% of the total population; however, this can vary depending on the distinct proportion of initial infective nodes in a different population. To achieve robust results, we need to perform additional experiments for various parameters; however, we could not address this issue due to computational complexity. Second, we did not consider numerous known epidemic diseases. We calculated the transmission rates of epidemic diseases using the known infectious periods and reproduction numbers of the epidemics from evidence in the literature. In the present study, we only considered five epidemic diseases, since the information on infectious periods and reproduction numbers of diseases was mostly unavailable for other epidemic diseases. Third, this study only considers the SIR model on scale-free networks in epidemic simulation. Since the dynamics of epidemic diseases can be varied in different models or networks, it is important to experiment in various simulation environments to confirm the robustness of the results. Nevertheless, these limitations can be considered in future experiments or using improved computational methods. With these further improvements, our approach can be used as a computational tool to analyze the risk of epidemic diseases. 5. Conclusions In this study, we analyzed the risk of epidemic diseases by creating an epidemic simulation on a scale-free network. Based on the simulation results for various epidemic parameters, we confirmed that certain infectious diseases can lead to extinction and can be prevented by minimizing human contact. We believe that identifying potential candidate diseases that may lead to human extinction is crucial in addressing epidemic prevention activities such as quarantine.']

[(8, 21)]

ndtceda

Emory-KeRa-Neg-Kathryn-Klassic-Round-6.docx

Emory

KeRa

2c12f779af70ee7e5e54d6b53b170a22a7df891f9beadc841d96c1d6fc4a4709

Tacitly accepting their method despite its lack of ties to material resistance strengthens power.

George Rogakos & Alexandra Law 09, Assistant Professor of Law at Carleton University; PhD, Legal Studies, Carleton University, “Risk, Realism and the Politics of Resistance,” Critical Sociology, Vol. 35, No. 1, pg. 79-103

everyday resistance reaffirm the subject’s dignity this causes problem why subversive ‘ assertions of self ’ should bring empowerment produce no material benefits fails to tell us about false consciousness ignores material conditions absent a broader political struggle powerlessness is learned practices that neither alter material conditions nor directly challenge broad structures are the stuff out of which power is made celebrating esistance fail to alter broader power relations or material conditions do not differentiate between practices that reproduce power and those that alter power. t is necessary to do more speak to , or engage with , power engender broader changes act that may be considered ‘ resistant ’ is incorporated without conflict political non-prescription attitudes described as resistant are, absorbed by those who govern Resistance as an oppositional force inaccurate understanding of ower reinforce domination

the ‘justification for treating everyday practices as significant’ are concerned with proving people are not ‘ duped ’ by their surroundings. At the level of consciousness, subjects ‘are ironic , critical , realistic , even sophisticated ’ But theorists have made similar arguments without resorting to stories of everyday resistance in order to do so everyday resistance on a discursive level is said to reaffirm the subject’s dignity . But this too causes a problem they query why subversive ‘ assertions of self ’ should bring empowerment when they produce no greater material benefits or changes in relational power everyday resistance fails to tell us any more about so-called false consciousness than was already known and ignores the role of material conditions in helping to shape identity absent a broader political struggle or chance at effective resistance powerlessness is learned out of the accumulated experiences of futility and entrapment practices that neither alter material conditions nor directly challenge broad structures are nevertheless considered the stuff out of which power is made and remade Arguing against celebrating forms of r esistance that fail to alter broader power relations or material conditions is recognizing the continued ‘ real ’ existence of identifiable , powerful groups everyday forms of resistance are not as worthy of the label as those acts which bring about lasting social change a locally focused vision of power and identity denies the possibility of opposing domination at the level of ‘ constructs ’ celebratory accounts of everyday resistance do not differentiate between practices that reproduce power and those that alter power. [The former] might involve pressing that power to become more adept at domination or to dominate differently , or it might mean precluding alternative acts that would more successfully challenge power [I] t is necessary to do more than show that such discursive acts speak to , or engage with , power . It must also be demonstrated that such acts add up to or engender broader changes some of the acts of everyday resistance may in the real world , through their absorption into mechanisms of power , reinforce the localized domination that they supposedly oppose what makes governmentality work is the noncompliance of subjects Resistance plays the role of continuously provoking extensions , revisions and refinements of those same practices which it confronts critique whose analysis ends at the discursive production of noncompliance is a resistance that almost invariably helps power to work better an act that may be considered ‘ resistant ’ is incorporated without conflict into an eminently preferable , ‘ forward-looking ’ solution within the logic of risk management In this context of theory lauded for its political non-prescription the acts or attitudes described as resistant are, in the end , absorbed by those who govern . Resistance as an oppositional force – that pushes against or has the potential to take power – is theoretically and politically neutralized . In the neutralization process, power is reproduced everyday resistance relies on an inaccurate understanding of p ower , and acts of resistance which supposedly emancipate actually may reinforce domination these demand the same thing : to know what is really going on , to get an adequate grasp of the social

everyday practices duped ironic critical realistic sophisticated without everyday resistance reaffirm the subject’s dignity problem query assertions of self empowerment no greater material benefits changes in relational power fails false consciousness already known ignores material conditions broader political struggle effective resistance powerlessness is learned accumulated experiences of futility entrapment alter material conditions directly challenge broad structures made remade against fail to alter broader power relations material conditions recognizing real identifiable powerful groups not as worthy lasting social change locally focused vision denies the possibility constructs do not differentiate reproduce alter become more adept at domination dominate differently precluding alternative acts more successfully challenge power necessary to do more speak to engage with must also be demonstrated add up to engender broader changes may real world absorption into mechanisms of power reinforce the localized domination supposedly oppose makes governmentality work noncompliance continuously provoking extensions revisions refinements same practices ends discursive production of noncompliance almost invariably helps power to work better resistant incorporated without conflict eminently preferable forward-looking lauded political non-prescription acts attitudes described as resistant in the end absorbed by those who govern oppositional force pushes against take power theoretically politically neutralized power is reproduced inaccurate understanding actually may reinforce domination same thing know what is really going on adequate grasp

['McCann and March (1996: 244) next set out the ‘justification for treating everyday practices as significant’ suggested by the above literature. First, the works studied are concerned with proving people are not ‘duped’ by their surroundings. At the level of consciousness,\xa0subjects ‘are ironic, critical, realistic, even sophisticated’\xa0(1996: 225). But McCann and March remind us that\xa0earlier radical\xa0or Left\xa0theorists have made similar arguments without resorting to stories of everyday resistance\xa0in order to do so. Second,\xa0everyday resistance\xa0on a discursive level is said to reaffirm the subject’s dignity. But this too causes a problem for the authors because they: ', 'query why\xa0subversive ‘assertions of self’\xa0should bring dignity and psychological empowerment when they\xa0produce no\xa0greater\xa0material\xa0benefits or\xa0changes\xa0in relational power\xa0… By standards of ‘realism’, … subjects given to avoidance and ‘lumping it’ may be the most sophisticated of all. (1996: 227) ', 'Thus, their criticism boils down to two main points. First,\xa0everyday resistance\xa0fails to tell us any more\xa0about\xa0so-called\xa0false consciousness\xa0than was already known\xa0among earlier Left theorists; and second, that\xa0a focus on discursive resistance\xa0ignores\xa0the role of\xa0material conditions\xa0in helping to shape identity. ', 'Indeed,\xa0absent a broader political struggle\xa0or chance at effective resistance it would seem to the authors that ‘powerlessness is learned out of the accumulated experiences of futility and entrapment’\xa0(1996: 228). A lamentable prospect, but nonetheless a source of closure for the governmentality theorist. In his own meta-analysis of studies on resistance, Rubin (1996: 242) finds that ‘discursive practices\xa0that\xa0neither alter\xa0material\xa0conditions nor\xa0directly\xa0challenge\xa0broad\xa0structures\xa0are nevertheless’ considered\xa0by the authors he examined ‘the stuff out of which power is made\xa0and remade’. If this sounds familiar, it is because the authors studied by McCann, March and Rubin found their claims about everyday resistance on the same understanding of power and government employed by postmodern theorists of risk.\xa0Arguing against celebrating forms of resistance that fail to alter broader power relations or material conditions is, in part,\xa0recognizing the continued ‘real’ existence of identifiable, powerful groups\xa0(classes).\xa0In downplaying the worth of everyday forms of resistance\xa0(arguing that these acts are not as worthy of the label as those acts which bring about lasting social change),\xa0Rubin appears to be taking issue with a locally focused vision of power\xa0and identity\xa0that denies the possibility of opposing domination at the level of ‘constructs’\xa0such as class. ', 'Rubin (1996: 242) makes another argument about celebratory accounts of everyday resistance that bears consideration: ', '[T]hese authors\xa0generally\xa0do not differentiate between practices that reproduce power and those that alter power. [The former] might involve pressing that power to become more adept at domination or to dominate differently, or it might mean precluding alternative acts that would more successfully challenge power. … [I]t is necessary to do more\xa0than show that such discursive acts speak to, or engage with,\xa0power. It must also be demonstrated that such acts add up to or engender broader changes. ', 'In other words,\xa0some of the acts of\xa0everyday resistance may\xa0in the real world, through their absorption into mechanisms of power,\xa0reinforce\xa0the\xa0localized domination\xa0that they supposedly oppose.\xa0The implications of this argument can be further clarified when we study the way ‘resistance’ is dealt with in a risk society.', 'Risk theorists already understand that every administrative system has holes which can be exploited by those who learn about them. That is what makes governmentality work: the supposed governor is in turn governed – in part through the noncompliance of subjects (Foucault, 1991a; Rose and Miller, 1992). For example, where employees demonstrate unwillingness to embrace technological changes in the workplace, management consultants can create: ', 'a point of entry, but also a ‘problem’ that their ‘packages’ are designed to resolve. … In short, consultants readily constitute certain forms of conduct as ‘resistance to technology’ as this gives them some purchase on its reform by identifying a space in which expertise can be brought to bear in the exercise of power. Resistance consequently plays the role of continuously provoking extensions, revisions and refinements of those same practices which it confronts. (Knights and Vurdubakis, 1994: 80) ', 'This appears to be a very different kind of resistance from that contemplated by Rubin, but perhaps not so different from that of the authors whom he and McCann and March critique: those whose analysis ends at the discursive production of noncompliance. Instead, the above account is of a resistance that almost invariably helps power to work better. A conclusion in the present day that ominously foreshadows the futuristic, dystopic risk assemblage described by Bogard (1996). ', 'Another example of the ‘resolution’ of resistance proposed above is the institution of a tool library described by Shearing (2001: 204–5). In this parable, a business deals with the issue of tool theft on the part of workers by installing a ‘lending library’ of tools instead of engaging in vigorous prosecution and jeopardizing worker morale. While the parable is meant to indicate a difference between actuarial and more traditional (moral) forms of justice, it also demonstrates how an act that may be considered ‘resistant’ is incorporated without conflict into the workplace loss-prevention scheme – an eminently preferable, ‘forward-looking’ solution within the logic of risk management. The same is possible in the case of more discursive forms of resistance. If I do not see myself as a Guinness man, for example, market researchers will do their best to adapt Guinness to the way I do see myself (Miller and Rose, 1997). The end result, of course, is that I purchase the beer. As manifested in a form of justice (Shearing and Johnston, 2005), it always consolidates, tempers emotions, cools the analysis, reconciles factions, and always relentlessly moves forward, assimilating as it grows. In this sense, therefore, Bogard’s ‘social science fiction’ actually pre-supposes and logically extends Shearing’s (2001) rather cheery and benevolent rendering of risk thinking. In this context of governmentality theory – as self-described and lauded for its political non-prescription by its own pundits – the acts or attitudes described as resistant are, in the end, absorbed by those who govern. Resistance as an oppositional force – that pushes against or has the potential to take power – is theoretically and politically neutralized. In the neutralization process, power is reproduced. ', 'So, along with McCann and March’s observations that everyday resistance adds little to our understanding of false consciousness and that it denies the role of material factors in shaping identity, we can add Rubin’s two main criticisms of everyday resistance: it relies on an inaccurate understanding of power, and acts of resistance which supposedly emancipate actually may reinforce domination. All four of these criticisms demand the same thing: to know what is really going on, to get an adequate grasp of the social. ']

[(7, 16), (27, 33)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-DiGa-Aff-Shirley-Round-3.docx

Kentucky

DiGa

36fc416513839b2c6e221a415741c5827e44dd3b241579c1ae55823975b838d8

3---Denying the merger would be just as controversial. No reason to flip.

Sandra Erwin 21, reporter for Space News, 9/1/21, “Bipartisan group of lawmakers presses DoD to back Lockheed-Aerojet merger,” https://spacenews.com/bipartisan-group-of-lawmakers-presses-dod-to-back-lockheed-aerojet-merger/

13 members of Congress argue DoD should support Lockheed ’s acquisition nine Republican four Dem s say acquisition “is necessary to our defense base The missive comes amid speculation sale will be challenged by antitrust Khan expressed concerns FTC are currently reviewing 13 lawmakers make the case DoD need more advanced engines

A group of 13 members of Congress in a letter argue that DoD should support Lockheed ’s acquisition of Aerojet The letter was signed by nine Republican and four Dem ocratic House member s The letter say s acquisition “is necessary to ensure that our defense industrial base is on the strongest footing possible The missive from lawmakers comes amid speculation the sale will be challenged by antitrust regulators Khan expressed concerns about vertical mergers where corporations seeks to acquire a major supplier FTC and the Department of Justice are currently reviewing the merger and could move to block the transaction The 13 lawmakers make the case DoD will need more advanced rocket engines to combat strategic missiles Aerojet would have more resources and therefore be in a stronger position to provide next-generation technologies Aerojet is the last standalone rocket propulsion manufacturer of any appreciable size,” the lawmakers point out

13 members of Congress DoD should support Lockheed Aerojet Dem s say the sale will be challenged by antitrust regulators

['A group of 13 members of Congress in a letter argue that DoD should support Lockheed Martin’s proposed $4.4 billion acquisition of rocket engine manufacturer Aerojet Rocketdyne.', 'The Aug. 31 letter to Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was signed by nine Republican and four Democratic House members from Arkansas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, California and Colorado — states where Lockheed Martin and Aerojet Rocketdyne currently operate. ', 'The letter, a copy of which was obtained by SpaceNews, says the proposed acquisition “is necessary to ensure that our defense industrial base is on the strongest footing possible to enable the continued research, development and manufacture of leading-edge rocket propulsion.”', 'The latest missive from lawmakers comes amid speculation that the sale of Aerojet to Lockheed Martin will be challenged by antitrust regulators. ', 'In an Aug. 6 letter, Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan expressed concerns about vertical mergers where corporations seeks to acquire a major supplier.', 'The FTC and the Department of Justice are currently reviewing the merger and could move to block the transaction if they determine that the combination of companies substantially lessens competition or creates a monopoly. DoD also weighs in on the national security implications of the acquisition.', 'The 13 lawmakers make the case that DoD will need more advanced rocket engines to combat threats like tactical and strategic missiles developed by rival nations. Aerojet would have more resources and therefore be in a stronger position to provide next-generation technologies under Lockheed Martin than as a independent company, the letter argues. ', '“Aerojet Rocketdyne is the last standalone rocket propulsion manufacturer of any appreciable size,” the lawmakers point out.', '', '']

[(7, 15)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-Shirley-Round4.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Aff-Shirley-Round4.docx

6c8537a935584c5cdc6e60989716d0e9e5de2c0d896b06ab5425b98f6325353a

War is the overriding access point---it makes violence inevitable and avoidance solves the case by freeing resources for broader transformation

Horgan 12 – John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology, 2012, The End of War, Chapter 5, Kindle p. 1600-1659

war causes inequality and scarcity as much as it stems from them War is not a product of gender or any single cause Rather, war sustained other injustices once we escape we will have more resources to devote to other problems which war exacerbates There is no single way to peace , but peace is the way to solve many other problems Those who want to the world better should make abolishing war priority, because peace can bring other changes

there seem to be no conditions that, in and of themselves, inoculate a society against militarism war causes economic inequality and scarcity of resources as much as it stems from them War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender , innate aggression, or any other single cause , although all of these influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes Rather, war has fueled and sustained these and other injustices If we want peace badly enough, we can have it, once we have escape d from the shadow of war , we will have more resources to devote to other problems that plague us, like economic injustice, poor health, and environmental destruction, which war often exacerbates . There is no single way to peace , but peace is the way to solve many other problems . research yields one essential lesson. Those of us who want to make the world a better place—more democratic, equitable, healthier, cleaner— should make abolishing the invention of war our priority, because peace can help bring about many of the other changes we seek . This formula turns on its head the old social activists’ slogan: “If you want peace, work for justice If you want justice, work for peace If you want less pollution, more money for healthcare and education, an improved legal and political system—work for peace

no single way to peace way to solve many other problems abolishing the invention of war

['Throughout this book, I’ve examined attempts by scholars to identify factors especially conducive for peace. But there seem to be no conditions that, in and of themselves, inoculate a society against militarism. Not small government nor big government. Not democracy, socialism, capitalism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, nor secularism. Not giving equal rights to women or minorities nor reducing poverty. The contagion of war can infect any kind of society. ', 'Some scholars, like the political scientist Joshua Goldstein, find this conclusion dispiriting. Early in his career Goldstein investigated economic theories of war, including those of Marx and Malthus. He concluded that war causes economic inequality and scarcity of resources as much as it stems from them. Goldstein, a self-described “pro-feminist,” then set out to test whether macho, patriarchal attitudes caused armed violence. He felt so strongly about this thesis that he and his wife limited their son’s exposure to violent media and contact sports. ', 'But by the time he finished writing his 522-page book War and Gender in 2001, Goldstein had rejected the thesis. He questioned many of his initial assumptions about the causes of war. He never gave credence to explanations involving innate male aggression—war breaks out too sporadically for that—but he saw no clear-cut evidence for non-biological factors either. “War is not a product of capitalism, imperialism, gender, innate aggression, or any other single cause, although all of these influence wars’ outbreaks and outcomes,” Goldstein writes. “Rather, war has in part fueled and sustained these and other injustices.” He admits that all his research has left him “somewhat more pessimistic about how quickly or easily war may end.” ', 'But here is the upside of this insight: if there are no conditions that in and of themselves prevent war, there are none that make peace impossible, either. This is the source of John Mueller’s optimism, and mine. If we want peace badly enough, we can have it, no matter what kind of society we live in. The choice is ours. And once we have escaped from the shadow of war, we will have more resources to devote to other problems that plague us, like economic injustice, poor health, and environmental destruction, which war often exacerbates. ', 'The Waorani, whose abandonment of war led to increased trade and intermarriage, are a case in point. So is Costa Rica. In 2010, this Central American country was ranked number one out of 148 nations in a “World Database of Happiness” compiled by Dutch sociologists, who gathered information on the self-reported happiness of people around the world. Costa Rica also received the highest score in another “happiness” survey, carried out by an American think tank, that factored in the nation’s impact on the environment. The United States was ranked twentieth and 114th, respectively, on the surveys. Instead of spending on arms, over the past half century Costa Rica’s government invested in education, as well as healthcare, environmental conservation, and tourism, all of which helped make the country more prosperous, healthy, and happy. There is no single way to peace, but peace is the way to solve many other problems. ', 'The research of Mueller, Goldstein, Forsberg, and other scholars yields one essential lesson. Those of us who want to make the world a better place—more democratic, equitable, healthier, cleaner—should make abolishing the invention of war our priority, because peace can help bring about many of the other changes we seek. This formula turns on its head the old social activists’ slogan: “If you want peace, work for justice.” I say instead, “If you want justice, work for peace.” If you want less pollution, more money for healthcare and education, an improved legal and political system—work for peace. ', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-NDT%20Districts-Round2.docx

Kentucky

AdKi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kentucky/AdKi/Kentucky-Adam-Kiihnl-Neg-NDT%2520Districts-Round2.docx

d6491f8dd69ac917286754ab828946df82facb71773603ae2be115aa07c33862

Private, start-up firms key to innovation – public innovation fails.

Hemphill & Wu ’20 [C. Scott; Moses H. Grossman Professor of Law @ New York University School of Law; and Tim; Julius Silver Professor of Law, Science and Technology @ Columbia Law School; “Nascent Competitors,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 168(7), p. 1879-1910; AS]

nascent competitor is Innovation take the form of technical progress business models competition is valuable because entrant's product represent advance an increases pressure on the incumbent innovate in response also opens door to further entry competition can lower the price disruptive innovations come out of small firms Bell Apple smaller firms transform the industry Bell's telephone did not improve the telegraph, but replaced it displace an incumbent through paradigm shift for example software Nascent competition important in technological change

a nascent competitor is an innovator Innovation can take the form of technical progress or new business models that better serve consumer needs Protecting innovation is important because new products and services drive growth competition is valuable because the entrant's product may represent a real advance an d because the entrant increases pressure on the incumbent to innovate in anticipation or response Competition also opens the door to further entry in this and other businesses. Finally competition can benefit consumers by lower ing the price paid for these innovations small innovative firms have played important role in innovation a significant number of disruptive innovations have come out of very small firms with new technologies unproven at the time: examples include Bell Telephone RCA, MCI, Genentech, Apple , Netscape, and dozens of others There is competitive significance of the big innovations at the smaller firms , for they also represent competitive entry, and completely transform the industry , unproven innovators are a key source of disruptive innovation Bell's telephone did not improve the telegraph, but replaced it , or the impact of Apple on the computing industry nascent competitors offer fresh competition for the market They displace an incumbent through paradigm shift for example software or decoding a genome Nascent competition tends to be important in industries marked by rapid innovation and technological change Software, pharmaceuticals mobile e-commerce search, and social network s

innovator technical progress business models important growth valuable real advance anticipation response further entry lower ing the price paid small innovative firms disruptive innovations very small firms competitive significance smaller firms completely transform disruptive innovation replaced paradigm shift software genome be important technological change

["Innovation. First, a nascent competitor is an innovator. Innovation can take the form of technical progress or new business models that better serve consumer needs. Protecting the fruits of innovation is important because new products and services drive economic growth. Such competition is valuable both because the entrant's product may represent a real advance and because the entrant increases the pressure on the incumbent to innovate in anticipation or response. 29 Competition also opens the door to further entry in this and other businesses. Finally, and perhaps most obviously, competition can benefit consumers by lowering the price paid for these innovations.", 'Over the last century and a half, small, innovative firms have played a particularly important role in the process of innovation and competition. This is not to discount the important history of innovation at big firms with large research laboratories, such as Bell Labs, Xerox PARC, and research labs at General Electric and Merck.30 However, over the same period, a significant number of disruptive innovations-those that transform industry-have come out of very small firms with new technologies unproven at the time: examples include the Bell Telephone Company, RCA, MCI, Genentech, Apple, Netscape, and dozens of others.31', "There is a particular competitive significance of the big innovations at the smaller firms, for they also represent competitive entry, and sometimes completely transform the industry.32 New, unproven innovators are a key source of disruptive innovation.33 Consider that Bell's telephone did not improve the telegraph, but replaced it, or the impact of Apple's personal computer on the computing industry. As this suggests, nascent competitors can hold the promise of offering fresh competition for the market, not just in the market. They have the capacity to displace an incumbent through a paradigm shift-for example, a new platform for developing software or decoding a genome. Nascent competition tends to be important in industries marked by rapid innovation and technological change. Software, pharmaceuticals, mobile telephony, e-commerce, search, and social network services are leading examples."]

[(0, 17)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Aff-2%20-%20Harvard-Doubles.docx

Dartmouth

ShVe

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Dartmouth/ShVe/Dartmouth-Shankar-Vergho-Aff-2%2520-%2520Harvard-Doubles.docx

e5849f690f3e755a791748908f713e93ff3ee1f461df1769d521b1df0051c65e

Super AI Outweighs other risks categorically---even at 1% probability.

Emile P. Torres 22, holds a master's degree in neuroscience from Brandeis University, PhD candidate at Leibniz Universität Hannover, in Germany, former Affiliate Scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, and former Visiting Scholar at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, “Would "artificial superintelligence" lead to the end of life on Earth? It's not a stupid question”, https://www.salon.com/2022/08/06/would-artificial-superintelligence-lead-to-the-end-of-life-on-earth-its-not-a-stupid-question/

An artificial superintelligence would be smarter than any possible human in every cognitive domain the most significant event in history a plausible default outcome is existential catastrophe Even if the probability is low the probability of total annihilation would yield a sky-high risk. ASI could obliterate the entire biosphere the risk is not just an issue of whether humanity survives but all earthly life

a serious threat comes from artificial intelligence there are risks arising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence An artificial superintelligence would by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest such as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on it will be the most significant event in human history : Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself What would happen? would the ASI promptly destroy us? a plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe Even if the probability of such arguments being correct is low a risk is standardly as the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences since the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability would yield a sky-high risk. the very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of our species also lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire biosphere . the risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an environmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an environmental issue that concerns all earthly life a threat that could harm every creature on the planet.

serious threat exceed human levels general intelligence superintelligence any possible human being every cognitive domain of interest most significant event in human history more clever destroy us? plausible default outcome existential catastrophe Even if the probability low probability total annihilation would yield a sky-high risk. extinction obliterate the entire biosphere environmental risk. humanity all earthly life harm every creature on the planet.

['Yet another serious threat comes from artificial intelligence, or AI. In the near-term, AI systems like those sold by IBM, Microsoft, Amazon and other tech giants could\xa0\xa0due to gender and racial biases. According to a paper co-authored by\xa0, the former Google employee who\xa0\xa0"after criticizing its approach to minority hiring and the biases built into today\'s artificial intelligence systems," facial recognition software\xa0\xa0"less accurate at identifying women and people of color, which means its use can end up discriminating against them." These are very real problems affecting large groups of people that require urgent attention.', 'But there are also longer-term risks, as well, arising from the possibility of algorithms that exceed human levels of general intelligence. An artificial superintelligence, or ASI, would by definition be smarter than any possible human being in every cognitive domain of interest, such as abstract reasoning, working memory, processing speed and so on. Although there is no obvious leap from current "deep-learning" algorithms to ASI, there is a good case to make that the creation of an ASI is not a matter of if but when: Sooner or later, scientists will figure out how to build an ASI, or figure out how to build an AI system that can build an ASI, perhaps by modifying its own code.', 'When we do this, it will be the most significant event in human history: Suddenly, for the first time, humanity will be joined by a problem-solving agent more clever than itself. What would happen? Would paradise ensue? Or would the ASI promptly destroy us?', 'I believe we should take the arguments\xa0\xa0"a plausible default outcome of the creation of machine superintelligence is existential catastrophe" very seriously. Even if the probability of such arguments being correct is low, a\xa0risk\xa0is standardly\xa0\xa0as the probability of an event multiplied by its consequences. And since the consequences of total annihilation would be enormous, even a low probability (multiplied by this consequence) would yield a sky-high risk.', 'Even more, the very same arguments for why an ASI could cause the extinction of\xa0our\xa0species\xa0also\xa0lead to the conclusion that it could obliterate the entire\xa0biosphere. Fundamentally, the risk posed by artificial superintelligence is an\xa0environmental risk. It is not just an issue of whether humanity survives or not, but an\xa0environmental\xa0issue that concerns all earthly life, which is why I have been calling for an Extinction Rebellion-like movement to form around the dangers of ASI — a threat that, like climate change, could potentially harm every creature on the planet.']

[(9, 18)]

ndtceda

Emory-GiKe-Neg-kentucky-Octas.docx

Emory

GiKe

3c1d014510b44e0d35358c82cf5f8b18b718e4c2ce4f0f534e506aea0c326c9f

Aggression and politics make unilateral changes uniquely likely to spur prolif.

Lanoszka 23 (Alexander Lanoszka: Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo, 5-10-2023, “Nuclear Weapons, Military Alliances, and the Fall-Out of the Russo-Ukrainian War,” Japan Up Close, https://japanupclose.web-japan.org/policy/p20230510_1.html)

Ukraine reignited concerns about aggression amongst allies in East Asia countries might reconsider value of nuc s A security guarantee force adversaries to think twice Allies have reasons not to seek In So Ko what stirred interest was security commitments were broken . Nixon’s unexpected decision was evidence the U S was withdrawing allies would be evaluating guarantees with scrutiny if the U S weakens commitments in a manner abrupt and unilateral , allies might think nuc s offer a valid alternative weariness of engagement abroad in U.S. politic could produce alliance adjustments .

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine upended the international security environment. reignited concerns about territorial aggression amongst treaty allies they might be next such as in East Asia , war-making suggests norms of territorial integrity are not as strong as once believed. China might be drawing its own lessons insecurity has occasioned reflection on military alliances and nuclear proliferation. Ukraine is only a partner rather than a formal member . because countries might be worried about being the next to come under attack, they might reconsider the value of nuc lear weapon s in a way that might have been politically unacceptable not long ago. Being within a military alliance is better than being without. A received security guarantee could force adversaries to think twice Allies have reasons not to seek no state can ever be entirely sure What is the empirical record? Most treaty allies do not have a nuclear weapons arsenal. Only Britain and France various treaty allies undertook activities that were suggestive of an interest in nuclear weapons South Korea had one such In cases like So uth Ko rea what stirred interest was a sense that received security commitments were broken . For Seoul Nixon’s unexpected decision to withdraw the 7th Infantry was powerful evidence the U nited S tates was withdrawing from East Asia As concerns intensify about territorial aggression even treaty allies would be evaluating security guarantees with greater scrutiny if the U nited S tates weakens international commitments , especially in a manner that is abrupt and unilateral , affected allies might be so alarmed as to think nuc lear weapon s offer a valid alternative that might be worth pursuing. the renewal of isolationist sentiment and a weariness of engagement abroad in the U.S. body politic could produce a president willing and able to make alliance adjustments .

treaty allies next partner formal member reconsider nuc s not to seek South Korea So uth Ko rea broken U S withdrawing East Asia intensify scrutiny U S abrupt unilateral nuc s valid alternative weariness of engagement abroad alliance adjustments

['', 'Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has upended the international security environment. Beyond the trauma and damage that this invasion has caused for Ukrainians, Russia’s military aggression has reignited concerns about territorial aggression amongst many of United States’ own treaty allies, especially those in Europe. If Russia were to succeed, then they might be next in its crosshairs. For those U.S. allies further afield, such as those in East Asia, Russia’s war-making suggests that norms of territorial integrity are perhaps not as strong as once believed. China might be drawing its own lessons for any sort of contingency involving Taiwan or some other dispute with its neighbors.', 'The consequent insecurity has thus occasioned some reflection on the connection between military alliances and nuclear proliferation. After all, Ukraine is only a partner to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather than a formal member. Partly because it does not receive any security commitments like that expressed in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, Ukraine fights Russia alone. Had it been a member of NATO, as many advocate it should be, perhaps Russia would have been deterred from launching its assault on the first place. Moreover, Ukraine disavowed nuclear weapons in the early 1990s to have good standing with the international community and to receive promises regarding its own territorial integrity. Although it never had a proper nuclear deterrent, its brief inheritance of nuclear weapons following the breakup of the Soviet Union has led some observers to believe that Ukraine’s nonproliferation commitments proved to be mistaken. No country possessing nuclear weapons has been the victim of such violence of the sort that Ukraine has been suffered lately.', 'These debates feature major counterfactuals, but at the heart of the matter is a sense that military alliances and nuclear proliferation bear some deep connection to one another. And indeed, because countries might be worried about being the next to come under major attack, they might reconsider the value of nuclear weapons in a way that might have been politically unacceptable not long ago. In a world of self-help, even treaty allies might come to see nuclear weapons as their best guarantee. And if more countries get nuclear weapons, the likelihood of their use rises accordingly.', 'As I show in my book Atomic Assurance, however, the relationship between military alliances and nuclear weapons is hardly linear. Being within a military alliance—with the United States no less—is often better than being without. A received security guarantee involving a nuclear-armed power could force potential adversaries to think twice about attacking, especially if it runs the risk of triggering retaliation that carries with it unacceptable costs. Allies, therefore, have reasons not to seek nuclear weapons. That said, no state can ever be entirely sure that others, including its treaty allies, would come to its assistance in wartime. The cost of direct military involvement, regardless of whether nuclear weapons could get used, can be extraordinary. States facing down a major threat, particularly one already armed with nuclear weapons, might discount the protection that an alliance might seem to offer and so decide to seek their own nuclear weapons.', 'What is the empirical record? Most treaty allies of the United States do not have a nuclear weapons arsenal. Only Great Britain and France do, and they made their decisions to acquire such capabilities at a time when they still had empire abroad and the international norms about nuclear weapons were inchoate. Nevertheless, various U.S. treaty allies undertook some activities that were at least suggestive of an interest in nuclear weapons, if they not did have an active, dedicated program. South Korea had one such program. Other countries—like Japan and West Germany—invested in capabilities that gave them the option, at times conveying a sense of ambiguity over their long-term nuclear intentions.', 'In cases like South Korea and West Germany, what stirred their interest was a sense that their received security commitments from the United States were fundamentally broken. For Seoul, President Richard Nixon’s unexpected decision to withdraw the 7th Infantry division from the Korean Peninsula was powerful evidence that the United States was withdrawing from East Asia, especially as it articulated a foreign policy that sought to offload the conventional defence burden on allies as part of a larger strategy to get out of Vietnam. The U.S. commitment to Europe was itself under duress throughout the 1960s. Despite large numbers of troops stationed on the continent, which in turn showed that the United States ‘skin in the game’ and would make any war-making by the Soviet Union extremely risky, West German leaders received many signals that the United States might yet pull back.', 'Of course, the United States would to this day retain a large troop presence on their territory and those countries do not possess nuclear weapons. That the United States stayed is indeed only part of the explanation for those states’ decisions not to seek nuclear weapons. Each case of nuclear proliferation has its own peculiarities, but domestic political change, leadership turnover, and a shifting international environment would come to dampen what interest those states might have had in sensitive nuclear materials. With varying degrees of success, the United States also pressured those countries to make firm nonproliferation commitments.', 'These cases all come from the Cold War, but past may be prologue. It is true that many cases of nuclear proliferation—especially those involving democracies—unfolded when norms about nuclear weapons were under-developed relative to what we have today. Still, those cases do indicate that there is some link between military alliances and nuclear proliferation.', 'As concerns intensify about territorial aggression and the stakes thus ratchet up, even treaty allies of the United States would be evaluating their received security guarantees with greater scrutiny than before. Specifically, if the United States weakens its international commitments, especially in a manner that is abrupt and unilateral, affected allies might be so alarmed as to think that nuclear weapons offer a valid alternative that might be worth pursuing. This hypothetical may possibly become reality. Not only has it happened in the past during the Cold War, but the renewal of isolationist sentiment and a weariness of engagement abroad in the U.S. body politic could yet produce a president willing and able to make alliance adjustments.', '']

[(0, 8), (9, 11)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-PrWe-Neg-7--UMN-Round-5.docx

Minnesota

PrWe

6ee6657c59178b6b6dcb9d50239ee248b2fec8c6222b68f45e52ac34b683cee7

Other capabilities are only concerning because they increase the likelihood of a nuclear first strike.

Haynes ’16 [Susan; 2016; Associate Professor at Lipscomb University; Chinese Nuclear Proliferation: How Global Politics Is Transforming China’s Weapons Buildup and Modernization, “The Influence of America,” Ch. 4]

survey reveals that China perceives advancement to be symptomatic the most worrying aspect is preemptive nuclear attack missile defense and conventional weapons allow U.S. to conside preemption without reprisal U.S. strategy is the number one factor consensus requires other countries to adopt counter measures

A comprehensive survey reveals that China perceives U.S. military advancement in missile defense and high-precision weapons to be symptomatic of a larger problem the single most worrying aspect of this shift is the increased possibility of preemptive nuclear attack missile defense and prompt conventional weapons allow U.S. leaders to conside r nuclear preemption without the risk of nuclear reprisal a shift in U.S. nuclear strategy it is the number one factor influencing China’s nuclear buildup and diversification the general consensus has been that the new U.S. nuclear strategy requires other nuclear countries to adopt counter measures , raise the quality and striking capabilities of their nuclear weapons

comprehensive survey missile defense high-precision weapons most worrying preemptive nuclear attack missile defense conventional weapons nuclear reprisal U.S. number one factor general consensus counter measures quality striking capabilities

['A comprehensive survey of the literature reveals that China perceives U.S. military advancement in missile defense and high-precision weapons to be symptomatic of a larger problem: the shift of American nuclear strategy from limited deterrence to maximum deterrence. To those in China, the single most worrying aspect of this shift is the increased possibility of the United States’ launching a preemptive nuclear attack against Chinese territory. This fear is rational if one considers the larger perception of the United States in China. To many in China, the threat is not unipolarity itself so much as it is the fact that the United States has assumed preeminence. Distrust of U.S. intent predates the nuclear age, and it stems from what is perceived to be a historical precedent of America displaying brute strength and “unilateral determination.” An excerpt from a PLA Daily article exemplifies a common assessment of U.S. action:', 'Since it has been independent, the United States has continuously seized through military force the lands of the American Indians and has won through war the colonies of other countries.\xa0.\xa0.\xa0. After going abroad to launch the Spanish- American War, the United States also continuously used military force to fight in various places abroad and used World War II to occupy the position of a world power.\xa0.\xa0.\xa0. The United States then used an intense arms race\xa0.\xa0.\xa0.\xa0, established a large number of military bases abroad, .\xa0.\xa0.\xa0and supported “proxy warfare” to achieve victory in the Cold War and become the world’s only super power. Besides direct participation in the Persian Gulf War, the Kosovo War, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, and other wars, the United States also actively participated in the Somali civil war, the Bosnia and Herzegovina civil war, the Libyan civil war, and other hostilities.30', 'Here and elsewhere it is argued that there is a historical precedent of the United States’ pursuing unilateral military action and engaging in conventional military preemption. One article even likens the United States to Nazi Germany in its ambitions to launch “wars of aggression” and remain “lord of the earth.”31 Another article compares the United States to a “demon harboring the desire for warfare.”32 How can a nation protect itself against such a malevolent power? It can develop nuclear weapons. This idea has been used to explain why Yugoslavia came under attack in 1999 and why North Korea and Iran seek nuclear weapons today. The overall tone is sympathetic; as one article states, “One of the effective means to prevent Iran from treading in the fatal footsteps of Iraq and Libya is to develop nuclear weapons. For the current regime in Iran, giving up the nuclear program just means a thorough failure.”33 A similar argument is sometimes made in the case of North Korea.', 'The nuclear narrative of North Korea as told by the Chinese press differs from Western interpretations. The primary nemeses remain consistent (the United States and North Korea), but the roles of protagonist and antagonist are less defined. Instead, the moral of the saga seems to be a general wariness of U.S. intent. China does not see America’s uncompromising position on the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as a necessary measure to enhance U.S. credibility, nor does it see it as admirable, but instead, the United States is perceived as demonstrating aggressiveness and interference and a “controlling, if not bullying mindset.”34', 'Seen from this perspective, the development of nuclear weapons is an insurance policy against U.S. military intervention. But will this always remain the case? What if nuclear weapons were to actually invite U.S. preemption? Over time, the United States has pursued bolder and bolder courses of military action, but it has always drawn the line at nuclear use. China sees this changing over time as a result of U.S. missile defense and high- precision, prompt conventional weapons. These technologies allow U.S. leaders to consider nuclear preemption without the fear or risk of nuclear reprisal.', 'The 2002 NPR seemingly confirmed this fear. According to one source, the 2002 NPR outlined “the most profound and fundamental readjustment [of U.S. nuclear policy] since the end of the Cold War.”35 This readjustment, Chinese scholars argue, is marked by the United States’ growing rejection of the concept of deterrence, an increased affinity for nuclear combat, and most notably, the serious consideration of launching a preemptive nuclear attack.', 'The 2002 NPR does not use this wording, but it definitely expands the scope of U.S. nuclear use. The review proposes three situations in which the U.S. military can feasibly launch a nuclear strike, including enemy use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons; the “startling development of [an adversary’s] military weapons”; and the construction of targets impervious to conventional forces. The first scenario, using nuclear weapons to counter weapons of mass destruction, has been a long- standing U.S. position, but the other two admittedly diminish the nuclear threshold. The Chinese press took notice of this lowered threshold not least because the last scenario seems to directly threaten hardened and deeply buried Chinese nuclear forces.', 'The most likely envisioned scenario of U.S. nuclear action involves a conflict between China and Taiwan. This dynamic has not invited U.S. nuclear participation in the past, but with a changed U.S. strategy, some in China fear it might be a possibility. In other words, U.S. intervention in a China- Taiwan conflict becomes more likely as the United States adopts a more aggressive nuclear strategy. It is also likely that the use of U.S. TNWS in such a scenario could lead to China’s defeat. A Chinese scholar at the first U.S.- China Strategic Dialogue emphasized this point, warning that in a conflict over Taiwan, “it is the United States, not China, who has the nuclear capabilities to control or even dominate conflict escalation.”36', 'Chinese scholars at the conference and elsewhere also mention the possibility of a nuclear conflict over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands— a cluster of uninhabited islands situated in the East China Sea that both China and Japan claim to own. In fact, at the 2012 U.S.- China Strategic Dialogue, a Chinese scholar mentioned the islands alongside Taiwan as one of the top three areas likely to trigger a U.S.- Chinese nuclear exchange. At the most recent U.S.- China Strategic Dialogue on nuclear dynamics, several Chinese experts expressed the opinion that the sole aim of China’s nuclear capabilities was to deter the United States.', 'To China, Taiwan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are both a matter of territorial integrity, and neither should concern the United States. A more aggressive U.S. nuclear strategy, however, might provide the United States with grounds to disagree. Thus, a shift in U.S. nuclear strategy presents a distinct threat to China’s security, and the Chinese literature indicates it is the number one factor influencing China’s nuclear buildup and diversification. The retooling of America’s nuclear strategy is discussed by people across every sector in China, including state officials, military officers, and China’s scholars and scientists. The recommended response differs slightly by actor, but the general consensus has been that the “‘new’ U.S. nuclear strategy” requires other nuclear countries “for their own security\xa0.\xa0.\xa0. to adopt counter measures, raise the quality and striking capabilities of their nuclear weapons, [and] to improve the systems of their own nuclear forces to maintain the effectiveness of nuclear reprisals.”37', 'The 2012 and 2014 DWPS outlined the steps China has taken in this direction. More specifically, the papers describe the enhancement of China’s counterattack capabilities, its force structure, and the “safety, reliability, and effectiveness” of individual missiles. A participant at the 2015 U.S.- China Strategic Dialogue added that China is improving the survivability and penetration capability of its missiles as well as its early warning system. This means China is not only building up its nuclear force, but it is building a force of increased sophistication. Over the past twenty- five years, it has developed mobile missiles that can be fueled and launched more quickly upon advanced warning and missiles capable of circumventing enemy defenses and striking smaller targets. In short, China is equipping itself to counter an enemy it believes has adopted a strategy of maximum deterrence. This requires more than a buildup of missiles. It requires better technology, better intelligence, and better attack capabilities. It also requires a more advanced nuclear strategy.', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Michigan-ShGa-Aff-Kentucky-Round-2.docx

Michigan

ShGa

390f100ac2b853662be25bf6a39dbf1fce3433d5dff2f2d19357b29257f4f20e

The silicon algorthmic doctrine makes regulated capitalism impossible.

Jimenez Gonzalez 21 – PhD in Sociology at University of Auckland (Aitor, The Silicon Doctrine. Diss. ResearchSpace@ Auckland, 2021)

algorithmic power is leading to new cybernetic social ordering key aspects of legal liberalism such as rights, due process or representative democracy itself are threatened by lack of accountability are opaque incontestable computational roots rights threaten artificial intelligence. implementation of AI is threatening ‘our capacity for democratic self-governmen the silicon doctrine threatens fundamental rights and liberal democratic values the abduction of the political decision from humans in favour of statecorporate algorithms is the founding moment of the digital capitalist state ‘the sovereign has the monopoly over this decision technical composition of algorithmic governmentality hacks linkage that bounds law and polit and challenging Westernised political schools

Thus, this form of algorithmic power is leading to a new form of a cybernetic social ordering . From this point, Yeung’s socio-technical analysis coincides with other theoretical developments highlighting intimate relation of this system with digital capitalism, datafication , data colonialism and so on. Yeung’s legal critique of algorithmic r egulation draws on the works of legal & tech liberal scholars (such key aspects of legal liberalism such as fundamental rights, due process or liberal representative democracy itself are threatened by the lack of accountability , transparency and public review of automated decision systems highlights several arguments against algorithmic regulation: ML software decisions are opaque , incontestable computational roots of the automatized decision-making process entails a shift from reason to statistics fundamental rights such as right to p rivacy or to non-discrimination may be threaten in the creation and developing process of data driven artificial intelligence. The progressive implementation of AI is driven by new forms of capitalism threatening ‘our capacity for democratic self-governmen t’ Yeung claims that we ‘must establish more effective , practically enforceable constraints to tame the excesses of Big Data -driven hypernudging’ this constrain should be coded, a legal protection by the design that would ‘safeguard our ability to challenge automated decision systems , by providing time and space to test and contest the workings of such systems’ the silicon doctrine threatens fundamental rights and liberal democratic values . However is that behind the term algorithmic regulation hides the substitution of the active subject in politics by machines . put it into other words, the abduction of the political decision from humans in favour of statecorporate algorithms is the founding moment of the digital capitalist state . For ‘the sovereign is he who decides the exception’ has the monopoly over this last decision technical composition of algorithmic governmentality hacks the conceptual linkage that bounds law and polit ics, depoliticising it and challenging with it most of Westernised legal and political philosophical schools .

algorithmic power is leading to new cybernetic social ordering highlighting digital capitalism, datafication data colonialism key aspects of legal liberalism such as rights, due process or representative democracy itself are threatened by lack of accountability software decisions are opaque incontestable computational roots entails a shift from reason to statistics fundamental rights artificial intelligence. progressive implementation of AI is driven by capitalism threatening ‘our capacity for democratic self-governmen we ‘must establish effective the excesses of Big Data hypernudging’ that would ‘safeguard our ability to challenge automated decision systems to test and contest the workings of such systems’ the silicon doctrine threatens fundamental rights and liberal democratic values . However behind the term algorithmic regulation hides substitution of the active subject in politics by machines the abduction of the political decision statecorporate algorithms is the founding moment of the digital capitalist state ‘the sovereign has the monopoly over this last decision technical composition of algorithmic governmentality hacks and challenging Westernised

['In appearance, algorithmic regulation looks like any other architectural or design-based technique of control and hence it is structured around three core components: Setting standards, gathering information and finding the ways to enforcing standards and modifying behaviour. However, Yeung (2018), considers that algorithmic regulation differs from architectural regulation in two critical aspects: its adaptive feature and the technological power driving the algorithms. Thus, this form of algorithmic power is leading to a new form of a cybernetic social ordering. From this point, Yeung’s socio-technical analysis coincides with other theoretical developments highlighting the intimate relation of this system with digital capitalism, datafication, data colonialism and so on. Yeung’s legal critique of algorithmic regulation draws on the works of legal & tech liberal scholars (such as Frank Pasquale). Standing on them, Yeung details how key aspects of legal liberalism such as fundamental rights, due process or liberal representative democracy itself are threatened by the lack of accountability, transparency and public review of automated decision systems. Hildebrandt (2018, p.11) highlights several arguments against algorithmic regulation: ML software decisions are opaque, inscrutable and, eventually, incontestable; the computational roots of the automatized decision-making process entails a shift from reason to statistics; fundamental rights such as right to privacy or to non-discrimination may be threaten in the creation and developing process of data driven artificial intelligence.', 'Both Hildebrandt and Yeung arrive to a similar concussion. The progressive implementation of AI is driven by new forms of capitalism threatening ‘our capacity for democratic self-government’ (Yeung, 2017, p. 132). Yeung claims that we ‘must establish more effective, practically enforceable constraints to tame the excesses of Big Data-driven hypernudging’ (Yeung, 2017, p. 132), while Hildebrandt, more concrete, defends this constrain should be coded, a legal protection by the design that would ‘safeguard our ability—as individuals—to challenge automated decision systems, by providing time and space to test and contest the workings of such systems’(Hildebrandt, 2018, p. 16).', 'Hildebrandt and Yeung’s analyses correctly point out how the silicon doctrine threatens fundamental rights and liberal democratic values. However, they fail to establish an overarching critique of cybernetic algorithmic regulation, firmly rooted in the socio-economic structure of digital capitalism. And they do it for two main reasons. First, as it has been outlined in multiple places (Kline, 2015; Wiener, 1950), the touchstone of the neoliberal socio-cybernetic political thought is its quest for an anti-entropy system, a conflict-free autopoietic space of equilibrium and dynamic control. For digital capitalists, the purpose of algorithmic regulation is to reach this situation of control. And control is obtained and achieved through an efficient management of information. If the algorithmic regulation system fails, it may be due to two reasons: defects in design or obstacles in the extraction, flux and interpretation of information. This unveils a key aspect of algorithmic regulation: its pretension to being a purely technical task based on neutral technologies. The liberal critique, including here not only Hildebrandt’s and Yeung’s contributions but also those produced by representative research groups and organisations such as AI Now (2018) or Algorithm Watch (2019), among others, doesn’t really explore the political questions hidden by allegedly technical condition of algorithmic regulation.', 'Secondly and more importantly, even if liberals acknowledge that there is a political and economic project behind the cybernetic-algorithmic revolution, they don’t fully depend on the totalitarian negation of politics through the automation of decisions. What algorithmic regulation really means, and what concepts such as algorithmic governmentality (Rouvroy, 2016) can’t grasp, is that behind the term algorithmic regulation hides the substitution of the active subject in politics by machines. Or put it into other words, the abduction of the political decision from humans in favour of statecorporate algorithms is the founding moment of the digital capitalist state. For ‘the sovereign is he who decides the exception’ (Schmitt, 1985, p. 5): All law is “situational law.” The sovereign produces and guarantees the situation in its totality. He has the monopoly over this last decision. Therein resides the essence of the state’s sovereignty, which must be juristically defined correctly, not as the monopoly to coerce or to rule, but as the monopoly to decide. The exception reveals most dearly the essence of the state’s authority. The decision parts here from the legal norm, and (to formulate it paradoxically) authority proves that to produce law it need not be based on law (Schmitt, 1985, p. 13).', 'Carl Schmitt’s quote has to be placed within the broader tradition of Western constitutionalism, and, more specifically, with its epistemic foundational moment incarnated by the notion of constituent power. That is the idea that power vests in the people. Summarising, while it is concerning the way automated decision systems undermine fundamental rights, what is really at stake is the very fundament of Western constitutionalism, the political decision, the sovereign decision. In the next section, I will explain how the technical composition of algorithmic governmentality hacks the conceptual linkage that bounds law and politics, depoliticising it and challenging with it most of Westernised legal and political philosophical schools.']

[(0, 19)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-BaCh-Neg-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Tournament-at-Northwestern-Doubles.docx

Dartmouth

BaCh

28a56c2b41cb19b308d309bb11d34505ae6f3aa6179e13dc811f17e880a54734

EU is obsolete and useless

Sked 12 (AlanProfessor of international history and former convener of European studies at the London School of Economics, “Why would anyone want to join the EU?” Foreign Policy, 14 Mar, 2012, )

the EU is in absolute demographic economic and tech decline its major policies have failed In foreign and security policies, it is an international joke It spends nothing on defense in Libya where Europe "took the lead," they were entirely dependent on U.S. logistics and supplies EU "soft power," is because it has no choice expensive but ineffective EU institutions are anti-democratic The Parliament is a glorified debating society elites are failing In disparate economies where changes of interest and exchange rates are forbidden weaker economies have no means of competing

Superficially , the EU seems to have made great progress The EU is struggling to create its own intelligence and federal police services the EU as a whole is in absolute demographic decline and relative economic and tech decline , and its major policies common fisheries and ag policies or the euro and monetary union have failed In terms of foreign and security policies, it is an international joke It spends next to nothing on defense Britain and France, have seen their armed forces so severely cut recently that in the Libya war, where Europe "took the lead," they were entirely dependent on U.S. logistics and supplies If the EU boasts of its reliance on "soft power," that is because it has no choice everything that is wrong with the EU — expensive but ineffective only 49 percent of EU citizens think their country’s EU membership is a "good thing," while only 42 percent trust EU institutions those institutions are positively anti-democratic Its key decision-making bodies are unelected, unaccountable, and removed from the people The Parliament is a glorified debating society not a government with an official opposition the EU doesn’t protect or represent their interests Democratization Can’t Save Europe Power is being taken away from the periphery by centralizing elites these elites are failing The EU’s key policy monetary union has been a disaster you cannot have a successful monetary union without a political and fiscal union In disparate economies where changes of interest and exchange rates are forbidden to members, weaker economies have no means of competing with stronger ones if there is no legal arrangement for democratic agreement among members that stronger economies will bail out weaker ones when they get into debt

Superficially demographic economic tech decline failed international joke nothing entirely dependent it has no choice expensive but ineffective anti-democratic glorified debating society elites are failing disaster disparate economies forbidden no means of competing

['', 'Superficially, the EU seems to have made great progress since the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Almost every aspect of policy is now determined by bureaucrats in Brussels in combination with the European Council and the European Parliament. The EU even has its own foreign service and is struggling to create its own intelligence and federal police services. No wonder it impresses Arabs and Africans, whose own struggles for unity have, relatively speaking, gone nowhere.', 'The trouble, however, is that the EU as a whole is in absolute demographic decline and relative economic and technological decline, and its major policies — whether the common fisheries and agriculture policies or the euro and monetary union — have failed. In terms of foreign and security policies, it is an international joke. It spends next to nothing on defense, and even its main contributors in this area, Britain and France, have seen their armed forces so severely cut recently that in the Libyan war, where Europe "took the lead," they were entirely dependent on U.S. logistics and supplies. If the EU boasts of its reliance on "soft power," that is because it has no choice. Its head of foreign affairs, the British baroness Catherine Ashton, has been called "the world’s highest-paid female politician," yet she remains anonymous and has no influence on world events whatsoever. Her position sums up everything that is wrong with the EU — expensive but ineffective.', 'The fundamental problem with the EU, however, is that the people of Europe have no faith in it and do not identify with it. A 2010 Eurobarometer poll found that only 49 percent of EU citizens think their country’s EU membership is a "good thing," while only 42 percent trust EU institutions. Meanwhile, those institutions, like the EU’s whole ethos, are positively anti-democratic. Its key decision-making bodies — the European Council, Court of Justice, and European Commission — are, for all practical purposes, unelected, unaccountable, and removed from the people (commissioners are usually washed-up has-beens whose political careers in their home states have ended in failure). Their decisions are irreversible in national parliaments, and the European Parliament, while vested with powers of co-decision-making with the European Council, is also remote. The Parliament is a glorified debating society — not a government with an official opposition — and its parties cannot promise any fundamental policy changes in their election manifestos; indeed, its election outcomes rarely have an impact on the course of EU politics. Its members are unknown and despised as opportunists who merely seek inflated salaries, perks, expenses, and pensions. Voter turnout in the EU’s parliamentary elections is low and falling, reflecting the widely held belief among EU citizens that the EU doesn’t protect or represent their interests.', 'One of the most egregious examples of the lack of democracy in the EU is the practice of making small states that vote "no" in EU referenda vote again. Denmark had to vote twice on the Maastricht Treaty, while Ireland was forced to go two rounds on the Nice Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty. Big states are not immune from this kind of bullying treatment, either. When voters in France and the Netherlands rejected an EU constitution in 2005, European leaders tweaked about 4 percent of the original wording, renamed the document the Lisbon Treaty, and then rammed it through the French and Dutch parliaments despite the popular votes. When then Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou suggested a referendum on the Greek bailout last year, he was maneuvered out of office within days.', 'The EU does not believe in the tolerant British saying, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Instead, its policy is, "When in Rome, do as the Germans do." Altogether, the outlook in Brussels and Berlin is like that of Napoleon in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: "He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"', 'The official German attitude is summed up by the regular fury from German politicians and the German media whenever an EU country calls for a referendum on initiatives from Brussels. When Ireland announced in February that it would hold a referendum on the EU’s new fiscal treaty, Der Spiegel marveled, "The Irish Again!" while Süddeutsche Zeitung declared that if the Irish fail to realize that the fiscal pact "is in their national interest," Germany "will not be able to help them." Perhaps nothing captures Germany’s elitist attitude better than an essay last summer in Der Spiegel by German political scientist Herfried Münkler titled, "Democratization Can’t Save Europe: The Need for a Centralization of Power." Münkler argues that elections and referenda cannot be trusted in Europe because "the European population has never been and still is not a European people." EU elites, he adds, "need to improve — and power has to be taken away from the periphery." Can you imagine a leading U.S. magazine printing such stuff about American elites and voters in certain states?', 'But this is exactly what is happening in Europe today. Power is being taken away from the periphery by centralizing elites. But these elites are failing. The EU’s key policy — monetary union — has been a disaster. The simple fact is that you cannot have a successful monetary union without a political and fiscal union, with monetary transfers between rich and poor areas legitimized by democratic institutions. (In a currency union of disparate economies where changes of interest and exchange rates are forbidden to members, weaker economies have no means of competing with stronger ones if there is no legal arrangement for democratic agreement among members that stronger economies will bail out weaker ones when they get into debt.)', '']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Neg-Wake-Round2.docx

Minnesota

JoSu

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/JoSu/Minnesota-Johnson-Sun-Neg-Wake-Round2.docx

b62f8aa8dd5393ebf56ed0ab5359bf33749248c52ad0288f40097e750077c4a1

Disarm is the complete renunciation of nuclear forces.

Kjølv Egeland 22, Marie Skłodowska-Curie Postdoctoral Fellow in Security Studies at Sciences Po, D.Phil. from the University of Oxford, “A theory of nuclear disarmament: Cases, analogies, and the role of the non-proliferation regime,” Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1978159

nuclear disarm involves the complete relinquishment of a nuc arsenal including dismantlement of all warheads and means of delivery the actions a nuc state would have to undertake to win recognition as a non-nuc state under the NPT

What is nuclear disarm ament nuclear weapons renunciation cases are few and far between and may not be wholly representative of the full population of cases of interest some nuclear-armed states have disarmed and not others nuclear “renunciation” or “disarmament” involves the complete relinquishment of a nuc lear arsenal including the physical dismantlement of all nuclear warheads and their dedicated means of delivery the kinds of actions a former nuc lear-armed state would have to undertake to win recognition as a non-nuc lear-weapon state under the NPT

What is nuclear disarm ament may not be wholly representative complete relinquishment of a nuc lear arsenal non-nuc lear-weapon state under the NPT

['What is nuclear disarmament anyway?', 'The fact that individuals and organizations attach different value to nuclear weapons as status symbols and instruments of (in)security has made it difficult to derive accurate predictions of nuclear behavior from general statements about the nature of international politics. For example, prognoses of future nuclear proliferation anchored in macro-level realist theories have invariably hit wildly off the mark, significantly overestimating states’ demand for nuclear armament (Pelopidas, 2015). More convincing theories of nuclear proliferation have been formulated and tested through careful examination of historical cases. It stands to reason that the same would be the case for theories of nuclear weapons relinquishment. But which cases might theorists of disarmament draw on when formulating and testing their accounts? The most obvious place to start would be historical instances of nuclear weapons renunciation. However, these cases are few and far between and may not be wholly representative of the full population of cases of interest—that is, the relinquishment of nuclear weapons by all current and future nuclear-armed states. After all, the question posed here is not only why, to date, some nuclear-armed states have disarmed and not others (see Tagma, 2010), but also what it would take for current or possibly future nuclear powers to disarm in the time to come. Additional data might therefore be acquired through examination of carefully curated analogies, observable implications of rival hypotheses, and information at higher or lower levels of theoretical aggregation (Gordon, 1991, p. 50; King et al., 1994, pp. 11, 224–225). In fact, historical “lessons” from other fields of national or international politics are frequently invoked by practitioners of nuclear arms control and disarmament, albeit seldom in a systematic fashion. Below, I assess the evidentiary value of these cases for theorizing about nuclear renunciation. For such an assessment to be possible, it must first be established what, fundamentally, the politics of nuclear renunciation involves.', 'As understood in this article, nuclear “renunciation” or “disarmament” involves the complete relinquishment of a nuclear arsenal by a given state, including the physical dismantlement of all nuclear warheads and their dedicated means of delivery, to wit, the kinds of actions a former nuclear-armed state would have to undertake to win recognition as a non-nuclear-weapon state under the NPT. Yet what this necessitates or implies in political terms varies greatly depending on the facts on the ground. In other words, the resistances to relinquishment may be greater or lesser depending on the degree to which nuclear weapons have been entrenched in the society of the respective state. In broad brushstrokes, these resistances can be divided into two kinds—material and ideational. First, as suggested by the case-study literature on nuclear politics, depending on the size and composition of the nuclear weapons program in question, disarmament can be powerfully resisted by material vested interests (Eaves, 2021; Nolan, 1999; Ritchie, 2010; Sauer, 2005). After all, the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons typically involves a significant number of jobs, valuable contracts, and loci for bureaucratic inertia for a myriad of companies, government agencies, think tanks, and organizations. It stands to reason that disarmament will be more difficult to achieve in a nuclear-armed state with an active nuclear weapons complex attended by a network of vested interests resisting abolition.']

[(6, 16)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-RiSt-Neg-CSU-Round-5.docx

Kentucky

RiSt

393257940f4386c0c4749eaa69c18b46b92d72a939e67e94e6524689ff2af50a

Aid won’t pass---Hastert rule blocks clean bill and Democrats won’t negotiate

Jamie McIntyre 11/10, senior writer for the Washington Examiner, 11/10/23, Ukraine is facing an existential threat: The House GOP, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national-security/ukraine-existential-threat-house-gop-volodymyr%20zelensky-vladimir-putin

Zelensky is worried Republicans are opposed They are in a position to kill any bill no bill can come to the floor unless it passes with Republican votes Ukraine failed the Hastert test Ukraine has lost the support Johnson voted against Johnson is marrying Ukraine to border security that was rejected by Democrats the White House promising to veto the measure none of the bickering and infighting bodes well for passage

Putin is pinning his hopes on outlasting Ukraine on two future eventualities favored by the ultra-MAGA wing of the Republican Party — a cutoff of all U.S. aid Zelensky is worried a powerful bloc of House Republicans are opposed to any further aid to Ukraine They are in a position to kill any bill under the Hastert Rule no bill can come to the House floor unless it passes solely with Republican votes When McCarthy ran afoul of the Hastert Rule by using Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown, it cost him his job. Ukraine failed the Hastert test by not garnering a majority of Republican votes. You cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority 101 Republicans voted for the Ukraine aid while 117 voted against it. Ukraine has lost the support of a majority of the majority Johnson has voted against Ukraine aid in the past Johnson is using a different tactic to keep his razor-thin majority unified separating the various aid requests marrying Which in the case of Ukraine means linking any aid to border security that was flatly rejected by Democrats The House bill would restart construction of the Trump border wall and tighten the eligibility requirements for immigrants to be granted asylum the White House promising to veto the measure if it ever passed the Senate Schumer was blindsided by a proposal to link the Ukraine aid to a border security plan that mirrors the House bill. Senate Republicans basically copied and pasted the House's radical H.R. 2 bill at the expense of Ukrainian freedom, independence, democracy, none of the bickering and infighting bodes well for the eventual passage of a substantial Ukrainian aid package despite the support

Putin outlasting Ukraine cutoff of all U.S. aid Zelensky is worried powerful bloc opposed further aid to kill any bill the Hastert Rule passes solely Republican votes Ukraine failed the Hastert test Ukraine has lost the support has voted against Ukraine aid separating the various aid requests border security flatly rejected by Democrats promising to veto Schumer blindsided bickering infighting passage Ukrainian aid package

['There are two world leaders whose fate may well rest in the hands of\xa0Congress\xa0and American voters: Ukrainian President\xa0Volodymyr Zelensky\xa0and his mortal enemy Russian President\xa0Vladimir Putin.', 'It’s abundantly clear Putin is pinning his hopes on outlasting Ukraine on two future eventualities favored by the ultra-MAGA wing of the Republican Party — a cutoff of all U.S. aid to Ukraine, and a return of Donald Trump to the White House.', 'Zelensky is worried about both possibilities.', 'Trump has vowed, if elected, to end the war in 24 hours, something that realistically could only be done on terms highly favorable to Russia.', 'In an\xa0interview\xa0with NBC, Zelensky said if Trump came to Kyiv, he could explain to him in “24 minutes” why it’s not possible to make peace with Putin, who he called a “f***ing terrorist.”', 'But Zelensky’s more immediate concern is the current standoff in Congress where a small but powerful bloc of House Republicans, dubbed “MAGA extremists” by Democrats — and even some members of their own party — are opposed to any further aid to Ukraine. They are in a position to kill any bill — but only if the new speaker of the House lets them.', "“We need much more to win now. … We do need ammunition. We do need air defense,” Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., said on CBS’s\xa0Face the Nation. “Right now, all the eyes are on U.S. Congress.”", 'President Joe Biden has requested $105 billion in emergency funds for Ukraine, Israel, countering China, increasing border security, and building more submarines. But the bulk of the money, more than $61 billion, would go to support Ukraine’s war effort into next year, plus several billion more for humanitarian aid for Ukrainian civilians.', 'All the priorities in the Biden supplemental budget request enjoy wide bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and would pass by supermajorities. Yet under an informal understanding known as the Hastert Rule (named for former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert), no bill can come to the House floor unless it passes solely with Republican votes.', 'When at the end of September then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) ran afoul of the Hastert Rule by using Democratic votes to avert a government shutdown, it cost him his job.', 'When the House voted on a $300 million Ukraine bill in late September, it passed in a blowout 311-117. Still, it failed the Hastert test by not garnering a majority of Republican votes.', '“You cannot use Democrats to roll a majority of the majority, certainly on something as consequential as Ukraine," said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Gaetz noted that 101 Republicans voted for the Ukraine aid while 117 voted against it.', '“Ukraine has lost the support of a majority of the majority,” Gaetz said on the House floor in the days before he engineered the ouster of McCarthy as speaker, sending him back to being a rank-and-file House member.', 'The new speaker, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA), who has voted against Ukraine aid in the past, now says he supports it.', '“We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don’t believe it would stop there. And it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan,” Johnson told Fox News host Sean Hannity in his first interview after being elected speaker. “We’re not going to abandon them.”', 'But Johnson is using a different tactic to keep his razor-thin majority unified, separating the various aid requests and marrying them to pet causes of the MAGA wing. Which in the case of Ukraine means linking any aid to the provision of H.R. 2, a House bill on border security that was a top priority of the new Republican majority, but was flatly rejected by Senate Democrats.', 'The Biden request does include $14 billion for border security, but the administration proposes to spend the money on 1,300 additional Border Patrol agents, 375 immigration judge teams, 1,600 asylum officers, and 100 fentanyl detection machines.', 'The House bill would restart construction of the Trump border wall and greatly tighten the eligibility requirements for immigrants to be granted asylum and allowed to stay in the U.S.', '“The bill would cut off nearly all access to humanitarian protections in ways that are inconsistent with our Nation’s values and international obligations,” the White House said in a\xa0statement\xa0promising to veto the measure if it ever passed the Senate.', 'The Senate is drawing up its own Ukraine funding measure that Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had been touting as bipartisan. That is until Schumer was blindsided by a proposal from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Tom Cotton (R-AR), and James Lankford (R-OK) to link the Ukraine aid to a border security plan that mirrors the House bill.', "“Instead of putting together common-sense border policies that can pass in divided government, Senate Republicans basically copied and pasted the House's radical H.R. 2 bill, all at the expense of Ukrainian freedom, independence, democracy,” Schumer fumed. “We are open to talking about the border, but it has to be bipartisan. They just sort of plucked things out of H.R. 2, which they knew was unacceptable, didn't talk to a single Democrat, and said, ‘Hey, take it or leave it.’”", "At a Senate Appropriations Committee meeting earlier this month, the panel's chairwoman, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), said, “Let us be clear: Huge supermajorities in the House and Senate favor more support for Ukraine, so getting this funding across the finish line should not be controversial.”", 'Nevertheless, none of the bickering and infighting bodes well for the eventual passage of a substantial Ukrainian aid package, despite the support of old-school Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME).']

[(6, 20)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-AgRu-Aff-Wake-Round-6.docx

Northwestern

AgRu

6152b93900440c1fcc5de99f24d2b1f826fde027084a8e7d639b8954a3cbf0bf

Can’t attribute---an “attack” could be terrorists or a natural disease

Pomper and Pilch 21 , both work at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (Miles and Richard, 2021, “Asia-Pacific Perspective on Biological Weapons and Nuclear Deterrence in the Pandemic Era,” Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2021.1880787 Date Accessed: 9/11/2023)

deciding that an outbreak is natural, accidental, or intentional is challenging this attribution could be exacerbated by non-state actors to leverage nuclear escalation for their own purposes a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS could launch a biological attack with hopes it would be perceived as an attack by that country’s adversary militants could claim that a natural outbreak was a BW attack illustrated by a plague outbreak in India which was suspected to be a bioterrorist attack

deciding that an outbreak is natural, accidental, or intentional is highly challenging this attribution challenge could be exacerbated by non-state actors to leverage nuclear escalation for their own purposes For example a terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS could launch a biological attack with hopes that it would be perceived as an attack by that country’s adversary with retaliation militants could claim that what was in fact a natural outbreak was a BW attack bringing nuclear escalation dynamics into play The potential for the latter effort is illustrated by a 1994 plague outbreak in Western India which was suspected to be a bioterrorist attack

deciding that an outbreak is natural, accidental, or intentional is highly challenging

['', 'Bioterrorism and Nuclear Escalation As we have seen, deciding that an outbreak is natural, accidental, or intentional is highly challenging. Furthermore, this attribution challenge could be intentionally or unintentionally exacerbated by non-state actors to leverage nuclear escalation for their own purposes. For example, a millennial terrorist group such as Al-Qaeda or ISIS could launch a biological attack against countries such as the United States, North Korea or Russia with hopes that it would be perceived as an attack by that country’s adversary, with consequent retaliation. Or Kashmiri militants with links to Pakistan could launch such an attack against India with or without support from Islamabad and with or without publicly acknowledging their responsibility. Alternatively, such militants could claim that what was in fact a natural outbreak on either side of the line of control was a BW attack, bringing nuclear escalation dynamics into play. The potential for the latter such effort is illustrated by a 1994 plague outbreak in Western India which was initially suspected to be a bioterrorist attack (Barrett 2008).']

[(0, 16), (17, 19)]

ndtceda

Kansas-ReSo-Aff-Kentucky-Round-1.docx

Kansas

ReSo

71d65437425c2a4452c697ef6850bcd72a0fa97310c4d0aee154622dd4cfd738

C. No fault fails---it eliminates innovation by causing patient manipulation while still failing to uphold accountability.

Gary Wickert 16. Insurance trial lawyer and shareholder with the law firm of Matthiesen, Wickert & Lehrer, J.D. South Texas College of Law. “THE FAILURE OF NO-FAULT INSURANCE.” .

No-fault doesn’t work premiums are more expensive tort actions allowed Paying costs logically more expensive claimants have greater opportunity to inflate and maximize claims up to the policy limits complicated schemes understood by only a handful does not reduce litigation No-fault states have higher litigation uncompensated victims would be left with proceeding recourse confusing and dysfunctional contradicts basic principles responsibility and accountability eliminating “fault”, the law treats good and bad the same weakens deterrent effect eliminates compensation

No-fault insurance sounds good, but doesn’t work in the real world premiums are more expensive than personal responsibility systems tort actions are allowed both the innocent victim and the careless tortfeasor are compensated regardless of fault Paying the costs is logically more expensive than in the tort system where the liability policy of the careless driver covers only the innocent victim Like many Utopian ideas, proponents of no-fault acknowledge that its advantage is a “redistribution” making a claim under no-fault doesn’t require litigation claimants have greater opportunity to inflate and maximize their claims up to the policy limits The complicated no-fault schemes in states understood by only a handful of lawyers in their complexity no-fault does not reduce litigation costs Litigation continues to plague no-fault states No-fault states have experienced higher levels of litigation under pure no-fault uncompensated victims would be left with proceeding recourse No-fault has led to a significant increase in the litigation of first-party benefits no-fault confusing and dysfunctional it also contradicts basic American principles such as individual responsibility and accountability By eliminating “fault”, the law treats good and bad the same weakens the deterrent effect of tort law eliminates full compensation the experiment has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

sounds good, but doesn’t work in the real world are more expensive is logically more expensive than in the tort system claimants have greater opportunity to inflate and maximize their claims up to the policy limits no-fault does not reduce litigation costs uncompensated victims would be left with proceeding recourse no-fault confusing and dysfunctional contradicts basic American principles such as individual responsibility and accountability the same weakens the deterrent effect of tort law the experiment has thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

['No-fault insurance – like free health care and free education – sounds good, but doesn’t work in the real world. No-fault premiums are more expensive than personal responsibility systems where tort actions are allowed, because both the innocent victim and the careless tortfeasor are compensated regardless of fault. Paying the costs of both drivers is logically more expensive than in the tort system, where the liability policy of the careless driver covers only the innocent victim. Like many Utopian ideas, proponents of no-fault acknowledge that, while it may not lead to lower costs, its advantage is a “redistribution” of insurance benefits based on “need” rather than “fault.” Because making a claim under no-fault doesn’t require the litigation safeguards and procedural obstacles of a tort system, claimants have greater opportunity to inflate and maximize their claims up to the policy limits. The complicated no-fault schemes in states like New Jersey, New York, and Michigan, is understood by only a handful of lawyers and rivals the cryptanalysis of the Enigma Code in their complexity. Contrary to public perception, no-fault does not reduce litigation costs. Litigation, over property damage (the most common dispute following an accident), and, over whether a claimant has reached a verbal or monetary threshold, continues to plague no-fault states. In addition, due to the growing number of uninsured drivers, expensive liability insurance must still be purchased by no-fault consumers. Insurance covering liability above no-fault limits is also a concern. No-fault states have experienced higher – not lower – levels of litigation. In fact, under pure no-fault, uncompensated victims would be left with proceeding recourse from taxpayer-subsidized programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or victim’s compensation funds. No-fault has led to a significant increase in the litigation of first-party benefits. Not only is no-fault confusing and dysfunctional, it also contradicts basic American principles such as individual responsibility and accountability. By eliminating “fault”, the law treats good drivers and bad drivers the same. This weakens the deterrent effect of tort law. It also eliminates full compensation. In an effort to avoid the abuse of claims for pain and suffering and other non-economic damages, the experiment has thrown the baby out with the bathwater. The American civil justice tort system is far from perfect. But, before liability insurance professionals jump to the conclusion that eliminating the trial lawyers from the equation is always desirable – not to mention possible – a candid look at the results of the no-fault experiment is called for. As one Michigan lawmaker put it: The word “Utopia” itself is a Greek word for an imaginary place where everyone and everything is perfect. As John Malkovich said, “Utopia means elsewhere.” Wherever it may one day be found, it most certainly will not be found disguised as no-fault auto insurance.']

[(5, 15)]

ndtceda

Emory-GiKe-Aff-Dartmouth-Round-Robin-Round-5.docx

Emory

GiKe

fa9a96b010d88f9cdaef25074868215946f429f32fdf204d046d663cdaa5cb50

Extra-territorial application causes global backlash and uncertainty

Kava 19, JD/MBA Candidate @ JU (Samuel, “The Extraterritorial Application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in the Age of Globalization,” 15 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 135, Lexis)

allies were disgruntled by extraterritorial application of Anti-Trust in an attempt to protect their nationals from criminal and civil proceedings in foreign courts where the constitute[d] an invasion of sovereignty foreign nations enacted blocking statutes to block discovery of documents and bar enforcement conflicting laws between the U S and foreign counterparts created tremendous uncertainty

the United States’ closest allies were disgruntled by the U.S. courts’ expansive extraterritorial application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act Thus, in an attempt to “ protect their nationals from criminal [ and civil ] proceedings in foreign courts where the claims to jurisdiction [were] excessive and constitute[d] an invasion of sovereignty ,” foreign nations enacted blocking statutes to resist extraterritorial application The blocking statutes served to “ block the discovery of documents located in their countries and bar the enforcement of foreign judgements The conflicting laws between the U nited S tates and its foreign counterparts created tremendous uncertainty regarding what nation’s laws would be applied in the event of a cross-border dispute

enacted blocking statutes to resist extraterritorial application block discovery created tremendous uncertainty

['', 'Before the FTAIA was enacted, in 1982, many of the United States’ closest allies were disgruntled by the U.S. courts’ expansive extraterritorial application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.152 These nations confided in the territorial principle, and believed it “axiomatic that in anti-trust matters the policy of one state may be to defend what it is the policy of another state to attack.”153 The United Kingdom, one of the most outspoken allies against the United States’ “attempt[] to impose [its] domestic laws on persons and corporations who are not U.S. nationals and who are acting outside the territory of the United States,” viewed the extraterritorial application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as ironic given the fact “the United States was founded by those who took exception to little matters of taxation being imposed extraterritorially.”154 Thus, in an attempt to “protect their nationals from criminal [and civil] proceedings in foreign courts where the claims to jurisdiction [were] excessive and constitute[d] an invasion of sovereignty,” foreign nations enacted blocking statutes to resist the extraterritorial application of the Sherman Act.155 The blocking statutes of each nation varied, but all served to “block the discovery of documents located in their countries and bar the enforcement of foreign judgements.”156 The United Kingdom achieved these goals with the Protection of Trading Interests Act, France with the French Blocking Law, Canada with the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act, and Australia with the Foreign Proceedings Act.157 The conflicting laws between the United States and its foreign counterparts created tremendous uncertainty regarding what nation’s laws would be applied in the event of a cross-border dispute. According to Nuno Limáo and Giovanni Maggi, economists from the University of Maryland and Yale University, “as the world becomes more integrated, the gains from decreasing trade-policy uncertainty should tend to become more important relative to the gains from reducing the levels of trade barriers.”158']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Neg-9%20-%20ADA-Round3.docx

Kansas

HaWi

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Kansas/HaWi/Kansas-Harris-Wilkus-Neg-9%2520-%2520ADA-Round3.docx

b7ee4b7a43fd320725fc0a7d16d6a0f02639fec1ce7e637741444c0bddff278c

5. They also must be fixed---The recommendation is open to modification, so it’s not a fixed restriction.

Irma Raker 3. Judge on the Maryland Court of Appeals; Court of Appeals of Maryland, “Sy-Lene of Washington, INC. v. Starwood Urban Retail II, LLC,” Lexis]

Webster defining " limit " as certain fix appoint definitely "to restrict by establishing limits Similarly "1. A restriction

We turn to the language of the contract Merriam- Webster defining " limit " as : "to assign to or within certain limits; fix appoint definitely as: "to restrict by or as if by establishing limits Similarly "1. A restriction

language limit appoint definitely restrict establishing limits restriction

['We turn to the language of the contract, and the heart of the issue before the Court. There is no case law in Maryland construing the term "limit." The Oxford English Dictionary includes the following definitions of the word "limit": "1. To assign within limits; to appoint, fix definitely; to specify.... "2. To confine within limits, to set bounds to.... Also, to prohibit (a person) from something.... "3. To border upon (a country).... "4. To beg within specified limits." VIII Oxford English Dictionary 964 (2d ed.1989). See also Webster\'s Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 1312 (Philip Babcock Gove, ed., Merriam-Webster 1986) (defining "limit" as: "to assign to or within certain limits; fix, constitute, or appoint definitely; to set bounds or limits to; to curtail or reduce in quantity or extent"); Random House Webster\'s College Dictionary 762 (Sol Steinmetz, ed., Random House 2d ed.1997) (defining "limit" as: "to restrict by or as if by establishing limits; to confine or keep within limits"). Similarly, Black\'s Law Dictionary defines "limit" as: "1. A restriction or restraint. 2. A boundary or defining line. 3. The extent of power, right or authority." Black\'s Law Dictionary 939 (7th ed.1999).']

[(5, 12)]

ndtceda

Emory-BeYa-Neg-texas-Round-1.docx

Emory

BeYa

5731552b44eb369abc17f7a27d6a1af61ef6a6110de0f65253149e7c8438cb4c

Their fatalism towards institutions as intrinsically dangerous is weaponized by neoliberals for privatization, and makes institutions more insidious by choosing the moral purity of refusal over challenging the Right.

Gray, 18

rejections of the political party ignore nation-states are facilitators of, globalization disengaging from the state cedes political space to ruling classes we allow the atrophy of the collective capacities there are uncomfortable parallels between neoliberal assertions that institutions are inherently corrupt Ruling classes harnessed discontent with government to promote privatization we hasten attacks on welfare state if the anti-power milieu has clean hands , it is because they hold them above their heads in surrender as tide of blood creeps up their legs they replace the capitalist state with a command economy that is undemocratic the state easily crushes them They can oppose capitalism, but not transcend it the Zapatistas announced intention to engage in electoral politics

we neglect the persisting importance of the state Widespread rejections of the political party as organization are associated with the optimistic assertions that in the age of globalization, nation-states and national struggles are of diminishing importance Those who espouse “Think globally, act locally ignore that nation-states are not superseded by but rather are the facilitators of, globalization depictions of capitalism as postmaterialist attempt to transcend in thought the social relations we have been unable to transcend in practice An eroding collective memory and the obsession with academic novelty neglect the extent of historical continuity in our era the only things new under the sun are the carbon emissions that disastrously trap its rays . disengaging from the state cedes political space and operational terrain to ruling classes by rejecting all electoral politics as legitimation of the state, much of the radical left relies on an anarcho-reformism which only make radical demands from outside of the state we allow the atrophy of the collective capacities necessary to transform the state there are uncomfortable parallels between anti-power politics and the dominant neoliberal assertions that institutions are inherently corrupt and inefficient. Ruling classes have harnessed widespread discontent with government to promote marketization, privatization , and deregulation of state institutions and practices To the extent the radical left engages in the big refusal, we hasten these attacks on the welfare state redistributive measures, and social programs the neoliberal hollowing of the state is complemented by a neo-anarchist Hollowaying of the state By abstaining from this terrain of politics, we play the game of the neoliberals “as conscientious objectors play the game of the conquerors.” Surely, we cannot glorify dirty hands if the anti-power milieu has clean hands , it is only because they hold them above their heads in surrender as the tide of blood creeps up their legs . Anti-power politics has proven unable to challenge capitalism from outside the state as is any politics from the inside the extra- parliamentarist tendency believes even the most democratic of states is essentially capitalist this tendency envisions long preparations for total break with capitalist institutions Those have typically remained dependent on and lacked real control over the state that they have “conquered they tend to replace the capitalist state with a command economy that is just as undemocratic , if not more so the state , which, when it can no longer ignore them, easily crushes them They can oppose capitalism, but not transcend it Even Holloway’s major inspiration, the Zapatistas announced their intention to engage in electoral politics the new radical left parties are beginning to fall into the problems typical of traditional social democratic parties, as illustrated by the ways the Syriza government has become co-opted into the Greek state

persisting importance of the state optimistic assertions nation-states not superseded facilitators of, globalization in thought unable to transcend in practice the only things new under the sun are the carbon emissions that disastrously trap its rays cedes political space to ruling classes outside of the state atrophy collective capacities uncomfortable parallels dominant neoliberal inherently Ruling classes harnessed radical left engages in the big refusal, we hasten attacks on the welfare state the neoliberal hollowing of the state is complemented by a neo-anarchist Hollowaying of the state abstaining clean hands only because they hold them above their heads in surrender unable long preparations dependent on lacked real control , if not more so easily crushes them They can oppose capitalism, but not transcend it Even the Zapatistas announced their intention to engage in electoral politics

['Paul Christopher Gray, Faculty Member in Labour Studies, Brock University, “From the Streets to the State: Changing the World by Taking Power,” SUNY Press (2018)', 'Fourth, we neglect the persisting importance of the state. Widespread rejections of the political party as a form of organization are often associated with the optimistic assertions that, in the age of globalization, nation-states and national struggles are of diminishing importance. Those who espouse “Think globally, act locally” correctly expose the constraints on democratic spaces imposed by international institutions, trade agreements, currency zones, and new forms of imperialism.', 'Nevertheless, they often ignore that nation-states are not superseded by, but rather are the facilitators of, globalization (Panitch 1994, 63). The prevalent depictions of contemporary capitalism as postindustrial or postmaterialist attempt to transcend in thought the social relations we have been unable to transcend in practice. The recent waves of technological and social innovations are staggering, but they remain developments within capitalism (Albo 2007, 12). An eroding collective memory and the obsession with academic novelty tend to neglect the extent of historical continuity in our era. Indeed, the only things new under the sun are the carbon emissions that disastrously trap its rays.', 'Finally, disengaging from the state cedes much political space and operational terrain to ruling classes. It is true, Holloway’s anti-power politics has helped to cultivate a healthy wariness of co-optation by government institutions. Nevertheless, by rejecting all electoral politics as a legitimation of the state, much of the radical left relies, often unconsciously, on an anarcho-reformism which can only make radical demands from outside of the state. Consequently, we allow the atrophy of the collective capacities necessary to transform the state and stifle the development of new such capacities. Furthermore, there are uncomfortable parallels between anti-power politics and the dominant neoliberal assertions that public institutions are inherently corrupt and inefficient. Ruling classes have harnessed widespread discontent with government bureaucracy to promote the marketization, privatization, and deregulation of state institutions and practices. To the extent that the radical left engages in the big refusal, we hasten these attacks on the welfare state, redistributive measures, and social programs. Indeed, the neoliberal hollowing of the state is complemented by a neo-anarchist Hollowaying of the state. By abstaining from this terrain of politics, we play the game of the neoliberals “as conscientious objectors play the game of the conquerors.”4 Surely, we cannot glorify dirty hands, “right up to the elbows” (Sartre 1989, 218). But if the anti-power milieu has clean hands, it is only because they hold them above their heads in surrender as the tide of blood creeps up their legs.', 'Anti-power politics has proven to be as unable to challenge capitalism from outside of the state as is any purely party politics from the inside. Transcending capitalist society and the state might very well depend on reconciling the best aspects of both of these equally one-sided tendencies. Indeed, this split has divided the radical left throughout the history of its resistance to capitalism. We can describe these two long-standing tendencies as parliamentarism and extra-parliamentarism. On the one hand, for the parliamentarist tendency, to the extent that the state is democratic, it embodies universal liberties, not the power of the capitalist class and elite groups. This tendency argues that the radical left can use this state to fully realize these liberties in ways that preserve the continuity between the partial democracy permitted under capitalism and the full democracy allowed by socialism. For the parliamentarist tendency, the most important factor is a sufficiently strong and long-lasting governing majority that can fundamentally transform the hindrances to full democracy in civil society. Nevertheless, this tendency, historically exemplified by the social democrats, has been completely absorbed by the state. It can reform capitalism, but not transform it.', 'On the other hand, the extra-parliamentarist tendency believes that even the most democratic of states is essentially controlled by the capitalist class and ruling groups. Therefore, instead of attempting to win the already existing state power, this tendency builds alternative institutions in its shadows. Rather than being co-opted into the inferior forms of merely representative democracy, it creates qualitatively different forms of participatory, deliberative, and direct democracy. Ultimately, this tendency envisions long preparations for what will be a sudden and total break with capitalist institutions, either by violently smashing them or through a more nonviolent exodus from them. Those in the former subtendency, exemplified by the communists, have typically remained dependent on and lacked real control over the state that they have “conquered.” Thus, they resort to recruiting the former state officials and administrators of the ruling classes. This, among other causes, has meant that they tend to replace the capitalist state with a command economy that is just as undemocratic, if not more so. Those in the latter subtendency, exemplified by the anarchists, altogether refuse to operate on the terrain of the state, which, when it can no longer ignore them, easily crushes them. Despite all of their differences,', 'these two subtendencies meet a similar fate. They can oppose capitalism, but not transcend it.5', 'In recent decades, the balance has shifted toward the extra-parliamentarism of those who espouse anti-power politics. As is often the case, they point to the shortcomings of parliamentarism without being sufficiently critical of their own attempts to change the world without taking power. But the pendulum might be swinging to the other tendency given the emergence of the new radical left parties, the “parties of a new type,” in Latin America, Europe, Turkey, the Philippines, Tanzania, and elsewhere (for more on this, see chapters 3 to 6 in this volume). Even Holloway’s major inspiration, the Zapatistas, have recently announced their intention to engage in electoral politics (Niembro 2017). Nevertheless, the new radical left parties are beginning to fall into the problems typical of traditional social democratic parties, as is illustrated by the ways in which the Syriza government has become co-opted into the Greek state and the institutions of the European Union (see chapters 2 and 3). These parties do not sufficiently heed the criticisms leveled by anti-power politics. Indeed, it has been the case historically that both the parliamentarist and the extra-parliamentarist tendencies bend the stick so far in their own directions that they turn it into a dull boomerang capable only of glancing the arguments of the other side before returning to their own. Surely, this is the most narcissistic of weapons.']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Emory-BeKi-Neg-Texas-Round-2.docx

Emory

BeKi

7ffacd1b84753581f72c2257a88b6469548c777d983cf2467cf5515d8dbf56f6

Mandated portability both undermines innovation and privileges dominant firms in the rulemaking process

Thomas Lenard 20, Senior Fellow and President Emeritus at the Technology Policy Institute, January 2020, “If Data Portability is the Solution, What's the Problem?,” https://techpolicyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Lenard_If-Data-Portability.pdf

Data mobility misconstrues nature of competition where “competition for the market” is important entrepreneurs compete to earn large returns lowering switching costs lowers returns incentive to invest would be diminished incentive to invest in improvements to existing platforms would be diminished data portability requirements entail additional costs portability require accessible interfaces privacy and security Standard setting is costly and lengthy which invites strategic behavior At each stage largest firms play a disproportionate role standards favor larger firms proposals targeted at “dominant” firms would affect firms of all sizes

Data mobility requirements are intended to promote competition and innovation by reducing switching costs. This argument misconstrues the nature of competition in digital platform markets In sectors where “competition for the market” is important entrepreneurs compete to earn large returns from the fraction of ventures that succeed. To the extent lowering switching costs lowers those returns the incentive to invest in such ventures would be diminished The incentive to invest in new features and improvements to existing platforms would be diminished , because those improvements could be accessed by customers of competing platforms. The platform making the investment would not be able to capture the full returns data portability requirements would entail additional costs portability and interoperability require accessible interfaces , and privacy and security standards developing standards for accessible interfaces would involve the FTC) as well as N I S T The FRAND concept is vague and has been difficult to define and apply in the world of standard-essential patent licensing Standard setting is a costly and lengthy process , which invites strategic behavior by the affected parties. At each stage of rulemaking and developing standards, the largest firms with the greatest resources can be expected to play a disproportionate role . This provides an opportunity to develop technical standards that favor the larger firms Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter are already collaborating on a “Data Transfer Project Although proposals are targeted at “dominant” firms , the proposals would affect firms of all sizes that are part of the ecosystem and potential participants in data transfers Even with all the regulatory controls the standards developed are unlikely to address all the privacy and security issues inherent in exchanging data between platforms

misconstrues the nature of competition incentive to invest in such ventures would be diminished be diminished additional costs N I S T a costly and lengthy process the largest firms with the greatest resources disproportionate role technical standards that favor the larger firms affect firms of all sizes

['Data mobility and interoperability requirements are intended to promote competition and innovation by reducing switching costs. This argument misconstrues the nature of competition in digital platform markets.', 'In sectors where “competition for the market” is important – the sectors at issue – entrepreneurs and venture capitalists compete in order to earn large returns from the fraction of ventures that succeed. To the extent that lowering switching costs lowers those returns, the incentive to invest in such ventures would be diminished.', 'The incentive to invest in new features and improvements to existing platforms would also be diminished, because those improvements could be accessed by customers of competing platforms. The platform making the investment would not be able to capture the full returns from its investment.', 'Moreover, data portability and interoperability requirements would entail additional costs, as illustrated by the ACCESS Act. Both portability and interoperability require accessible interfaces, and privacy and security standards for platforms that may receive data or may be interoperable.', 'Under the ACCESS Act, developing standards for accessible interfaces, as well as privacy and security, would involve the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The ACCESS Act requires interoperable interfaces based on “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” (FRAND) terms. These terms presumably include rates the platforms would charge each other for exchanging data and other services – a ratemaking problem that, despite much experience, has always been challenging. The FRAND concept is vague and has been difficult to define and apply in the world of standard-essential patent licensing from which it comes. Ruling on what is “fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” under the Act would presumably fall to the FTC, which would also promulgate rules to facilitate verification of validity of requests for user data and otherwise implement the Act.', 'Standard setting is typically a costly and lengthy process, which invites strategic behavior by the affected parties. At each stage of rulemaking and developing standards, the largest firms with the greatest resources can be expected to play a disproportionate role. This provides an opportunity, for example, to develop technical standards that favor the larger firms. Indeed, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Twitter are already collaborating on a “Data Transfer Project, to develop standards to move data between platforms.” Although the ACCESS Act has a cutoff of 100,000,000 monthly users and other proposals are targeted at “dominant” firms, the proposals would affect firms of all sizes that are part of the ecosystem and potential participants in data transfers.', 'Even with all the regulatory controls envisioned by the ACCESS Act, the standards developed are unlikely to address all the privacy and security issues inherent in exchanging data between platforms with different policies and practices.', '']

[(7, 16)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Neg-Texas-Round1.docx

Northwestern

DeFr

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/DeFr/Northwestern-Deo-Fridman-Neg-Texas-Round1.docx

874333605f9b72d11d9d064980630da8163455515e51a256259846267cbb032e

No nuke terror.

John Mueller 22, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Political Science, Woody Hayes Senior Research Scientist, and Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies Emeritus in the Mershon Center for International Security Studies at The Ohio State University, Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute, Ph.D. and M.A. in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles, “Nuclear Proliferation,” CATO Institute, 2022, https://www.cato.org/cato-handbook-policymakers/cato-handbook-policymakers-9th-edition-2022/nuclear-proliferation

it has become increasingly evident terrorist groups exhibited limited desire and even less progress going atomi discovered the effort is scarcely likely to succeed to buy a bomb is highly improbable . The risk would be too great the source would be discovered nations are serious about security safety devices are difficult to defeat building and deploying presents “ Herculean challenges difficulty acquiring expertise technical requirements lack of materials and material purity

Alarm about the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferating to terrorists has tapered it has become increasingly evident terrorist groups exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomi c they discovered the effort is scarcely likely to succeed to receive or buy a bomb is highly improbable . The risk would be too great the source would be discovered the weapon could explode in a manner or on a target the donor would not approve nuclear nations are very serious about security safety devices are difficult to defeat building and deploying a nuclear device presents “ Herculean challenges .” Physicists conclude fabricating a nuclear weapon “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group” because of “the difficulty of acquiring the necessary expertise , the technical requirements the lack of available materials and experience in working with these.” Others stress daunting problems with material purity , machining , and a host of other issues the notion a terrorist group could fabricate an atomic bom is farfetched at best alarm and hysteria are hardly called for

increasingly evident limited desire even less progress highly improbable very serious difficult to defeat Herculean challenges Physicists expertise technical requirements lack of available materials material purity machining farfetched at best hardly called for

['Alarm about the possibility of nuclear weapons proliferating to terrorists has been raised repeatedly over the decades. In the wake of 9/11, many commentators were predicting that terrorists might well set one off by 2014.', 'Alarm has tapered some in recent years because it has become increasingly evident that terrorist groups have exhibited only limited desire and even less progress in going atomic. Perhaps, after a brief exploration of the possible routes, they have discovered that the tremendous effort required is scarcely likely to succeed.', 'One route a would‐\u200bbe atomic terrorist might take would be to receive or buy a bomb from a generous, like‐\u200bminded nuclear state for delivery abroad. That route, however, is highly improbable. The risk would be too great—even for a country led by extremists—that the source of the weapon would ultimately be discovered. Moreover, the weapon could explode in a manner or on a target the donor would not approve—including, potentially, on the donor itself.', 'Some observers have worried about “loose nukes,” weapons that can be stolen or bought illicitly. However, Younger’s observation remains relevant: nuclear nations are very serious about the security of their weapons. Moreover, finished bombs are usually outfitted with safety devices that are difficult to defeat.', 'Most analysts believe that a terrorist group’s most promising route would be to attempt to make a bomb using purloined fissile material—plutonium or highly enriched uranium. However, as the Gilmore Commission—an advisory panel on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction—stressed in 1999, building and deploying a nuclear device presents “Herculean challenges.” As it noted, the process requires a lengthy sequence of steps; if each is not fully met, the result is not simply a less powerful weapon but one that can’t produce any significant nuclear yield at all or can’t be delivered.', 'Physicists who have studied the issue conclude that fabricating a nuclear weapon “could hardly be accomplished by a subnational group” because of “the difficulty of acquiring the necessary expertise, the technical requirements (which in several fields verge on the unfeasible), the lack of available materials and the lack of experience in working with these.” Others stress the “daunting problems associated with material purity, machining, and a host of other issues” and conclude that the notion that a terrorist group could fabricate an atomic bomb or device “is farfetched at best.”', 'The notion that terrorists could come up with a nuclear weapon seems remote. As with nuclear proliferation to countries, there may be reason for concern, or at least for interest and watchfulness. But alarm and hysteria are hardly called for.']

[(5, 15)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-BiSl-Neg-Wayne-State-Round-2.docx

Kentucky

BiSl

5264edcb84f991a42eef08e6d2a14bebc036268d8f3685ff3ce5607cbec5095d

Didn’t read a carded deficit to DUAs. Checks every US risk AND adversary perception.

Jonathan Falcone et al. 23. Active-duty U.S. Navy officer and chief engineer in the Littoral Combat Ship program. Awarded the 2022 Alfred Thayer Mahan Literary Award by the Navy League of the United States and is a graduate of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and Yale University. Jonathan Rodriguez Cefalu, founder and Chairman of , B.S., computer science, Stanford University. Michael Kneeshaw, bioinformatics scientist and researcher with a focus on ML and simulations. Maarten Bos, quantitative experimental behavioral researcher, Ph.D. “Prove it Before You Use It: Nuclear Retaliation Under Uncertainty.” War on the Rocks. June 1, 2023. .

Decide-under-attack improves upon launch by allowing delayed response minimize escalation if false if proves president can cancel the strike is reduced terrorists with adds layers of resilience accounts for system and human biases that lead to actions based on a false warning increases credibility accounts for false alarms from malfunction algorithmic error spoofing

Decide-under-attack improves upon launch -under-attack by allowing the president to opt for a delayed response Upon receiving a warning president can execute a delayed attack decide to ready the submarine- and land-launched components while keeping the long-range bombers grounded to minimize escalation if the warning proves false if the warning proves false the president can cancel the strike risk of a premature decision is reduced Decide-under-attack effectively addresses the risk of mistaken launch terrorists with may try to provoke decide-under-attack posture addresses this by delaying the response until there is greater evidence time delay adds layers of resilience accounts for system and human biases that could potentially lead to actions based on a false warning This posture not only increases the credibility of Washington’s retaliatory capability but also accounts for false nuclear alarms caused by anything from equipment malfunction and algorithmic error to deliberate spoofing and human fallibility

delayed response delayed attack escalation cancel reduced layers of resilience false warning credibility equipment malfunction algorithmic error spoofing

['Decide-Under-Attack in the Electronic Environment', 'The current retaliatory posture must consider two factors: first, the inherent and increasing vulnerability of systems that inform decision-making, and second, the fundamental importance of presidential control in U.S. nuclear policy. It is crucial for a retaliatory posture to ensure the availability of weapons and command and control from the use decision to execution.', 'Retired Adm. James Winnefeld, former commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command, proposed an\xa0\xa0that better balances deterrence and safety. This posture, called “decide-under-attack,” introduces a delayed response option to reduce the time pressure inflicted by launch-under-attack.', 'Ultimately, an attack warning will prove to be real or false. But the president will decide whether to launch weapons or not without knowing if it is the former or latter. Among the four possible scenarios, two outcomes must be avoided. The first would be that the president fails to launch when an attack warning is real. The second would be an irretrievable retaliatory strike even though the warning is false. The cyber- and system-based vulnerabilities highlight the uncertainty inherent in the information that feeds this decision-making process. And due to the induced time constraints, a launch-under-attack posture increases the likelihood of these unwanted outcomes.', 'Decide-under-attack improves upon launch-under-attack by allowing the president to opt for a delayed response. This option extends the reach of command and control and reduces the pressure caused by uncertainty and time constraints. Upon receiving a warning, the president can choose to order specific or all components of the nuclear triad to execute a delayed attack. For example, the president may decide to ready the submarine- and land-launched components while keeping the long-range bombers grounded to minimize the potential for escalation if the warning proves false.\xa0', 'In a scenario where the president has a higher degree of confidence that the warning is real and is concerned about the survivability of the land and sea components, they may also order the strategic aircraft to take flight. Even if it is a real warning and the president becomes incapacitated (or communications are lost),\xa0\xa0and the command and control concept would be intact, enabling a retaliatory strike.', 'However, if the warning proves false, the president can cancel the strike. The risk of a premature decision is reduced because the president knows that the order could still be carried out even in the event of their death or disrupted communications. Decide-under-attack effectively addresses the risk of mistaken launch in today’s posture by pivoting the retaliation decision from time-constrained to proof-based.', 'Furthermore, the proposed posture serves as a deterrent to adversaries with cyber capabilities. A strategic adversary could launch a real strike and use cyber-based tactics to induce additional uncertainty. This heightened uncertainty may overwhelm the president, making it difficult to initiate a retaliatory response. Consequently, this situation may create incentives for adversaries to launch a first strike. However, if adversaries believe that a delayed retaliatory response is likely, the incentive to launch such a cyber-nuclear attack is reduced.\xa0', 'Other actors, namely terrorists with\xa0, may try to provoke a preemptive launch by\xa0. The decide-under-attack posture addresses this by delaying the response until there is greater evidence, such as additional sensor correlation or confirmation of weapons impact. A potential weakness of this approach would be if an adversary could convincingly deliver a false signal across multiple systems to provoke a launch order and then disrupt communications. However, the time delay, combined with the availability of alternative communications methods (since the warning was false), adds layers of resilience to prevent a mistaken launch.', 'Moreover, this approach accounts for system and human biases that could potentially lead to actions based on a false warning, which have been the\xa0\xa0of near-accidental or mistaken launches. As such, the decide-under-attack option builds resiliency by expanding the decision space. That space can be used to recall an order, modify an order to achieve a proportional response, or validate the inbound weapon’s origin. This posture not only increases the credibility of Washington’s retaliatory capability but also accounts for false nuclear alarms caused by anything from equipment malfunction and algorithmic error to deliberate spoofing and human fallibility.', '']

[(9, 26)]

ndtceda

Emory-RuSh-Neg-4---Texas-Round-4.docx

Emory

RuSh

b8b492dfaa5fce49f59e193c3ea7ec55770163a9ace8ff80e1b527f5bbf33f66

Clog’s getting worse.

Griff Witte and Mark Berman 12/19/21, Griff Witte is a national correspondent for The Washington Post, Mark Berman is a national reporter for The Washington Post, “Long after the courts shut down for covid, the pain of delayed justice lingers,” Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/covid-court-backlog-justice-delayed/2021/12/18/212c16bc-5948-11ec-a219-9b4ae96da3b7_story.html

courthouse shut down. nationwide cases are being dismissed by the dozen District attorneys face the longest backlogs in living memory This is a system issue and it’s only going to get worse backlogs aren’t going to magically disappear Delays are nothing new But have gotten much worse, courts were slow in getting back up and running

When coronavirus struck the red-brick courthouse that has stood sentry on Main Street in Newport, Vt., since the late 19th century abruptly shut down. So did courthouses nationwide . cases are being dismissed by the dozen . Defendants live with charges they can’t shake District attorneys face some of the longest case backlogs in living memory This is a three-year project to get the number of pending cases back to what it was . This is a system issue right now, and it’s only going to get worse These backlogs aren’t going to magically disappear .” Delays in the U.S. court system are nothing new , of course. Long before the coronavirus, America stood out among its industrialized peers for the extensive wait times from charges filed to verdict delivered But now things have gotten much worse, When the pandemic struck, the impact on the courts was immediate and far-reaching courts were slow relative to other parts of society in getting back up and running

red-brick courthouse abruptly shut down. courthouses nationwide dismissed by the dozen District attorneys longest case backlogs living memory three-year project pending cases was system issue only going to get worse magically disappear Delays nothing new , stood out peers extensive wait times charges filed verdict much worse, impact courts immediate far-reaching slow getting back up and running

['When the coronavirus struck American shores in early 2020, the red-brick courthouse that has stood sentry on Main Street in Newport, Vt., since the late 19th century abruptly shut down.', 'So did courthouses nationwide. But unlike most, the one in Newport — a small, lakeside community nestled a short drive from the Canadian border — has never fully reopened.', 'With jury trials still suspended, cases are being dismissed by the dozen. Defendants live with charges they can’t shake. And Dick Collier lies awake at night, wondering if he will die before the man accused of killing his daughter faces justice.', '“That’s my fear,” said Collier, 81, and in precarious health. “That I might not live long enough to see him go to trial.”', 'Nearly two years after the American justice system was paralyzed by a pandemic, the repercussions continue to radiate through communities nationwide, from tiny towns to the largest cities.', 'District attorneys face some of the longest case backlogs in living memory. Defendants languish in jails that have become breeding grounds for the coronavirus. Others are set free — and, some prosecutors say, may be contributing to a spike in violent crime that is only compounding the pileup.', 'Although the shutdown in Newport is extreme — most courthouses are back in action, even if they are not yet at their pre-pandemic capacity — legal officials from coast to coast say justice delayed by covid-19 will continue to be a feature of the American landscape for several years to come. And that’s assuming the courts don’t have to shut down again for omicron or another new variant.', '“This is a three-year project to get the number of pending cases back to what it was. And I’m an optimist,” said Dan Satterberg, prosecuting attorney in King County, Wash., which includes Seattle. “It’s a historic challenge that we’re facing right now.”', 'The backlogged system has had deadly consequences, officials say.', 'In Wisconsin, Darrell Brooks was set to stand trial this year for allegedly firing a gun at his nephew. Prosecutors were ready, as was the defense. But there was no courtroom available. With the system unable to deliver the speedy trial that Brooks had requested — and that the state was required to deliver — he was released on $500 bail.', 'While out, court records show, the 39-year-old allegedly tried to use his car to run over the mother of his child and was arrested once more. But an overburdened junior prosecutor juggling a jury trial and two dozen other felony cases set his new bail at $1,000 — an amount the district attorney would later call “a mistake” — and Brooks was released again.', 'Just days later, on Nov. 21, prosecutors say Brooks plowed his car into the Christmas parade in the Milwaukee suburb of Waukesha, hitting 60 people — and killing six. This time, his bail was set at $5 million.', 'While critics have focused on the low bail amounts, Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisolm said the case was better understood as the tragic consequence of when courts can’t keep up.', '“This is a system issue right now, and it’s only going to get worse,” Chisholm told reporters this month. “These backlogs aren’t going to magically disappear.”', 'Delays in the U.S. court system are nothing new, of course. Long before the coronavirus, America stood out among its industrialized peers for the extensive wait times from charges filed to verdict delivered.', '“It’s not that the criminal justice system was a model of efficiency prior to the pandemic,” said Christopher Slobogin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University. “But now things have gotten much worse, and ultimately that’s not good for anybody.”', 'When the pandemic struck, the impact on the courts was immediate and far-reaching: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared a “statewide judicial emergency” and extended filing deadlines. Virginia’s Supreme Court issued an order suspending nonessential proceedings in circuit and district courts. The Iowa Supreme Court announced that it was pushing back criminal trials, while Alabama’s Supreme Court suspended in-person court proceedings.', 'Because criminal defendants have a constitutional right to face their accusers, criminal trials — unlike civil and family law cases — generally could not be conducted remotely. And amid fears of superspreader events, jury trials in cramped quarters seemed especially unwise.', 'The shutdowns reverberated nationwide, but to varying degrees. Some states reopened far more quickly than others. Now, even as certain areas report lengthy delays, others say their backlogs are gone. A survey by the Thomson Reuters Institute released in August found that the average backlog in state and local courts had increased by about a third.', 'Vera Institute of Justice Vice President Insha Rahman said that, on the whole, the courts were slow relative to other parts of society in getting back up and running. And the reason, Rahman said, is insidious: The courts disproportionately “process cases for people who are poor, who are Black and brown. If the courts were filled with cases of White kids from suburban, wealthy parts of our communities, there would have been more urgency to bring things back to normal.”']

[(6, 15), (21, 33)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-Landgraff-Wegener-Aff-Fullertown-Round6.docx

Northwestern

LaWe

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Northwestern/LaWe/Northwestern-Landgraff-Wegener-Aff-Fullertown-Round6.docx

1f8fed89fb33b0f45e8695f47495f050ba815f07149e5418da0fa28872ca4a75

Flips pedagogy, error replication, ethics / their impacts and ALT solvency

Pappas 17 (Gregory Fernando Pappas, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Texas A&M University, “The Limitations and Dangers of Decolonial Philosophies: Lessons from Zapatista Luis Villoro,” Radical Philosophy Review, 2017, DOI: 10.5840/radphilrev201732768)*edited in brackets

The proper starting point is not metanarratives tends to occlude injustices should be concrete problematic situations tendency to favor theoretical starting point ironically, European in origin slipping back into universalism becomes nonfalsifiable and nonempirical most injustices so complex that any simple explanation wishful thinking diagnosing a single transhistorical source of injustice have little to offer someone suffering totalizing dichotomies undermining the liberatory function slipping into claims about necessary relations or assuming that liberalism can never be anything but an excuse to colonize This can be avoided by encouraging more rigorous analysis of what particular assumptions are problematic instead of just blanket statements or theore movements of resistance ended up also practicing domination when talk about praxis but actual emphasis is on theoretical explanations or abstraction leftist ideologies have been used to tyrannize and exterminate dissidents need a framework by which we can be critical of both to transform debate questionable whether decolonial thought can because are committed to the idea that liberalism are constitutive of coloniality compelled to when assume coloniality as a theoretical barometer for evil render us ignorant of concrete injustices evaluation as bad or good cannot be determined theoretically need to find out how it functions in particular If a movement relies on theore for unity risks exclusion in practice counterproductive benefit the s quo Pointing out the dangers of a philosophical approach does not constitute a refutation must go beyond deconstructive criticism

The Dangers and Limitations of Starting with a Theoretical Global Standpoint and a Grand Historical Metanarrative about Injustice Our starting point should be our present particular experiences of marginalization and injustices and from there we can project possible remedies different from the usual theoretical path taken by philosophies of justice, we must try out a negative path, i.e., try to understand justice from its absence, from experiences of injustice The proper starting point is not the large metanarratives that assume a universal standpoint that tends to occlude injustices ; it should be the concrete problematic situations of injustice not the usual abstractions in philosophy harms can be of different types and to different degrees and are usually linked to particular historical circumstances before speculation about probable global causes different starting point from the usual theoretical, abstract, and global in scope approach of the decolonial turn As a reaction to the hegemonic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view , decolonial thinking has stressed that our knowledge is always situated , but situated where? The context in which knowledge is situated, as well as of the injustices they aim to diagnose, are often described as power structures (global hierarchies) located in a geopolitical context (in a world-system) They prescribe that Americans think from a particular historical and social reality, but this is understood as seeing oneself in the periphery of a global order. The tendency among decolonialists to favor this theoretical starting point and to gravitate toward global views of injustice comes from the influence of world-system and dependency theory analysis in economics. However, a key influence, not often recognized, is a general way of thinking about problems of injustice that is, ironically, European in origin critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx, Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others this tradition takes society to be intrinsically sick with a malaise that requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations this approach assumes that: A philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of society in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself For decolonialists the sickness is the global hegemony—economic, military, political, and cultural—of the West, first via Europe and then the U S one of the modern ideas we inherited that must be questioned is “global explanations” because “ general ideologies tend to slip into totalitarianism in our thinking can be extended to decolonial thought Granted, a theory of grand historical evil and systematic sickness in the Americas can have great explanatory power and provide theoretical comfort but there a danger of slipping back into a form of universalism , which they have explicitly avoided? when a theory explains so much it becomes nonfalsifiable and therefore nonempirical ? the quest for a comprehensive explanation and a grand historical narrative is also in danger of not capturing the historical and concrete particularity (pluralism, complexity, uniqueness) of actual injustices When we start at the broad level of globality and history as decolonialists often do, there is a risk of oversimplifying and encouraging [ignorance] about concrete injustices most injustices in different parts of the Americas are so complex that any simple explanation merits the suspicion of being wishful thinking a more pluralistic and context-sensitive approach could avoid the dangers anchors account in his local present situation, is very specific about what particular aspects of modernity or liberalism are problematic, and does not have one preferred category of analysis such as coloniality For most decolonial theorists, however, the legacy of colonialism is central (understood broadly as coloniality), and the situation of the oppressed is to be analyzed in relation to a global narrative in which Europe is at its center or in relation to modernity or a global capitalist system. The decolonial project is centered on detecting plural manifestations of the single evolving domination (a social pathology) that started in 1492. Liberation is understood as decolonization via undoing “the coloniality of power” and affirming what has been “conceal[ed] by the Western modern epistemic hegemony liberation is a local event the complexity of the problems on the ground may not be fully captured by even our best academic global historical narratives and categories If injustice is an illness then Villoro’s approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, i.e., the particular injustice and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical source of injustice As concepts global hierarchies, white supremacy, and coloniality can be great tools that can have planetary significance However, in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique relationship in a situation In present situations (events) of injustice there are not only intersecting histories of white supremacy, capitalist exploitation, and patriarchy; there are also unique events, multiple countries with different complex histories and present circumstances, as well as a variety of responsible agents—local and international governments, corporations, particular individuals and communities Regardless of how much a theory of global domination that centers on coloniality can actually explain, it is reasonable to worry about what it leaves out and question the extent to which it really helps those who are victims of injustice Such theories may lead to analysis or diagnosis that while true at some level , may actually have very little to offer in terms of more specific diagnoses and solutions that can be of any help to someone suffering an injustice We can say all we want that the oppressed live in power structures located in global hierarchies and a world-system, but that does not fully capture where they are. However useful and true that account may be about someone’s particular circumstances, it is still overabstracted. Knowing how people have been classified according to a colonial matrix of power is important, but only insofar as it may help us inquire about the present actual causes of an injustice Moreover, it is not obvious how the use of a single name and the prism of a single cause helps in trying to ameliorate the particular and context-specific evils from which particular countries and people suffer One could reply that my worries are misplaced. Calling decolonization the cure may suggest that coloniality is some sort of single homogeneous cause, but the decolonialists have distinguished between different types of coloniality and have included in their diagnosis a plurality of causes such as exploitation of resources, political manipulation, and assimilation of people from other cultures . If this is the case then why not address these more particular evils Mignolo refers to it as a “structure of management and domination” that is still widespread and in all domains The concept starts to look as if it has no externality or limits There is the danger that coloniality is colonizing all other categories of analysis of concrete injustices The Dangers of an Inflated Notion of What Counts as “Ideology” and Theoretical Barometers of Good and Evil slipping into panideologismo has been a tendency of the Left in part as a consequence of a broad conception of ideology as a set of beliefs conditioned by the interest of the group one belongs to this is a useless notion since all beliefs can be said to be socially conditioned to some degree or serve the interest of some group This view of ideology is not useful in detecting ideologies and encourages the following type of fallacious argument ation: “We must find out what group in society a philosopher belongs to in order to find out what hidden motives ground their theories and determine their truth or falsity these intellectual vices are often accompanied by other pernicious totalizing dichotomies such as “all beliefs, of any type, have to be subjected to either total condemnation or absolution,” or “ in praxis one is either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed In some intellectuals these tendencies feed into each other, and before long they can lead to intolerance or being closed to any other view about present problems the sort of global explanations common in modern times that justify some totalizing political outlook on the world are more vulnerable to these excesses Any philosophy, no matter how insightful and disruptive of the status quo it may be, starts on the road toward becoming an ideology when “it is no longer a critical reflection on accepted beliefs but a presentation of doctrines in opposition to all other philosophies,” i.e., when it becomes an “ism.” Hopefully the decolonial movement will never become an “ism” otherwise their global explanatory power may end up undermining the possible liberatory function of their philosophies If the decolonial movement remains pluralistic and open to self-criticism it may be able to avoid the above excesses, but some will remain vulnerable as long as they assume the broad sense of ideology a serious study of ideologies has to be as specific to time and place as possible The quest for theoretical barometers of good and evil at a global level and across history futile since the present ideological function of a concept/category is not always determined by its past use or the original purpose for which it was created A distinction created to oppress may play a different function or have different functions in different social contexts Modernity and liberalism have not always functioned as ideologies or to the same degree , nor does it make sense to claim that they always will Even native thought (indigenismo) can become an ideology if adopted to keep the oppressed in their place, i.e., if it perpetuates subordination or oppression the Left must resist the temptation to rely on lazy theoretical barometers of good and evil. It must be able to provide a basis for being critical of Western ideas beyond the fact that they are Western or come from the oppressor Not all Western concepts, standards, and categories are oppressive even to the most non-Western people. To decide between good and evil requires intelligent discriminative judgment and not easy theoretical formulas according to geopolitical coordinates or cultural origins even native thought (indigenismo) can become an ideology Mignolo describes the decolonial project as “delinking” from the West and recovery of the indigenous as if this determines what is the right path from evil toward the good Mignolo “DeLinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of decoloniality.” This smells like a subtle Manichaeism or at least a position that does not permit inquiry that is sensitive to historical context The decolonialists’ criticism of the hegemony of the West is warranted and important, but for it to continue as a growing project that does not succumb to the excesses (vices) of the Left diagnosed it must be careful to not slip into any of the following assumptions: • Modernity and liberalism were and are totally bad ; they are ideologies for dominating, colonizing, and oppressing or only have a darker side. • Eurocentrism (interpretation, standpoint) is bad, but philosophy from the periphery is good . • Western concepts have been used to distort or occlude indigenous (non-Western) ones therefore all or most Western concepts distort or contaminate, or are tools of domination . • Western epistemologies are imperialistic ; the epistemologies of each of the colonialized regions are good Finding particular instances where these assumptions have been explicitly articulated is not necessary since the point is about the latent danger of slipping into these assumptions due to what the project is centered on or stresses Mignolo has come closer than any other decolonial thinker to assume the view that Western epistemologies are imperialistic often operating with what appears an overly simplified account of Western philosophical positions In Mignolo’s case, varieties of epistemologies in Europe and the U S are lumped together into a single category before they are all easily dismissed according to an implicit barometer of domination/ liberation What about modernity and liberalism ? Is the modern project an emancipatory project or a colonial one, as is often stressed by decolonial theorists? This question is too general or assumes that there is a simple answer no one doubts that events and structures of power invented in 1492 have had lasting effects in a region, but “to the extent that these processes have had a differential impact upon distinct regions and according to different moments of time, generalizations about the persistence of the modern/colonial seem to erase crucial differences among localities and periods we need to challenge this homogenization of a long-term persistence of the colonial tendencies in decolonial thought toward this sort of historical lumping together and linear narratives about a single source of evil across history result in oversimplifications in the diagnosis and proposed solutions to local evils To be clear, decolonialists are correct that liberalism has been used to mask oppression and white supremacy. They are also correct in their rejection of the idea that colonialism and oppression were a separate or just unfortunate side effect of modernity. The danger is slipping into claims about necessary relations or assuming that modernity or liberalism can never be anything but an ideological excuse to dominate, colonize , or oppress. This can be avoided by encouraging more rigorous , careful, and historically sensitive analysis of what particular aspects and assumptions (e.g., ontological, epistemological, and ethical ones) are problematic instead of just blanket statements or relying on some theore tical barometer of domination The Dangers of Centering the Project of Liberation on Shared Beliefs or Ideas collective movements of resistance have ended up being ideological and also practicing domination and exclusion The road toward or danger of corruption usually begins when a leftist talk s about praxis but the actual emphasis is on belief, on theoretical explanations , on logics of domination, or any other intellectual abstraction made the mistake of trying to be “an explanation of the world” This is not to deny that a Left centered on praxis needs theories (logics of domination), but the latter are nothing more than tools of critical reflection that may have to be modified and changed as we engage in the struggle Dogmatic adherence to any one thing is counterproductive contrapoder posture is required because “one same political doctrine can have a disruptive function in one context and in another be supportive of a situation of domination Liberalism may have been disruptive in a particular European context, that is from the Left, when it faced absolutism, but then it became conservative, i.e., from the Right, when it served capitalism Marxism-Leninism was leftist when it fought against capitalist exploitation, but it turned into the Right when it became the instrument of an oppressive bureaucratic class a Left centered on some set of beliefs or some explanation of the world is also susceptible to the following exclusionary attitudes that can affect the inner workings of the movement. 1. If you do not share the same beliefs or theory of domination that I do, then you are not one of us (against domination) or should be subject to suspicion. 2. If your philosophy is not explicitly political and about what we believe is the cause of domination, then it is not a philosophy that works on behalf of liberation. 3. Only those that correctly interpret the set of beliefs that ground our movement, usually intellectual leaders, can direct the movement of resistance; and those that question the beliefs are heretics and inauthentic philosophers these dangers are a real possibility for the decolonial movement epistemology proper has been surrendered to the analytic philosophers a failure of the Left to use to the fullest the distinctive liberatory-disruptive power of philosophy critically reflective political agents allows to be critical of both the actual Left and Right governments leftist ideologies and utopias have been used to tyrannize people and exterminate dissidents we have witnesses in Latin America to how both the Left and the Right have been oppressive The need for a framework by which we can consistently be critical of both is long overdue In many countries the leftist politicians usually present a one-sided and simplistic analysis where the cause of a country’s problem(s) is merely structural and external, e.g., comes from outside capitalist interests The Right, on the other hand, argues that the causes are all internal, e.g., the masses, the government, or socialism Both are lazy and predictable self-serving answers coming from political ideologies, and both fail to intelligently and open-mindedly assess the complexity of the problems We need to transform the horizons of the debate However, it is questionable whether decolonial thought can provide the much-needed framework that can be critical of the Left as much as the Right because most of them are theoretically committed to the idea that capitalism and liberalism are constitutive of coloniality and modernity relatively silent in criticism of Chavez or Fidel This is what you are compelled to do when you assume coloniality as a theoretical barometer for where evil resides another example of why, in spite of its usefulness, the category of coloniality can constrain and [ render us ignorant of ] concrete injustices evaluation of a particular economic system as bad or good cannot be determined a priori or theoretically ; we need to find out how it functions in a particular country If lacks a single system of beliefs or a theory of domination, how then can there be any solid basis for unity? argues in favor of a “pluralistic Left Even individuals with different political doctrines can belong to the ideal Left if they have a genuine interest in the well-being of those who are excluded or dominated understood as a collective but plural movement of resistance, raises a good challenge to the actual Left in the Americas that is sometimes split on a theoretical basis If a liberatory movement relies on some theore tical framework for unity it risks exercising exclusion in practice , encouraging conflicts between leftist groups based on theoretical disagreements about who is the most oppressed in a society or which theory-logic of domination can explain more , from the comfort of their armchairs These theoretical disputes are counterproductive ; they benefit the s tatus quo and miss the importance of praxis Pointing out the dangers of a philosophical movement or approach does not constitute a refutation . All views have dangers and limitations , and their defenders are better off if they are aware of them The risk of “Panideologismo” and other related totalizing tendencies can be prevented by ensuring that there is a rigorous and critical study of ideologies specific to time and place, and making clear that a philosophy of liberation must go beyond deconstructive political criticism decolonialists can avoid becoming exclusionary, divisive, rigid, and ideological by emphasizing more praxis in the sense of a collective moral posture and action against domination rather than just a shared set of beliefs or singular explanation e.g., a theory of domination However, there are other dangers mentioned that will be harder for decolonialists to avoid or prevent without feeling the tension of having to change a tenet at the core of their present view. For instance, reductionism and oversimplification of the actual forms of oppression on the ground can be avoided if more decolonialists would be explicit about the limitations of coloniality as an axis or category, or by stressing how it is just one revisable tool among others to track concrete oppressions. But would this recognition undermine the centrality of coloniality that seems key to their identity as a leftist movement? Similarly, decolonialists could prevent the oversimplifications that can result from relying rigidly on a theoretical Manichaean barometer of what is good or evil, but can they do this without abandoning the geopolitical framework central to their view in which the source of bad things comes from the colonizer—Europe, modernity, liberalism, capitalism? Finally, decolonialists may be able to avoid slipping into another universalism as well as the global explanations of injustice that sometimes fail to capture the pluralism, complexity, and uniqueness of the concrete problems of injustice in the Americas. However, it remains an open question whether they can do this without giving up their tenet that we must inquire into present events of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice as a social pathology across history: a “systematic sickness” in the Americas that can traced back to 1492

starting point different negative proper starting point not metanarratives tends to occlude injustices concrete problematic situations of injustice particular historical circumstances different starting point theoretical, abstract, and global in scope universal or objective point of view knowledge is always situated but situated where? theoretical starting point global views of injustice ironically, European in origin European tradition requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations assumes philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of society in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself one of the modern ideas we inherited that must be questioned is “global explanations” general ideologies tend to slip into totalitarianism in our thinking slipping back into a form of universalism nonfalsifiable nonempirical oversimplifying [ignorance] about concrete injustices most injustices so complex any simple explanation wishful thinking pluralistic context-sensitive avoid dangers complexity not fully captured by even our best academic global historical narratives particular injustice not single transhistorical source of injustice it is reasonable to worry about what it leaves out question the extent to which it really helps those who are victims of injustice theories may lead to analysis or diagnosis that while true at some level have very little to offer in terms of more specific diagnoses and solutions that can be of any help to someone suffering an injustice One could reply decolonialists have distinguished between different types of coloniality included in their diagnosis a plurality of causes such as exploitation of resources, political manipulation, and assimilation of people from other cultures If this is the case then why not address these more particular evils Mignolo coloniality is colonizing all other categories of analysis of concrete injustices fallacious argument what group in society a philosopher belongs to hidden motives ground their theories determine their truth or falsity intellectual vices totalizing dichotomies in praxis one is either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed global explanations totalizing political outlook more vulnerable to these excesses no longer a critical reflection but a presentation of doctrines in opposition global explanatory power undermining the possible liberatory function of their philosophies Modernity liberalism not always functioned as ideologies or to the same degree nor does it make sense to claim that they always will Even native thought can become an ideology if it perpetuates subordination or oppression Mignolo describes “delinking” from the West and recovery of the indigenous as if this determines what is the right path from evil toward the good Mignolo “DeLinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of decoloniality.” does not permit inquiry that is sensitive to historical context must be careful to not slip into any of the following assumptions: Modernity and liberalism were and are totally bad Eurocentrism is bad, but philosophy from the periphery is good all or most Western concepts distort or contaminate, or are tools of domination Western epistemologies are imperialistic overly simplified account of Western philosophical positions In Mignolo’s case, varieties of epistemologies lumped together all easily dismissed modernity and liberalism colonial too general assumes that there is a simple answer no one doubts that events and structures of power invented in 1492 have had lasting effects but generalizations about the persistence of the modern/colonial seem to erase crucial differences among localities and periods we need to challenge this homogenization lumping together linear narratives single source of evil across history oversimplifications in the diagnosis and proposed solutions To be clear, decolonialists are correct that liberalism has been used to mask oppression and white supremacy. They are also correct in their rejection of the idea that colonialism and oppression were a separate or just unfortunate side effect of modernity. The danger is slipping into claims about necessary relations or assuming that modernity or liberalism can never be anything but an ideological excuse to dominate, colonize , or oppress. This can be avoided by encouraging more rigorous , careful, and historically sensitive analysis of what particular aspects and assumptions (e.g., ontological, epistemological, and ethical ones) are problematic instead of just blanket statements or relying on some theore tical barometer of domination movements of resistance ideological also practicing domination road toward danger usually begins talk s about praxis but actual emphasis theoretical explanations intellectual abstraction same political doctrine can have a disruptive function in one context and in another be supportive of a situation of domination these dangers are a real possibility for the decolonial movement leftist ideologies have been used to tyrannize people and exterminate dissidents framework consistently be critical of both lazy and predictable self-serving answers fail to intelligently and open-mindedly assess the complexity of the problems need to transform the horizons of debate it is questionable whether decolonial thought can provide the much-needed framework that can be critical of the Left as much as the Right because most of them are theoretically committed to the idea that capitalism and liberalism are constitutive of coloniality and modernity This is what you are compelled to do when you assume coloniality as a theoretical barometer for where evil resides in spite of its usefulness, the category of coloniality can constrain and [ render us ignorant of ] concrete injustices evaluation as bad or good cannot be determined a priori or theoretically need to find out how it functions in particular If a liberatory movement relies on some theore tical framework for unity it risks exercising exclusion in practice , encouraging conflicts based on theoretical disagreements about who is the most oppressed or which theory-logic of domination can explain more theoretical disputes are counterproductive benefit the s tatus quo Pointing out the dangers of a philosophical approach does not constitute a refutation All views have dangers and limitations must go beyond deconstructive political criticism

['The Dangers and Limitations of Starting with a Theoretical Global Standpoint and a Grand Historical Metanarrative about Injustice One strength of Latin American philosophy is its commitment to context and its avoidance of Western universal (Archimedean) starting points. This makes a difference in regard to approaching problems of injustice. The Latin American approach shared by decolonialists and Villoro can be contrasted with an atomistic approach to problems of injustice. The atomistic approach is one that stresses the particularity of an injustice by neglecting history, and in general the relation of that event with others or with structural causes. This is a failure to appreciate the larger connections of single events with more-systematic problems that have a long history and larger scope. The perspective of Villoro and the decolonialists is nothing like this atomistic approach that has been used to hide oppressions; they insist on taking seriously structural injustices and actual history. There are, however, important differences between the approaches taken by Villoro and the decolonialists. The decolonialists see themselves as rectifying the blind spots of other liberatory philosophies, and having a more-extensive explanatory power since they present a large historical narrative from a global perspective in which class, race, and gender are co-implicated in the long history of the oppressed in Latin America. Here is where the contrast with Villoro will prove instructive. He does not share the same methodological approach to the same injustices. In a letter to Subcomandante Marcos, Villoro writes, “Our starting point should be our present particular experiences of marginalization and injustices and from there we can project possible remedies.”12 Villoro argues for a “negative” approach to justice. The core of his proposal is different from the usual theoretical path taken by philosophies of justice, we must try out a negative path, i.e., try to understand justice from its absence, from experiences of injustice.13 The proper starting point is not the large metanarratives that assume a universal standpoint that tends to occlude injustices; it should be the concrete problematic situations of injustice, or as Villoro says, “the lived suffered experience that is an injustice.”14 Villoro starts by pointing out and providing a generic description of the direct personal experiences of exclusion and not the usual abstractions in philosophy. As he states, “We are not referring to a general exclusion [myself as a worker or female in any society] but to a lived relation in the midst of a concrete society.”15 These harms are experienced as a forced exclusion that can be of different types and to different degrees (e.g., full participation in different areas of life—economical, cultural, political) and are usually linked to some difference. Villoro presents phenomenological descriptions of these experiences and is attentive to particular historical circumstances before he ventures into speculation about probable global causes. These then form the basis for his philosophical effort to defend the rights of indigenous pueblos.16 Notice how different Villoro’s starting point is from the usual theoretical, abstract, and global in scope approach of the decolonial turn. As a reaction to the hegemonic Eurocentric paradigms that disguise injustices under the assumption of a universal or objective point of view, decolonial thinking has stressed that our knowledge is always situated, but situated where? The context in which knowledge is situated, as well as of the injustices they aim to diagnose, are often described as power structures (global hierarchies) located in a geopolitical context (in a world-system).17 They prescribe that Latin Americans think from a particular historical and social reality, but this is understood as seeing oneself in the periphery of a global order. The tendency among decolonialists to favor this theoretical starting point and to gravitate toward global views of injustice comes from the influence of world-system and dependency theory analysis in economics. However, a key influence, not often recognized, is a general way of thinking about problems of injustice that is, ironically, European in origin. There is a long tradition of sociopolitical thought in Europe whose starting point is the injustices of society at large that have a history and persist through time, and where the task of political philosophy is to detect and diagnose the presence of these historical injustices in particular situations of injustice. For example, critical theory today has inherited an approach to social philosophy characteristic of the European tradition that goes back to Rousseau, Marx, Weber, Freud, Marcuse, and others. According to Roberto Frega, this tradition takes society to be intrinsically sick with a malaise that requires adopting a critical historical stance in order to understand how the systematic sickness affects present social situations. In other words, this approach assumes that: A philosophical critique of specific social situations can be accomplished only under the assumption of a broader and full blown critique of society in its entirety: as a critique of capitalism, of modernity, of western civilization, of rationality itself. The idea of social pathology becomes intelligible only against the background of a philosophy of history or of an anthropology of decline, according to which the distortions of actual social life are but the inevitable consequence of longstanding historical processes.18 For decolonialists the sickness that afflicts Latin America is the global hegemony—economic, military, political, and cultural—of the West, first via Europe and then the United States, broadcast under the philosophy of the Enlightenment with Europe carrying the mission. As Vallega explains, “Latin America suffered and continues to suffer under western hegemonic modernity and its system of power and knowledge.”19 Villoro believed that at the turn of the twentieth century one of the modern ideas we inherited that must be questioned is “global explanations” because “general ideologies tend to slip into totalitarianism in our thinking.”20 I think Villoro’s reservations are warranted and can be extended to decolonial thought. Granted, a theory of grand historical evil and systematic sickness in the Americas can have great explanatory power and provide theoretical comfort,21 but where are we standing when we start with such large historical metanarratives? How is it this not a God’s-eye view of history? Is there a danger of slipping back into a form of universalism, which they have explicitly avoided? Isn’t there a danger that when a theory explains so much it becomes nonfalsifiable and therefore nonempirical? In any case, the quest for a comprehensive explanation and a grand historical narrative is also in danger of not capturing the historical and concrete particularity (pluralism, complexity, uniqueness) of actual injustices. When we start at the broad level of globality and history as decolonialists often do, there is a risk of oversimplifying and encouraging blindness [ignorance] about concrete injustices. Consulting recent rigorous research done by historians and social anthropologist about Latin America (more on this later) confirms what many know from simply living there: most injustices in different parts of the Americas are so complex that any simple explanation merits the suspicion of being wishful thinking. To be fair, compared to Marxism the decolonial turn added complexity and made a significant shift. Marxism as a tool was not sensitive enough to the realities on the ground in Latin America. It was a universal model that did not adequately address its particular problems. However, decolonialists do not seem to have abandoned or questioned a similar methodological starting point. As a result, decolonial theories may sometimes be presented with the same pretension of offering a universal diagnosis of the complex and tragic problems of Latin America. Perhaps a more pluralistic and context-sensitive approach could avoid some of the dangers I have presented. Here is where the contrast with Villoro is useful. To be sure, Villoro was critical of the same things as the decolonialists: the Eurocentric narrative, modernity, liberalism, and so on. However, when he takes a reflective historical perspective about these large historical and lumpy categories there is a difference in how he does it. He anchors his account in his local present situation, is very specific about what particular aspects of modernity or liberalism are problematic, and does not have one preferred category of analysis such as coloniality. For most decolonial theorists, however, the legacy of colonialism is central (understood broadly as coloniality), and the situation of the oppressed is to be analyzed in relation to a global narrative in which Europe is at its center or in relation to modernity or a global capitalist system. The decolonial project is centered on detecting plural manifestations of the single evolving domination (a social pathology) that started in 1492. Liberation is understood as decolonization via undoing “the coloniality of power” and affirming what has been “conceal[ed] by the Western modern epistemic hegemony.”22 In contrast, at the center of Villoro’s approach is liberation from domination, and the causes of domination are plural and contextual and therefore too complex to be articulated or framed by a global theory of domination. For Villoro liberation is a local event; one of its tools is to sometimes take a global perspective, and the complexity of the problems on the ground may not be fully captured by even our best academic global historical narratives and categories. He inquired into the history of a systematic injustice in order to facilitate inquiry into the present unique, context-bound injustice. If injustice is an illness then Villoro’s approach takes as its main focus diagnosing and treating the particular present illness, i.e., the particular injustice in a corner of Mexico, and not a global “social pathology” or some single transhistorical source of injustice. As concepts and categories, global hierarchies, white supremacy, and coloniality can be great tools that can have planetary significance. One could even argue that they pick out much-larger areas of people’s lives and injustices than the categories of class and gender. However, in spite of their reach and explanatory theoretical value they are nothing more than tools to make reference to and ameliorate particular injustices experienced (suffered) in the midst of a particular and unique relationship in a situation. Why is this important? In present situations (events) of injustice in the Americas there are not only intersecting histories of white supremacy, capitalist exploitation, and patriarchy; there are also unique events, multiple countries with different complex histories and present circumstances, as well as a variety of responsible agents—local and international governments, corporations, particular individuals and communities. Regardless of how much a theory of global domination that centers on coloniality can actually explain, it is reasonable to worry about what it leaves out and question the extent to which it really helps those who are victims of injustice. A wider net may bring more fish from the ocean, but I am not sure this applies to injustices. Such theories may lead to analysis or diagnosis that while true at some level, may actually have very little to offer in terms of more specific diagnoses and solutions that can be of any help to someone suffering an injustice. However, for Mignolo coloniality is “the underlying logic of the foundation and unfolding of Western civilization from the Renaissance to today”23 Coloniality helps explain how race and gender became the basis of classification in the Americas, but it remains an open question how these categories actually operate in particular countries or even in particular unjust events. We can say all we want that the oppressed live in power structures located in global hierarchies and a world-system, but that does not fully capture where they are. However useful and true that account may be about someone’s particular circumstances, it is still overabstracted. Knowing how people have been classified according to a colonial matrix of power is important, but only insofar as it may help us inquire about the present actual causes of an injustice. Moreover, it is not obvious how the use of a single name and the prism of a single cause helps in trying to ameliorate the particular and context-specific evils from which particular countries and people in Latin America suffer. One could reply that my worries are misplaced. Calling decolonization the cure may suggest that coloniality is some sort of single homogeneous cause, but the decolonialists have distinguished between different types of coloniality and have included in their diagnosis a plurality of causes such as exploitation of resources, political manipulation, and assimilation of people from other cultures. If this is the case then why not address these more particular evils, unless one is really committed to some unitary account in which all of these evils can be reduced to a singular cause? One way to avoid reductionism is to stress, as Ramon Grosfugel has, that coloniality is nothing more than “an organizing principle,”24 a useful concept that makes us see what we would not see without it. It is useful insofar as it allows us to recognize that underneath progress in liberation from political colonialism there may be unjust colonial relationships and structures that need to be addressed. Although the usefulness of the concept is undeniable, as an organizing principle it has limitations and dangers. In may be too narrow because it makes us see forms of domination that originated only from a particular history where capitalism, based on racial classification, was its economic basis. The most obvious limitation is that it may also be too broad insofar as it tends to lump together the history of countries and people with different histories subjected to different sorts of exploitation and manipulations, and not always by the same colonizers. The direction that the decolonial movement has taken in recent years is toward more lumping together. For now, we are at a point where there is coloniality of knowledge, gender, and being. Maldonado calls it “the matrix” and the “long-standing patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production.”25 Mignolo refers to it as a “structure of management and domination” that is still widespread and in all domains.26 The concept starts to look as if it has no externality or limits. What is next? Coloniality of my colon?27 There is the danger that coloniality is colonizing all other categories of analysis of concrete injustices. So far I have contrasted how decolonial theorists and Villoro approach injustices in order to suggest some possible dangers and limitations with the former approach. The next section reconsiders Villoro’s criticism of Marxism and Latino Americanism in the 1990s, and the extent to which decolonial theory, in spite of its differences with these other theories, shares some of their features that make it vulnerable to the same dangers that concerned Villoro. The Dangers of an Inflated Notion of What Counts as “Ideology” and Theoretical Barometers of Good and Evil Villoro was sympathetic to the direction taken by Latin Americanism (e.g., his teacher Leopoldo Zea) and Marxism (e.g., Adolfo Sanchez Vazquez); however, he became concerned with the excesses and vices that they slipped into once they grew into philosophical movements. Let us examine some of these concerns and the extent to which decolonialists may be vulnerable to them as they continue to grow as a leftist project. Villoro worked on a sophisticated theory about the nature of ideologies. He inquired into the history of the concept in philosophy and, more importantly, the function of ideologies in the history of Mexico.28 He admired the Marxist Left for making us aware that any serious philosophy of liberation needs to inquire into the nature of ideologies; we can no longer be naive. However, Villoro was concerned with how the Left had gravitated toward “panideologismo” as a reaction29 i.e., a totalizing tendency to see all beliefs as ideology that fosters even the worst attitudes such as “the politization of all beliefs. Every belief is seen under the prism of what class interest and political function it serves. Nothing escapes that perspective.”30 The danger of overstressing the political is reductionism or a narrow view of the richness of lived experience in which religion, art, morals, and science are the objects of constant suspicion as ways of masking some political agenda or maintaining a power relation. Villoro believes slipping into panideologismo has been a tendency of the Left in part as a consequence of a broad conception of ideology as a set of beliefs conditioned by the interest of the group one belongs to. He thinks this is a useless notion since all beliefs can be said to be socially conditioned to some degree or serve the interest of some group. This view of ideology is not useful in detecting ideologies and encourages the following type of fallacious argumentation: “We must find out what group in society a philosopher belongs to in order to find out what hidden motives ground their theories and determine their truth or falsity.” For Villoro these intellectual vices are often accompanied by other pernicious totalizing dichotomies such as “all beliefs, of any type, have to be subjected to either total condemnation or absolution,” or “in praxis one is either on the side of the oppressor or the oppressed.”31 The same logic is applied in judging individuals: “If some beliefs of an individual are ideological, then the rest must be also ideological.”32 In some intellectuals these tendencies feed into each other, and before long they can lead to intolerance or being closed to any other view about present problems. Anyone is susceptible to the above vices, but Villoro thought that the sort of global explanations common in modern times that justify some totalizing political outlook on the world are more vulnerable to these excesses.33 He admired Marxism when it was used as a tool of local criticism and liberation, but was critical of Marxists that overextended its reach to become a totalizing explanation of all problems and all aspects of life.34 Any philosophy, no matter how insightful and disruptive of the status quo it may be, starts on the road toward becoming an ideology when “it is no longer a critical reflection on accepted beliefs but a presentation of doctrines in opposition to all other philosophies,”35 i.e., when it becomes an “ism.” Hopefully the decolonial movement will never become an “ism” of the sort that concerned Villoro, otherwise their global explanatory power may end up undermining the possible liberatory function of their philosophies. If the decolonial movement remains pluralistic and open to self-criticism it may be able to avoid the above excesses, but some will remain vulnerable as long as they assume the broad sense of ideology that Villoro criticized or if they presuppose a notion of praxis that is narrowly political. For instance, Enrique Dussel takes all ideas and philosophers to be conditioned or determined by a sociopolitical context because they always occur in the context of praxis understood as the “structural totality of human actions of a group, a social class, or a historical community.” This means that “even in the case of the greatest philosophers, it is impossible to avoid a significant share of ideological ‘contamination.’”36 Therefore philosophy is always implicated in an ideology.37 However, for Villoro having an inflated notion of ideology is not as concerning as an approach that is not sensitive enough to context. For Villoro what makes something an ideology is both its unwarranted aspect and its mischievous function of concealing or perpetuating domination.38 With these two conditions in mind and a more-rigorous and critical inquiry that is sensitive to historical context, he believed the Left could avoid the simplistic tendency to condemn certain ideas as being always ideological and on the side of domination, for instance versions of Marxism that identify domination exclusively with capitalism, and of Latin Americanism that simplistically assumes that the European origin of ideas makes them suspicious or bad. Villoro’s study of history made it clear to him that the actual relation between ideas and domination or liberation was complex and ambiguous. Hence he became critical of the tendency of leftist intellectuals to judge what is liberatory or on the side of domination based on the content of the beliefs and not their actual historical function at a particular time. In his country Villoro witnessed the legacy of Spanish colonial ideologies that were always mutating in their content—sometimes under the name of racial or national unity (e.g., Mestizaje) and at other times in the name of the finest ideals such as liberty, equality, and even democracy—but always serving the particular interests of different elites at different times and in different regions in Mexico. For Villoro a serious study of ideologies has to be as specific to time and place as possible. The quest for theoretical barometers of good and evil at a global level and across history should be subject to critical suspicion and may be futile since the present ideological function of a concept/category is not always determined by its past use or the original purpose for which it was created. A distinction created to oppress may play a different function or have different functions in different social contexts. Modernity and liberalism have not always functioned as ideologies or to the same degree, nor does it make sense to claim that they always will. Even native thought (indigenismo) can become an ideology if adopted to keep the oppressed in their place, i.e., if it perpetuates subordination or oppression.39 If Villoro is correct in the above analysis then decolonial views are vulnerable to inaccuracy and insensitivity, especially those that wish to trace back to 1492 and across different countries the ideologies that have supported coloniality—such as modernity, capitalism, or liberalism. Villoro did not ignore how historically similar colonial structures were throughout the Americas, but for him ideologies and the logic of domination that operate in one particular place and time may not operate in the exact same way in another, especially in such a complex and diverse region as the whole of Latin America. If domination and exclusion via ideologies are local, its diagnosis and remedies must also have to be local. We need to be careful when we extrapolate from one context to another. Villoro raised a similar criticism of leftist reactions to the problem of Eurocentrism that relies on simple formulas that state we just need to embrace what is “ours” and reject what is European. Although Villoro was a critic of Eurocentrism and admirer of indigenous thought, he warned Zea and the Latin Americanist or indigenismos movement to not react to Eurocentrism and the colonial Manichaean ideas, where what is “ours” or indigenous is denigrated, with a mere inversion of the Manicheanism. For Villoro the Left must resist the temptation to rely on lazy theoretical barometers of good and evil. It must be able to provide a basis for being critical of Western ideas beyond the fact that they are Western or come from the oppressor. Not all Western concepts, standards, and categories are oppressive even to the most non-Western people. To decide between good and evil requires intelligent discriminative judgment and not easy theoretical formulas according to geopolitical coordinates or cultural origins. Again, even native thought (indigenismo) can become an ideology. He expected the Left to be sensitive to this, but what he actually experienced was a Left slipping dangerously toward subtle Manichaean assumptions, i.e., simplistic barometers about the boundaries between good and evil. This, I am afraid, is a danger in decolonial thought, one that seems unavoidable as long as they make central to their project the coloniality axis that relies on binaries to determine the direction of good and evil. I am aware that it is not easy to oppose a binary without just inverting it, but we must be careful. To be fair, decolonial thought has been critical of Manichaeism as part of the colonial legacy and there is no doubt about their good intentions to move in a pluralistic direction where there is no one central epistemology. However, this center-versus-periphery framework is easily susceptible to slipping into the simplistic view that all evil comes from what is at the center—Europe, the West, modernity, liberalism, capitalism. For instance, Mignolo describes the decolonial project as “delinking” from the West and recovery of the indigenous as if this determines what is the right path from evil toward the good.40 ', '[BEGIN FOOTNOTE 40]', '40. Mignolo, “DeLinking: The rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of decoloniality.” ', '[END FOOTNOTE 40]', 'This smells like a subtle Manichaeism or at least a position that does not permit inquiry that is sensitive to historical context. The decolonialists’ criticism of the hegemony of the West is warranted and important, but for it to continue as a growing project that does not succumb to the excesses (vices) of the Left that Villoro diagnosed it must be careful to not slip into any of the following assumptions: • Modernity and liberalism were and are totally bad; they are ideologies for dominating, colonizing, and oppressing or only have a darker side. • Eurocentrism (interpretation, standpoint) is bad, but philosophy from the periphery is good. • Western concepts have been used to distort or occlude indigenous (non-Western) ones therefore all or most Western concepts distort or contaminate, or are tools of domination. • Western epistemologies are imperialistic; the epistemologies of each of the colonialized regions are good. Finding particular instances where these assumptions have been explicitly articulated in the decolonial project is not necessary since the point is about the latent danger of slipping into these assumptions due to what the project is centered on or stresses. However, to make the case that I am pointing to a real danger, I next present some examples and controversies within the decolonial literature where a subtle Manicheanism has already raised its ugly head. Mignolo has come closer than any other decolonial thinker to assume the view that Western epistemologies are imperialistic. Linda Alcoff criticizes Mignolo for “often operating with what appears an overly simplified account of Western philosophical positions.” 41 One way to make Manicheanism work is to provide or assume simplistic accounts of both the good and evil poles. In Mignolo’s case, varieties of epistemologies in Europe and the United States are lumped together into a single category before they are all easily dismissed according to an implicit barometer of domination/ liberation. What about modernity and liberalism? Is the modern project an emancipatory project or a colonial one, as is often stressed by decolonial theorists? This question is too general or assumes that there is a simple answer. If one stipulates by definition that modernity stands for ideas and events that anyone would regard as evil, then of course total condemnation of modernity is the only logical conclusion. However, one has to wonder about the historical accuracy of a philosopher that uses the category of modernity to include events and ideas in different places and during long periods of time. This is why some historians, such as Ricardo Salvatore, have been puzzled by how some decolonial theorists use of the notions of modernity and coloniality. As he states, “Historians are likely to resist the homogenization into a single polarity (modernity/coloniality) of different types or waves of modernity.”42 Salvatore argues that no one doubts that events and structures of power invented in 1492 have had lasting effects in a region, but “to the extent that these processes have had a differential impact upon distinct regions and according to different moments of time, generalizations about the persistence of the modern/colonial seem to erase crucial differences among localities and periods.”43 Thus according to Salvatore from a historical point of view, “we need to challenge this homogenization of a long-term persistence of the colonial.”44 The impact of European colonization was very different in different regions of Mesoamerica. I am not a historian; my concern is rather how the tendencies in decolonial thought toward this sort of historical lumping together and linear narratives about a single source of evil across history can result in oversimplifications in the diagnosis and proposed solutions to local evils. What is admirable about Villoro is his respect for historical accuracy and complexity when it comes to the relation between ideas, movements, events, and the actual consequences of good and evil. As much as Dussel and Mignolo, Villoro occasionally made overall negative assessments about modernity and liberalism, but he would qualify them and admit that history reveals a much more ambiguous and complex reality on the ground in regard to good and evil. For instance, the relation between the European Enlightment and the actual conditions on the ground in different societies was complex. While in some places it had an antiauthoritarian and liberatory function in regard to certain issues such as religion and dogma, in other times and places it did nothing but support the oppression of certain groups. Villoro acknowledges the same complexity of good and evil in regard to scholasticism, the church, positivism, modernity, the project and ideals of the Mexican and U.S. revolutions, the civil rights movement, and so on. To be clear, decolonialists are correct that liberalism has been used to mask oppression and white supremacy. They are also correct in their rejection of the idea that colonialism and oppression were a separate or just unfortunate side effect of modernity. The danger is slipping into claims about necessary relations or assuming that modernity or liberalism can never be anything but an ideological excuse to dominate, colonize, or oppress. This can be avoided by encouraging more rigorous, careful, and historically sensitive analysis of what particular aspects and assumptions (e.g., ontological, epistemological, and ethical ones) are problematic instead of just blanket statements or relying on some theoretical barometer of domination. This is what Villoro did. For instance, he was critical of the prioritization of the individual over the social in liberalism, how it denies the fundamental sociality of human beings, and assumes a hostile self/other relation that makes it easy to justify domination.45 Because decolonialists rely so much on the West-European/indigenous axis in their analysis it makes them susceptible to certain objections. They are aware that their position should not rely on a strict opposition that pits the indigenously “pure” against the European “contagion.” As some have conceded, there may be no absolute exteriority and instead there might only be proximate exteriority.46 However, decolonialism is often based on the hope that there are still places in Latin America that have not been totally destroyed or affected by Western modernity. These places in the periphery can then build from relative exteriority and have an interepistemic dialogue without a center (universalism). Notice the subtle Manicheanism presupposed in this last prescription for decolonization. The bifurcation between what aspects or a pole of the Americas are good and evil is clear. It may be unreasonable to expect all Latin Americans to totally separate what is Western or European from their being; however, the call for decolonization is understood as having a critical awareness of aspects of one’s being that come from the colonizer. Decolonization requires those in the periphery to look into their own tools, which have been denigrated for years, and use them to critique the European residuum left behind. Decolonization is a process of emancipation from or transformation of what is European. As a result of this geopolitical barometer of good and evil, decolonialists have been on the defensive about their use of Western categories in their philosophies. Manuel Vargas has raised the Eurocentrism problem (2005) as an inconsistency or tension in some decolonialists. If they oppose Eurocentrism, why do some of them rely so much on Western categories? Defenders of Dussel have gone out of their way to show that much of his work in history or philosophy is done from the side of the ethnic pueblos or showing that there is no inconsistency. For instance, Mendieta claims that Dussel recognizes the “co-determination of both center and periphery.” Working in between European (the center) and non-European discourses (the periphery) is acceptable as long as the goal is eventual delinking or decontamination.47 For the decolonialists it makes sense to live with the anxiety of avoiding in their theories “contamination” from the West or ideas that originated from the colonizer. Raising the suspicion of contamination in other philosophers and even among themselves is one of their favorite modes of criticism. For example, are the categories of gender and class used by Dussel and Quijano suspiciously from the West?48 Decolonialists would not be susceptible to these challenges and anxieties if they would not make geopolitical references so central to their project. Villoro is not as susceptible to any of them because at the core of his liberatory project is the liberation from domination, not simply Eurocentrism or modernity. There is no preestablished assumption or theory about where domination comes from, or in which geographic-ethnic direction the tools for liberation are to be found. Villoro does not go out of his way to try as much as possible to be suspicious of, relinquish, or reform Western categories. Which categories work better—those that come from Europe or those that come from different local pueblos—is an open question. He does argue that many of the Zapatista principles are better for Mexico than many of the liberal ones, but he would support these claims with specific reasons for why the Zapatistas happen to be correct. This allows for the possibility that some Western ideas may sometimes be best for dealing with local needs. The Dangers of Centering the Project of Liberation on Shared Beliefs or Ideas In his 2007 Los Retos de la Sociedad por Vivir (the chapter “La Izquierda como una postura moral”), Villoro proposes to redefine what it means to be “Left” in the hopes of avoiding some of its most common dangers. He also gives a general diagnosis of why or how any well-intentioned leftist movement toward the goal of liberation can risk becoming counterproductive and even corrupted. As a historian of revolutions, Villoro was interested in investigating the sources of corruption of the Left, i.e., how collective movements of resistance have ended up being ideological and also practicing domination and exclusion. The road toward or danger of corruption usually begins when a leftist talks about praxis but the actual emphasis is on belief, on theoretical explanations, on logics of domination, or any other intellectual abstraction. The Left has made the mistake of trying to be “an explanation of the world”, when it should be “a posture towards the world.”49 This is not to deny that a Left centered on praxis needs theories (logics of domination), but the latter are nothing more than tools of critical reflection that may have to be modified and changed as we engage in the struggle. Dogmatic adherence to any one thing is counterproductive. Villoro hoped that redefining what it means to be leftist would help rectify “the greatest mistake of the Left”: its overly rigid identification with a system of beliefs.50 He argues that at the core of being Left is instead a “moral posture.” It is “an attitude of disruption in regard to the present social reality that gives place to a transformatory practice, and is at the same time the negation of an established order and the projection of another one that seems more rational and human.”51 The Left becomes corrupted when after a liberation victory it settles into a power position and takes for granted that the noble content of its ideas is sufficient, and thereby abandons its previous posture of being “critical in reflection and disruptive in action”52 in the face of domination. This contrapoder posture is required because “one same political doctrine can have a disruptive function in one context and in another be supportive of a situation of domination.”53 Hence for Villoro what is leftist in history has varied in very complex and ambiguous ways. Liberalism may have been disruptive in a particular European context, that is from the Left, when it faced absolutism, but then it became conservative, i.e., from the Right, when it served capitalism. Marxism-Leninism was leftist when it fought against capitalist exploitation, but it turned into the Right when it became the instrument of an oppressive bureaucratic class. “The socialist movements and reforms were able to transform the unbridled capitalism into a more just state of affairs, but often they become an accomplice in a system of domination.”54 It has also been the case that doctrines that once served domination can be later lived in such a way that they contribute to liberation. A religion such as Christianity or Catholicism has sometimes been an ideology that sustains an oppressive power system, but at other times has been an instrument of human emancipation. For Villoro a Left centered on some set of beliefs or some explanation of the world is also susceptible to the following exclusionary attitudes that can affect the inner workings of the movement. 1. If you do not share the same beliefs or theory of domination that I do, then you are not one of us (against domination) or should be subject to suspicion. 2. If your philosophy is not explicitly political and about what we believe is the cause of domination, then it is not a philosophy that works on behalf of liberation. 3. Only those that correctly interpret the set of beliefs that ground our movement, usually intellectual leaders, can direct the movement of resistance; and those that question the beliefs are heretics and inauthentic philosophers. Villoro himself was victim of these exclusionary attitudes. Latin Americanists and Marxists perceived Villoro as not really doing authentic Latin American philosophy and betraying the cause of liberation. For them the fact that Villoro did not adopt their theoretical framework and wrote some nonpolitical books (e.g., about epistemology) meant that he was not really part of the Left. The leftists tended to dismiss or exclude Villoro and others as “‘academista’, ‘elitista’ o incluso ‘ colonialista.’55 This must have been difficult for Villoro, who was a Zapatista and thought of himself first and foremost as a philosopher of liberation. Is this last set of warnings about the liabilities of the Left applicable to decolonial views? It depends on the extent to which the decolonial project is centered on sharing a theory of domination instead of a shared moral posture and their flexibility about the ideas. Given the changing and plural nature of the movement, we may not be able to answer this question in a definitive way. However, if Villoro is correct decolonial theorists should take these questions seriously at the very least. To show that some of these dangers are a real possibility for the decolonial movement I illustrate some instances in which the risk of the above exclusionary attitudes have been present because they stress a set of beliefs about domination at the center of their project of liberation. For example, for some recent decolonial thinkers there is a distinctive Latin American problem of coloniality that began in 1492. Only those concerned with the hidden agenda of modernity—that is, coloniality—in the sphere of knowledge, power, and being are truly authentic Latin American philosophers of liberation. In a recent APA Hispanic Newsletter, Grant Silva published an article that was interpreted by Elizabeth Millán Brusslan as making precisely this sort of claim, and as a consequence the sort of exclusion, even if not intended, that concerns Villoro. She writes in her comments, “Silva seems resigned to accepting exclusions. . . . I think that Silva’s desire to preserve the tradition of LAP is of the highest value . . . but I don’t think we need to accept exclusions born of scorning Latin American thinkers who are not concerned with colonization.”56 This is the sort of exclusionary direction that Villoro feared in Zea and its followers, and that decolonialists must avoid. If it were to become commonplace in their project it would be counterproductive since it could be interpreted as decolonial thought trying to “colonize” the field of Latin American philosophy. Decolonialists should also be concerned with not excluding as liberatory a philosophy that is not explicitly about political beliefs. This is a mistake with practical consequences in regard to liberation. Linda Alcoff has raised this argument in regard to the present direction of the Left, including decolonial thinkers like Mignolo, who are “too quick to dispense with some of the aims of epistemology.” In “An Epistemology for the Next Revolution,” she argues that while the critical Left in philosophy have become great at political criticism (raising suspicions) based on logics of power or domination, they have become weak in other areas of philosophy. As she states, “We can all now critique existing knowledge with great sophistication; we can describe with great precision the interlocking matrices of power and knowledge. . . . But epistemology proper has been surrendered to the analytic philosophers.”57 Villoro would see this as a failure of the Left to use to the fullest the distinctive liberatory-disruptive power of philosophy. Villoro lived the tension in Mexico between professional philosophers totally detached from and unconcerned with the Mexican circumstances, and philosophers of liberation that, in reaction to the political apathy of this group, came close to abandoning philosophy for politics. Villoro thought both of these extremes were mistaken and based on a serious error about what a philosophy for liberation means and needs. Villoro agrees that philosophy is always in a social context, implicated and perhaps contributing to a system of power, but the proper function of philosophy is disruption. However, and this is the important point, such disruption should not be reduced to political thought and action because “the disruptive function of philosophy is implicated in its criticism of accepted beliefs and need not be explicitly political.”58 Villoro’s insight applies to other aspects of culture. It is false that the most politically disruptive art needs to have an explicitly political message and intention. Villoro’s view is not without difficulties. First, there are good reasons to be skeptical that his proposal to change the meaning of the term “Left” would actually work. The notion that the Left/Right labels designate a different system of beliefs or explanations of the world instead of moral posture is deeply entrenched everywhere, perhaps as the legacy of the cold war years. Second, Villoro presupposes some very high, and perhaps unrealistic, expectations of the Left. The actual Left will always fall short of the conscientious and critically reflective political agents Villoro envisions as an ideal. Villoro’s expectations for the Left imply some unusual consequences in terms of actual political alliances in Latin American countries. Villoro’s ideal leftist person need not commit herself to actual left-wing parties, governments, or platforms. Villoro’s view allows him to be critical of both the actual Left and Right governments in Latin America. This is why, as Guillermo Hurtado says, “Villoro has stood up against the leftist ideologies and utopias that have been used to tyrannize people and exterminate dissidents. Villoro has never been a card-carrying member of any political party.”59 This last point can be considered a virtue of Villoro’s view since we have witnesses in Latin America to how both the Left and the Right have been oppressive. The need for a framework by which we can consistently be critical of both is long overdue in Latin America. In Latin America the actual Left/Right bifurcation has not been helpful to analyze its problems. In many countries the leftist politicians usually present a one-sided and simplistic analysis where the cause of a country’s problem(s) is merely structural and external, e.g., comes from outside capitalist interests. The Right, on the other hand, argues that the causes are all internal, e.g., the masses, the government, or socialism. Both are lazy and predictable self-serving answers coming from political ideologies, and both fail to intelligently and open-mindedly assess the complexity of the problems. This is why a group of intellectuals in Latin America recently signed and circulated an online manifesto titled “For a new social and political imagination” to move imaginatively beyond the Left/Right blinders to problems. “We need to transform the horizons of the debate that settled the boundaries of conventional ways of conceptualizing and articulating the social context of a radically new political and social imagination of Latin America.”60 However, it is questionable whether decolonial thought can provide the much-needed framework that can be critical of the Left as much as the Right because most of them are theoretically committed to the idea that capitalism and liberalism are constitutive of coloniality and modernity. This is perhaps why, for example, Dussel has been relatively silent in criticism of Chavez or Fidel.61 This is what you are compelled to do when you assume coloniality as a theoretical barometer for where evil resides. This is another example of why, in spite of its usefulness, the category of coloniality can constrain and blind us to [render us ignorant of] concrete injustices. For Villoro it was clear that the particular form of capitalism in Mexico and other parts of Latin America (neoliberalism) is a serious cause of domination, but this is consistent with a critical context-sensitive approach in which evaluation of a particular economic system as bad or good cannot be determined a priori or theoretically; we need to find out how it functions in a particular country. One can argue that some of the indigenous movements praised by decolonial theorists are actually practicing this sort of intelligent judgment, since they have come up with a mixed economic system tailored to their circumstances. For example, Bolivia’s economic policy is pragmatic. It is a mix of state and market ownership, and some have argued that it has had superb results. 62 If Villoro’s Left lacks a single system of beliefs or a theory of domination, how then can there be any solid basis for unity? Villoro argues in favor of a “pluralistic Left.” Even individuals with different political doctrines can belong to the ideal Left if they have a genuine interest in the well-being of those who are excluded or dominated. The basis of this unity is the fact that in spite of the pluralism of oppressions on the ground, “all dominated groups to different extent and degrees have a common interest: liberation from domination”63 While many questions can be raised about the plausibility of this proposal, the emphasis that Villoro places on praxis for the ideal Left, understood as a collective but plural movement of resistance, raises a good challenge to the actual Left in the Americas that is sometimes split on a theoretical basis. The decolonialists are aiming at a pluriverse type dialogue with no center among the marginalized or the periphery. While this seems consonant with Villoro’s proposal, it would not be if this means that the basis of unity is belief in some grand historical account of present injustices or merely a global explanation of domination. Villoro’s call is to resist unity grounded on an intellectual belief or doctrine as the basis of solidarity and instead seek a shared moral commitment. If a liberatory movement relies on some theoretical framework for unity it risks exercising exclusion in practice, encouraging conflicts between leftist groups based on theoretical disagreements about who is the most oppressed in a society or which theory-logic of domination can explain more, from the comfort of their armchairs. These theoretical disputes are usually counterproductive; they benefit the status quo and miss the importance of praxis. The Dangers in “Using” Indigenous Thought and “Speaking for” the Oppressed One important point of commonality between Villoro and decolonial theorists is their solidarity and inspiration from grassroots and indigenous movements and thought. They have adopted notions and principles from indigenous thought in their philosophies. For instance, Villoro and Dussel have appealed to the notion of pueblo and the principles of good association in Zapatismo, while Mignolo and others have adopted the notion of nepantla. 64 The fact that all of them are leftist criollo intellectuals opens them to certain dangers worth exploring. One danger is the misinterpretation of indigenous concepts since the philosophers in question belong to a different culture. When notions are taken out of their original cultural context and placed in the hands of people removed from those cultures, the original meaning can be distorted. However, is there anything wrong or problematic about such borrowing, adoptions, and distortions? In fact, one could argue that the emergence of new great cultural products, including philosophies, are the result of borrowing and even distorting in the sense of transforming what was taken. However, problems start to quickly emerge if the person or group doing the taking (1) do not admit or are not explicit about the fact that they are transforming what they take, or worse, (2) when those who take do so in ways that are disrespectful and exploitative, such as taking all the credit or benefits. This same situation may be even more problematic when the one doing the taking, borrowing, and transforming is from the dominant culture known for historically doing the wrong sort of taking, e.g., colonialism. I do not wish to lay out here some criteria or rules about when using or taking indigenous ideas is wrong or problematic. Certainly absolute prohibitions or rules make no sense; context matters to this issue. The only point to be made is that there is a danger of slipping into the sort of appropriation of indigenous thought that is problematic, especially when it comes from nonindigenous philosophers. Are decolonialists more susceptible to this danger than Villoro? There is nothing about their ideas or approaches that makes one more vulnerable than the other since this danger has more to do with the actual relationship between the criollo philosophers and the indigenous pueblos, as well as the actual motives. In the case of Villoro, since his recent death scholars are still investigating the biographical details of his relationship with the indigenous people in Chiapas. So far there is no evidence to suggests that he used indigenous thought or people in the objectionable ways suggested. On the contrary, the fact that he was accepted and celebrated as a Zapatista by the indigenous communities suggest that Villoro was not perceived as an outsider that communicated with them just to use their ideas. Moreover, in various publications he makes it very clear that his goals were the autonomy of the indigenous communities, and demonstrates to the rest of Mexico—criollos, mestizos—that “tenemos que aprender de ellos”65 (we have to learn from them). Have decolonialists misinterpreted or misappropriated indigenous thought? This is a difficult question to answer, and perhaps even unfair to ask, given the pluralism and changing character of the movement. However, evidence of a potential problem for decolonialists comes from the recently published work by Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui, an indigenous (Aymara) thinker. I have selected some of the most salient passages from her article “Ch’ixinakax utxiwa: A Reflection on the Practices and Discourses of Decolonization”66 as evidence that the danger of appropriation is more than a vague speculative possibility. The cultural studies departments of North American universities have adopted the ideas of subaltern studies and launched debates in Latin America, thus creating a jargon, a conceptual apparatus, and forms of reference and counter reference that have isolated academic treatises from any obligation to or dialogue with insurgent social forces. Walter Mignolo and company have built a small empire within an empire, strategically appropriating the contributions of the subaltern studies school of India and the various Latin American variants of critical refection on colonization and decolonization. . . . Neologisms such as decolonial, transmodernity, and eco-si-mía proliferate, and such language entangles and paralyzes their objects of study: the indigenous and African-descended people with whom these academics believe they are in dialogue. But they also create a new academic canon, using a world of references and counter references that establish hierarchies and adopt new gurus: Mignolo, Walsh, Enrique Dussel. . . . Equipped with cultural and symbolic capital, thanks to the recognition and certification from the academic centers of the United States, this new structure of academic power is realized in practice through a network of guest lectureships and visiting professorships between universities. Through the game of who cites whom, hierarchies are structured, and we end up having to consume, in a regurgitated form, the very ideas regarding decolonization that we indigenous people and intellectuals of Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador have produced independently. Decolonialists should be concerned with the danger of misappropriation. If they are not careful in how they use indigenous thought it may lead to a serious inconsistency where they themselves are colonizing indigenous thought. There is a related and perhaps more-serious danger: when a nonindigenous intellectual assumes the sort of authoritarian stance that they start “to speak for” the indigenous. Let us be clear what the source of the problem is. Take a look at this picture: I think this is an important message even though there is plenty of ambiguity. First, it is obvious that some cases of “speaking for” are nonproblematic, context matters. Putting that aside, this individual points to the danger that others with a theory, regardless of their identity or point of origin, speak for the oppressed in an imposing (colonial) way. This can happen to any intellectual or even militant leaders of movements who are members of the same group they are trying to help. It occurs when they speak for in a paternalistic way, without listening to the people they are trying to help. The problem, then, is in the nature of the relationship or interaction. I would say it is a nondemocratic one. However, this is not to deny that the worst case occurs when those intellectuals trying to help an oppressed, voiceless group is a member of the dominant culture in that society. In Cusicanqui’s article she makes it clear that she resents not just the taking of her ideas and of other indigenous thinkers, but the problematic speaking for in the above picture. She sees little difference between the old Marxists and the “new Gurus” (the decolonialists) insofar as they “reproduce the cultural domination . . . by their proficiency in the legitimate language and Western thought. It was obvious that to do so, and to proclaim themselves spokespeople and interpreters of the demands of indigenous people, it was necessary to use obfuscating discourses.”67 This is the sort of Left that Villoro criticizes, one that is overcommitted to a certain set of ideas or grand theory. They seem the most vulnerable to this danger because they often assume that having the right theory of world domination entitles them to speak for the oppressed in a nondemocratic and paternalistic way. It is as though they are saying: “Since I have the true theory of why you are oppressed, I will help you and save you by teaching it to you and speaking for you.” These cases of speaking for are problematic because of the nature of the relationship or interaction between the intellectual liberator and the oppressed. Cusicanqui alludes to this, observing that “the North American academy does not follow the pace of our discussions; it does not interact with the Andean social sciences in any meaningful way.”68 In other words, what is missing is the sort of reciprocal, egalitarian, democratic interaction that Villoro considered ideal, and has been the aspiration of some indigenous communities. Leftist intellectuals can help the oppressed, but they must first listen and speak with them instead of trying to speak for or over them. Conclusion Luis Villoro was a critic of colonialism, the darker side of modernity and liberalism, and yet he is never mentioned or engaged by recent scholarship in liberation and decolonial philosophy. In spite of the striking similarities between Villoro and the decolonialists, I have stressed points of difference in order to present some dangers and limitations I see in the decolonial movement. Compared to the old Left the decolonial turn is an improvement, and added complexity and sensitivity to realities on the ground. My aim has not been to undermine decolonial thought, but to help such thinkers avoid some costly mistakes. In other words, this is an effort to warn fellow travelers away from looming pitfalls and dead ends. Pointing out the dangers of a philosophical movement or approach does not constitute a refutation. All views have dangers and limitations, and their defenders are better off if they are aware of them. Decolonialists can easily avoid or prevent some of the dangers I have presented by recognizing the limitations of their intellectual tools or by making some minor modifications to their views. For example, improving the relationship-interaction dialogue with intellectuals who are members of the oppressed could help prevent slipping into a problematic appropriation of indigenous thought. The risk of “Panideologismo” and other related totalizing tendencies that concerned Villoro can be prevented by ensuring that there is a rigorous and critical study of ideologies specific to time and place, and making clear that a philosophy of liberation must go beyond deconstructive political criticism. We also learn from Villoro that decolonialists can avoid becoming exclusionary, divisive, rigid, and ideological by emphasizing more praxis in the sense of a collective moral posture and action against domination rather than just a shared set of beliefs or singular explanation e.g., a theory of domination. However, there are other dangers mentioned that will be harder for decolonialists to avoid or prevent without feeling the tension of having to change a tenet at the core of their present view. For instance, reductionism and oversimplification of the actual forms of oppression on the ground can be avoided if more decolonialists would be explicit about the limitations of coloniality as an axis or category, or by stressing how it is just one revisable tool among others to track concrete oppressions. But would this recognition undermine the centrality of coloniality that seems key to their identity as a leftist movement? Similarly, decolonialists could prevent the oversimplifications that can result from relying rigidly on a theoretical Manichaean barometer of what is good or evil, but can they do this without abandoning the geopolitical framework central to their view in which the source of bad things comes from the colonizer—Europe, modernity, liberalism, capitalism? Finally, decolonialists may be able to avoid slipping into another universalism or God’s-eye view of history as well as the global explanations of injustice that sometimes fail to capture the pluralism, complexity, and uniqueness of the concrete problems of injustice in the Americas. However, it remains an open question whether they can do this without giving up their tenet that we must inquire into present events of injustice in order to detect, diagnose, and cure an injustice as a social pathology across history: a “systematic sickness” in the Americas that can traced back to 1492.', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-BuGe-Aff-Owen-L-Coon-Memorial-Debates-Round-5.docx

MichiganState

BuGe

33c90c6cdcd7e840d02f39e7c8d8ff7db5522109b04788e96fd458c183b5a35a

Resiliency through financial diversity.

Tran & Caruana ’19 [Hung and Jamie; April 9; Nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council and a former executive managing director of the Institute of International Finance; Former general manager at Bank for International Settlements, is a member of the board of directors at BBVA; Atlantic Council, “Diversity Builds Financial Resilience,” ; KS]

diversity of institutions , with differences in models , liability , time and motivations contribute to resilience financial diversity foster counter-cyclical behaviors The idea is to exploit natural differences and develop regimes that encourage diversity insurance companies and pension funds play a stabilizing role value of their assets fall by less allowing them to acquire assets They act in a counter-cyclical manner counter-cyclical behaviors stay resilient can help reduce financial crises

The diversity of financial institutions , with their differences in business models , liability structures , time horizons , and investment motivations contribute greatly to financial resilience financial institutional diversity sustain market liquidity Improving resiliency and liquidity in financial markets is critical to better finance the real economy, allocate risks properly, and support financial stability It is important, to promote financial diversity and foster counter-cyclical behaviors among institutions capable of doing so. This helps reduce the risk of market imbalances leading to liquidity crises and offset self-reinforcing dynamics in times of financial stress. The idea is to exploit the natural differences in financial institutions like banks and investment funds and insurance companies and pension funds on the other, and develop regulatory and accounting regimes that encourage diversity of behaviors . banks and investment funds act in a pro-cyclical manner . Funds maintain adequate cash positions to meet possible redemption demand. pro-cyclicality remains a natural tendency for those institutions and needs to be managed . By contrast, insurance companies and pension funds play a stabilizing role in mitigating selling pressure . As their average asset duration is much shorter than that of their liabilities, when rates rise, the value of their assets fall by less than that of their liabilities. This strengthens their solvency , allowing them to acquire assets having fallen in prices . They thus can act in a counter-cyclical manner Overall, insurers and pension funds behaved in a counter-cyclical manner counter-cyclical behavior of insurers and pension funds can be observed for safe assets whose value can be discounted by the same risk-free rate used for liabilities. Regulators encourage insurers and pension funds to make more use of the counter-cyclical measures more counter-cyclical behaviors by insurers and pension funds, many of which likely stay resilient in a crisis, can help reduce the frequency and severity of financial crises . some 7,000 banks failed but most of the insurers remained financially healthy financial diversity should be a focus

diversity financial institutions differences business models liability structures time horizons investment motivations financial resilience critical financial diversity counter-cyclical behaviors reduce the risk market imbalances natural differences regulatory accounting regimes encourage diversity of behaviors pro-cyclical manner natural tendency managed insurance companies pension funds stabilizing role mitigating selling pressure strengthens their solvency acquire assets fallen in prices counter-cyclical manner observed for safe assets resilient reduce frequency and severity of financial crises financial diversity focus

['The diversity of financial institutions, with their differences in business models, liability structures, time horizons, and investment motivations could contribute greatly to financial resilience. Since the 2008 crisis, financial institutional diversity has helped sustain market liquidity while banks have curtailed their market-making activity [a readiness to buy and sell securities to accommodate their clients] due to regulatory changes and business strategies. Improving resiliency and liquidity in financial markets is critical to better finance the real economy, allocate risks properly, and support financial stability.', 'Many financial institutions and practices, together with regulatory and accounting requirements, however, tend to exacerbate cyclical fluctuations in the economy by buying assets or extending credit in good times and cutting back in bad times. It is important, therefore, to promote financial diversity and foster counter-cyclical behaviors among institutions capable of doing so. This helps reduce the risk of market imbalances leading to liquidity crises and offset self-reinforcing dynamics in times of financial stress. This risk has become important to guard against as the International Monetary Fund’s just-released World Economic Outlook finds the global economy entering a synchronized slowing phase. ', 'The idea is to exploit the natural differences in the balance sheet structures of financial institutions like banks and investment funds on the one hand, and insurance companies and pension funds on the other, and develop regulatory and accounting regimes that encourage diversity of behaviors.', 'Banks and investment funds have a positive duration gap in their balance sheets—meaning the average duration of their assets tends to be longer than that of their liabilities. Consequently, banks and investment funds tend to act in a pro-cyclical manner. When asset quality deteriorates, prices fall, and interest rates rise, the value of banks’ assets declines by more than that of their liabilities. Regulatory capital and liquidity requirements increase under those circumstances, pressuring banks to liquidate falling assets.', 'Investment funds can sell into falling markets to meet redemption demand, according to research by the Bank for International Settlements. Funds can also buy and sell at the same time if they use similar investment strategies, sharing economic and market views.', 'The pro-cyclical practices described above can be ameliorated to some extent by regulations requiring higher capital and liquidity ratios for banks as well as heightened liquidity risk management. Better capitalized banks with sufficient liquidity can arguably contribute less, but more reliable, market liquidity—compared with the very liquid pre-crisis market conditions driven by high leverage, which turned out to be illusionary. Funds can also maintain adequate cash positions to meet possible redemption demand. In any event, pro-cyclicality remains a natural tendency for those institutions and needs to be managed.', 'By contrast, insurance companies and pension funds have a negative duration gap in their balance sheets and, under some circumstances, could play a stabilizing role in mitigating selling pressure. As their average asset duration is much shorter than that of their liabilities, when rates rise, the value of their assets fall by less than that of their liabilities. This strengthens their solvency, allowing them to acquire assets having fallen in prices. They thus can act in a counter-cyclical manner. However, some research indicates that this counter-cyclical behavior may need to be further supported. The International Monetary Fund’s Global Financial Stability Report observed that life insurance companies—but not property and casualty insurers—and pension funds act counter-cyclically in liquidity crises, but pro-cyclically in solvency crises.', 'More recent empirical research, using recently available granular data on security-by-security holdings by EU institutional investors, shows that their behavior is more nuanced. Overall, insurers and pension funds behaved in a counter-cyclical manner, but the intensity of such effect has weakened since the pre-crisis period. Other preliminary research notes that the counter-cyclical behavior of insurers and pension funds can be observed for safe assets whose value can be discounted by the same risk-free rate used for liabilities. However, these institutions tend to pro-cyclically reduce holding of risk assets, including equities and corporate bonds, as their values tend to fall by more than liabilities in a market correction.', 'Regulators should encourage insurers and pension funds to make more use of the counter-cyclical measures provided in the EU insurance regulatory regime Solvency II—as highlighted by the European Insurance and Occupational Pension Authority. While interventions by government authorities are necessary to stabilize severe financial turmoil, more counter-cyclical behaviors by insurers and pension funds, many of which likely stay resilient in a crisis, can help reduce the frequency and severity of financial crises. Remember: during the Great Depression in the United States and its aftermath, some 7,000 banks failed but most of the insurers remained financially healthy.', 'Overall, financial diversity should be a focus of the ongoing assessment of the cumulative impact of regulatory changes on the financial system.']

[(0, 18)]

ndtceda

Michigan-PiPh-Aff-Northwestern-Round-1.docx

Michigan

PiPh

8296c3a23e5f4088d39a41484cfb6caca76d501f80b255487868262969f628a3

B. Soft power doesn’t work.

Fenenko 16 -- Alexey Fenenko, Political Science PhD, World Politics Professor at Moscow State University Lomonosova. [Soft Power: Reality and Myth, 1-29-2016, https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/realnost-i-mify-myagkoy-sily/]

soft power has limits geopolitical . Small countries wary of large country counterbalance influence by powers perceiving it as imperialism historical feud has such deep roots that Soft power can do nothing cultural soft power appears peculiar to each Soft power is for enlisting undecided rather than making enemies change

soft power has natural limits geopolitical . Small countries will always be wary of a large and powerful country elites will counterbalance the cultural and ideological influence exerted by great powers perceiving it as imperialism historical . The feud between nations has such deep roots that an end through soft power instruments is hardly possible Soft power can do nothing in hatred for another The third limitation is cultural the ability to adopt soft power appears to be quite peculiar to each country These limitations result in a circumscription of the successful application of soft power. Soft power is for enlisting undecided people, rather than of making enemies change their mind

natural limits geopolitical always be wary of large and powerful country counterbalance great powers imperialism historical deep roots hardly possible nothing cultural quite peculiar enemies

['The use of soft power has natural limits. To put it tentatively, we can single out three such limitations that nullify the effect of soft power.', 'The first one is geopolitical. Small and medium-sized countries will always be wary of a large and powerful country. At best, their elites will always look for something to counterbalance the cultural and ideological influence exerted by other great powers and, at worst, will reject the powerful neighbor’s cultural policy, perceiving it as a new form of imperialism. It is hardly a coincidence that the strongest Russophobia is peculiar to the countries of Eastern Europe, while the strongest anti-American sentiments are witnessed in Latin America.', 'The second limitation is historical. The feud between some nations has such deep roots that putting an end to it through soft power instruments is hardly possible [2]. Soft power can do nothing in a country that forges its identity on the hatred for another country or its people. How much should the Soviet Union have invested in Germany in 1934 to make the latter pro-Soviet? It is obvious that nothing could have changed an already established mind-set.', 'The third limitation is cultural. Different nations and societies assess their role in history in different ways. Russian political scientist T. Alexeyeva rightly notes that Russian society has never had a sense of grandeur about itself. Russia has always considered itself to be a “catch-up country,” seeking the approval of those who “lead the way.” [3] Going into opposition towards other nations has often taken painful and aggressive shape in Germany and Japan. Russia has never had its own Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who claimed that the Absolute Idea could self-actualize only in the German world, and that the history had reached its end. Russia has never had its own Paul Rohrbach, who believed that Germany was surrounded by “unhistorical peoples.” [4] Accordingly, the ability to adopt soft power appears to be quite peculiar to each country.', 'These limitations result in a circumscription of the successful application of soft power. Soft power is a tool for enlisting the sympathies of undecided people, rather than of making enemies change their mind.', '', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Aff-3---Harvard-Round-6.docx

Emory

MiPi

cdda1144dd0ced00119531ad0d88bc0147164f3dba27081ec74a5bc7cf645b27

It gives patients a predictable avenue for redress.

Benedict See 21. Associate Editor at the Brooklyn Law Review. “Paging Doctor Robot: Medical Artificial Intelligence, Tort Liability, and Why Personhood May Be the Answer.” 87 Brook. L. Rev. 417 (2021). https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol87/iss1/10.

personhood allow patients to know who can be liable By granting personhood the patient would sue the AI directly medical AI be insured as a doctor Malpractice insurance covers all costs with litigating malpractice allow patients to be compensated hospital personhood protect against injuries resulting from the Al's "thought" process liability behind black box algorithm's process will be simplified AI principal have "burdens and duties sued directly for negligence

discussed liability issues would be addressed by adopting the European Union's proposed personhood scheme allow ing patients harmed by medical AI to know right away who can be held liable for their injury allowing the patient to bring suit as soon as possible When the patient brings suit court would need to determine who is responsible as the AI cannot be held directly liable Was it the doctor's fault Was it the hospital's fault was it a foreseeable risk of which the manufacturer should have been aware of By granting personhood to AI the patient would be able to sue the AI directly eliminate the need for the court to ascertain the party that bears responsibility allow the patient to seek redress as soon as possible with no confusion over who to bring suit against the United States already has a built-in insurance plan that can be expanded to cover AI: medical malpractice insurance the United States can require that medical AI be insured as a doctor would be under medical malpractice insurance with AI being granted personhood it would essentially be akin to just another medical professional at the hospital Malpractice insurance covers all the costs associated with litigating a malpractice claim the insurance would ultimately save the hospital from having to bear the full cost of litigation mandatory medical malpractice insurance will allow patients harmed by AI to be compensated hospital pay for the insurance premiums will ensure that they take care of the AI and that it is in proper working order spread out the cost of such premiums incorporating them into the fees spread out the overall costs associated with the AI free each party of some liability rogrammers would not need to worry about having products liability claims being filed for results that were unforeseen at the time the algorithm was programmed the manufacturer may still be held liable in a products liability claim for a malfunction in the hardware of an AI device resulting from a design or manufacturing defect personhood would only protect against injuries resulting from the Al's "thought" process Hospitals would not be held responsible through vicarious liability except in instances where they fail to ensure that the AI is being properly maintained or repaired doctors would be immune from medical malpractice suits unless they use the AI in a way in which it was not intended By adopting the personhood resolution coupling it with medical malpractice insurance liability behind the black box algorithm's thought process will be simplified AI will be "deemed a principal ," rather than an agent would have "burdens and duties of its own and . . . [could] be sued directly for any negligence claims encourage AI development and integration ensuring that anybody hurt by AI will have an adequate avenue for redress there are legal and policy benefits to granting medical AI personhood codifying it in federal law eliminate any confusion or doubt about whether medical AI are deemed "persons " under the law which rights are extended to medical AI devices.

the patient would be able to sue the AI directly seek redress as soon as possible no confusion over who to bring suit against personhood would only protect against injuries resulting from the Al's "thought" process liability behind the black box algorithm's thought process will be simplified codifying it in federal law eliminate any confusion or doubt about whether medical AI are deemed "persons " under the law

['The discussed liability issues would be addressed by adopting the European Union\'s proposed personhood scheme, allowing patients harmed by medical AI to know right away who can be held liable for their injury and allowing the patient to bring suit as soon as possible to be compensated. For example, imagine a robot that monitors and administers anesthesia to a patient in surgery, and in the process, makes an error in judgment that causes the robot to administer too much anesthesia. The overdose causes the patient to be deprived of oxygen and in turn causes brain damage.\' 7; When the patient brings suit under current tort law, the court would need to determine who is responsible for the patient\'s injury, as the AI cannot be held directly liable.178 Was it the doctor\'s fault for not monitoring the AP179 Was it the hospital\'s fault for not maintaining the device or failing to adequately train its staff on how to use the Arm° Or was it a foreseeable risk of which the manufacturer should have been aware of when it created the algorithm?181 By granting personhood to AI, the patient would be able to sue the AI directly. This would be similar to a doctor being sued under traditional medical malpractice doctrine. This would also eliminate the need for the court to ascertain the party that bears responsibility, and would allow the patient to seek redress as soon as possible with no confusion over who to bring suit against. Furthermore, the United States already has a built-in insurance plan that can be expanded to cover AI: medical malpractice insurance. While the European Union proposed a new insurance program—one that could be created and updated by insurance companies182—the United States can require that medical AI be insured as a doctor would be under medical malpractice insurance. Normally, malpractice insurance only covers medical professionals,183 but with AI being granted personhood, it would essentially be akin to just another medical professional at the hospital, clinic, or health care facility.184 Malpractice insurance covers all the costs associated with litigating a malpractice claim.185 While the hospital would need to pay the malpractice insurance premiums, the insurance would ultimately save the hospital from having to bear the full cost of litigation if a malpractice lawsuit were brought against the Al device.186 With liability placed on the AI itself, mandatory medical malpractice insurance will allow patients harmed by AI to be compensated. Having the hospital, clinic, or health care center pay for the insurance premiums will ensure that they take care of the AI and that it is in proper working order. The hospital, clinic, or health care center could spread out the cost of such premiums by incorporating them into the fees charged to patients, which would help spread out the overall costs associated with the AI.187 This regime would free each party of some liability. The programmers would not need to worry about having products liability claims being filed for results that were unforeseen at the time the algorithm was programmed.188 However, the manufacturer may still be held liable in a products liability claim for a malfunction in the hardware of an AI device resulting from a design or manufacturing defect,189 as personhood would only protect against injuries resulting from the Al\'s "thought" process. Hospitals would not be held responsible through vicarious liability,\'°° except in instances where they fail to ensure that the AI is being properly maintained or repaired.\'`\'\' Finally, doctors would be immune from medical malpractice suits stemming from their use of AI,192 unless they use the AI in a way in which it was not intended, or otherwise negligently use the A1.193 By adopting the personhood resolution that the European Parliament presented to the European Commission and coupling it with medical malpractice insurance, the liability behind the black box algorithm\'s thought process will be simplified. The AI will be "deemed a principal," rather than an agent; it would have "burdens and duties of its own and . . . [could] be sued directly for any negligence claims."194 This will encourage AI development and integration while ensuring that anybody hurt by AI will have an adequate avenue for redress. Currently, corporations are granted personhood in the United States through complicated long-standing jurisprudence, in which the Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment bestows protections and certain legal rights to corporations.\'° While this jurisprudence may allow proponents of personhood for medical AI to argue that the same protections and rights should be extended to medical AI, it may be easier and more straightforward to establish personhood through congressional law, especially considering that legislatures and the Court have granted limited personhood to nonliving beings before.196 As stated above, there are legal and policy benefits to granting medical AI personhood, and codifying it in federal law would eliminate any confusion or doubt about whether medical AI are deemed "persons" under the law and which rights are extended to medical AI devices.']

[(9, 15)]

ndtceda

Emory-DoSa-Aff-Georgetown-Round-6.docx

Emory

DoSa

433c67d2e85ca3d493a660acb67ad17ff0727204583e2e0f60514fa6c97f3dc2

Even if it doesn’t, participating in debates about nuclear restraint produces skills that are useful in responding to a variety of threats

Toki 13 – Masako Toki, Project Manager and Research Associate in the Nonproliferation Education Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, M.A. in International Policy Studies from the Monterey Institute of International Studies with a Certificate in Nonproliferation Studies, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at the Union of Concerned Scientists, Former Intern for the Office of External Relations and Policy Coordination at the International Atomic Energy Agency, “The Importance of Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education for High School Students”, Hiroshima Research News, Volume 16, Number 2, November, p. 1

disarm education promote awareness also develop critical thinking skills and develop an appreciation on vital issues most remain poorly informed Drawing upon experts students conduct research on disarm Understanding requires integrating various perspectives and multidisciplinary approaches education is necessary to solve problems human beings encountered Most such as environmental degradation warming conflicts , and prolif as well as nuclear annihilation , are global and so are solutions Education entails a mandate to solve a variety of problems global society faces not merely transmission of knowledge or development of skills , but a tool to empower to tackle problems involving young people in debate regarding nuclear disarm foster new solutions

disarm ament education project promote awareness of the importance of these issues also to develop the critical thinking skills of students and to develop an appreciation among participants on complex but vital international security issues in addition to classroom education , understanding nuclear weapons is the key to making sure nuclear weapons are never used again The memory of the horror of the use of nuclear weapons uld not be buried in oblivion. Education can be a tool to keep the memory alive However, most students remain poorly informed on these topics Drawing upon the knowledge and experience of experts students conduct research on topics related to nonproliferation and disarm ament. Understanding WMD proliferation issues requires integrating knowledge from various perspectives and taking multidisciplinary approaches disarmament and nonproliferation education for the young generations is an important symbolic and practical step in the broader effort toward a world without nuclear weapons the importance of disarmament education for students is not widely recognized. education is a necessary instrument to reduce, solve , or eliminate problems and challenges human beings have created or encountered throughout history. Most of the problems such as environmental degradation , global warming , ethnic conflicts , and the prolif eration of WMDs , as well as the haunting potential for nuclear annihilation , are global in nature— and so too are the solutions Education entails a profound mandate to solve a variety of problems our global society faces today Education is not merely the transmission of knowledge or development of talent and skills , but is a tool to empower people to tackle and solve those problems . “education is peace building by another name.” education is the most underutilized tool in solving global challenges involving young people , in the debate regarding nuclear disarm ament foster new and creative solutions and ideas

awareness critical thinking appreciation in addition to classroom education tool alive poorly informed conduct research integrating multidisciplinary important symbolic and practical step necessary instrument environmental degradation global warming ethnic conflicts prolif eration of WMDs haunting potential for nuclear annihilation global profound mandate variety transmission of knowledge development of talent and skills tool empower people to tackle and solve those problems solving global challenges debate new and creative solutions and ideas

['One of CNS’s flagship education projects, the Critical Issues Forum (CIF) is a unique nonproliferation and disarmament education project for high school teachers and students around the world to promote awareness of the importance of these issues.3 The project also aims to develop the critical thinking skills of high school students and to develop an appreciation among participants of different national and cultural perspectives on complex but vital international security issues. ', 'In the 2012-2013 academic year CIF marked a significant milestone. For the first time in the sixteen-year history of the project, it engaged Japanese high schools from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities devastated by atomic weapons in 1945. The 2013 spring conference, the culmination of the semester-long project, was held on April 19th and 20th at one of participating schools in the project, Santa Catalina High School in Monterey, CA. At the conference, students from Hiroshima Jogakuin High School and Yasuda Girls High School in Hiroshima, and Kwassui High school in Nagasaki presented their findings on this year’s topic, “Toward a World without Nuclear Weapons: Progress, Prospects and Challenges,” along with eight U.S. high schools in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin, and one Russian high school from the closed nuclear city of Novouralsk.4', 'At this year’s conference each school delivered a final project as a group, ensuring that each presentation was very unique and creative, employing various approaches and methodologies. The Japanese students’ presentations were naturally based on their own cities’ firsthand experience of nuclear devastation. While each Japanese school comprehensively studied current global proliferation challenges with guidance from each school’s CIF teachers, using educational materials developed by CNS, their overarching message was clear: in addition to classroom education, understanding the real effects of the use of nuclear weapons against human beings and their long-lasting effects on both humanity and the environment is the key to making sure nuclear weapons are never used again. This first-time participation of Japanese schools brought fresh perspectives to the CIF project.', 'The memory of the horror of the use of nuclear weapons in these two cities almost 70 years ago should not be buried in oblivion. Education can be a tool to keep the memory alive. The 2002 United Nations Study on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Education concluded that the proliferation and potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) poses increasingly serious security threats.5', 'However, most high school students remain poorly informed on these topics. The UN study endorsed the CNS approach to nonproliferation education: “Teach students how to think, not what to think.” In response to this need, CNS developed the CIF project. Since CNS began the CIF program in 1997 hundreds of high school students around the world have been involved.', 'Drawing upon the knowledge and experience of experts at CNS and experienced high school educators, the CIF develops curricula, methods, and resources for students to conduct directed research on topics related to nonproliferation and disarmament. Understanding WMD proliferation issues requires integrating knowledge from various perspectives and taking multidisciplinary approaches. CIF applies four crosscutting content domains (scientific, socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical). These content domains facilitate implementation of the CIF curriculum in a wide range of courses. These domains also engage students with a wide variety of interests and talents and encourage teamwork.', 'Until this year, CIF mainly engaged U.S. and Russia’s closed nuclear cities high schools.6 Russian schools from closed nuclear cities in the CIF project started in 2001. Since the closed nuclear cities were created in order to support nuclear facilities in the cities and the families of their employees, the cities’ activities and people’s lives center on the nuclear facilities. Therefore, disarmament and nonproliferation education for the young generations of those cities is an important symbolic and practical step in the broader effort toward a world without nuclear weapons. CNS hopes to continue to engage these Russian high schools in the project along with U.S. and Japanese high schools as long as funding allows.', 'Like most of challenges facing humanity, one of the major obstacles to implementing action-oriented programs is funding. While our organization is fortunate to receive funding from private foundations to conduct this project, the importance of nonproliferation and disarmament education for high school students is not widely recognized. In order to make this type of project more sustainable it is essential that national governments and the international community understand the benefits of disarmament and nonproliferation education for younger generations.', 'It is a generally accepted concept that education is a necessary instrument to reduce, solve, or eliminate problems and challenges human beings have created or encountered throughout history. Most of the problems humankind needs to surmount, such as environmental degradation, global warming, ethnic conflicts, and the proliferation of WMDs, as well as the haunting potential for nuclear annihilation, are global in nature—and so too are the solutions.7 Education entails a profound mandate to solve a variety of problems our global society faces today.', 'Education is not merely the transmission of knowledge or development of talent and skills, but is a tool to empower people to tackle and solve those problems. As former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan states, “education is quite simply, peace building by another name.”8 Nevertheless, education is the most underutilized tool in solving global challenges, including disarmament nonproliferation of WMD and peace building.9', 'In that sense, it is encouraging that all the participating students’ presentations at this year’s CIF spring conference underlined the importance of education in order to accomplish a world free of nuclear weapons while recognizing the daunting challenges that need to be overcome. Students also have become more aware of the important responsibility that each CIF participant, the future leaders in nonproliferation and disarmament, need to bear. By involving young people, especially high school students, in the debate and discussion regarding nuclear disarmament CNS hopes to foster new and creative solutions and ideas on the road to a world free of nuclear weapons.']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-GuMi-Aff-UK-Round-2.docx

MichiganState

GuMi

34150e3c885903d39d120737da3101eb215e36087e2695595393f0e2536d5e9e

Complete rejection of rights fails and turns case.

Sergio Martín Tapia Argüello 18. PhD. researcher, Centro de Estudos Sociais, Universidade de Coimbra. The Modern Possibilities of Human Rights. A Critique of the Negative Critique of Law and Rights. Mexican Law Review. https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/index.php/mexican-law-review/article/view/11896/13688

critiques rights vision is incomplete As Race scholars have shown it is easy to disown rights when you have power to defend yourself But total rejection could be worse than their strategic use behind abstract problems there are actual beings that can improve their daily life with recourse to law and rights must be enough to constrain critical perspectives to make a generalization about rights a critical theory of rights should understand the role of the struggle

CONCLUSION It is necessary to look at critiques of rights . Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that their vision is incomplete As Race scholars have shown it is easy to disown rights when you have power to defend yourself But the total rejection of law or rights could be worse than their strategic use it is necessary to remember that behind the abstract problems there are histories of actual beings that can improve their daily life with recourse to law and rights The fate must be enough to constrain the critical perspectives to make a generalization about rights a critical theory of law and rights should understand the role of the struggle

CONCLUSION their vision is incomplete it is easy to disown rights when you have power the total rejection of law or rights could be worse than their strategic use behind the abstract problems actual beings improve their daily life with recourse to law and rights constrain the critical perspectives to make a generalization about rights

['V. CONCLUSION ', 'It is necessary to look at these negative critiques, and take them seriously. They make important observations on the dangers and unintended consequences of using the institutional dimension of human rights. Nevertheless, it is also necessary to remember that their vision is just as incomplete as the others. As Critical Race Studies scholars have shown, for instance, it is easy to disown the formal protection of human rights when you have economic, cultural, and symbolic power to defend yourself without them.74 In some circumstances, law and rights can be used against others. But it is also possible that the total rejection of the same law or rights could be worse than their strategic use in other contexts.', 'There is a great danger within the apologetic view of the intrinsic goodness of the rights and the veil that it creates. But at the same time, it is necessary to remember that behind the abstract problems presented on the law, there are histories of actual human beings that can improve their daily life through and with recourse to the law and rights.75 The fate of a single human must be enough to constrain the critical perspectives to make a generalization76 about the possibilities of human rights. ', 'The critique must attack the familiar perspective of what exists and at the same time it must try to make a new common sense that can overpower the internal inequalities of the actual reality.77 In this sense, a critical theory of law and rights should understand the role of the struggle and the contradiction in all of their practices. Both negative and positive critiques are required, at least if we want something more than just a hypocritical discourse or a cynical but harmless practice. ']

[(20, 31)]

ndtceda

Michigan-PiPh-Neg-Wake-Doubles.docx

Michigan

PiPh

8a853c40fce9fdc14531965323ca016c81d01d4e11a2fcd55a5f44a1875bcd96

Congress will pass a CR.

FABBS ’9-8 [Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences; 2021; coalition of scientific societies that share an interest in advancing the sciences; "Congress Debates Spending Priorities," https://fabbs.org/2021/09/opportunities-and-cause-for-concern-as-congress-debates-spending-priorities/]

Federal funding expires end of September Congress is likely to pass a stopgap CR) to avoid shutdown

Key to watch is the status of Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations. Federal funding expires at the end of September , and Congress is increasingly likely to pass a stopgap continuing resolution ( CR) to avoid a government shutdown

funding expires increasingly likely pass stopgap avoid a government shutdown

['Key to watch for FABBS members is the status of Fiscal Year 2022 appropriations. Federal funding expires at the end of September, and Congress is increasingly likely to pass a stopgap continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a government shutdown. CRs disrupt the regular appropriations process, preventing agencies from instituting new programs and creating uncertainty that makes planning ahead difficult. If Congress is unable to pass regular appropriations, the work that has already been done to support funding increases and policy wins for the behavioral and brain sciences may be jeopardized. FABBS has joined community members in urging Congress to pass regular appropriations bills instead of normalizing CRs.', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Mikelson-Flashner-Neg-Northwestern-Round6.docx

Michigan

MiFl

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/MiFl/Michigan-Mikelson-Flashner-Neg-Northwestern-Round6.docx

a891e4126b92a1af5ebbb502ac62bc5dbdf1b651466bb2a4671851512f7ec2de

Turn --- Plan causes Russia to maintain arsenals and increase saber-rattling --- decimates NPT cred

Krepon 16 --- Michael Krepon is the co-founder of the Stimson Center and the author of Winning and Losing the Nuclear Peace: The Rise, Demise, and Revival of Arms Control. He was given a lifetime achievement award for non-governmental work to reduce nuclear dangers by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 2015. He has worked in the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. Government, and taught as a professor of practice at the University of Virginia., “UNILATERAL OR BILATERAL REDUCTIONS?” May 2016, https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1201343/unilateral-or-bilateral-reductions/

Should the U S unilaterally reduce forces or wait agreement in parallel with Russia The unilateral counterarguments are as follows Numbers still matter A reason to wait is to avoid sending the wrong signal to Putin, who is engaged in bullying tactics Unilateral reductions reinforce Putin’s belief that weapons are useful for leveraging others cutting unilaterally delay Russian reductions The U S will not succeed in reducing t salience of nuclear weapons by unilateral reductions if Putin keeps doing what he’s doing. Nor would unilateral reductions make the next NPT Rev Con easier

Should the U nited S tates unilaterally reduce forces or wait instead for an agreement to proceed in parallel with Russia The proceed unilateral ly counterarguments are as follows : Friends and allies are reassured by the United States having a nuclear arsenal second to none Numbers may be a lesser indicator but they still matter which is why treaties spell them out. A nother reason to wait is to avoid sending the wrong signal to Putin, who is engaged in bullying tactics Unilateral reductions might inadvertently reinforce Putin’s belief system that nuclear weapons are useful for leveraging others In this event, cutting unilaterally might even delay Russian reductions Obama has decided to hold off on further reductions until Putin decides to downsize Russia’s ambitious and costly strategic modernization programs. What might the next U.S. president decide? I come down on the side of waiting, primarily because unilateral reductions would be a[n oblivious] response to Russian warplanes buzzing US surface ships and simulating nuclear attacks on Sweden. Plus, there’s the matter of Ukraine The U nited S tates will not succeed in reducing t he salience of nuclear weapons by unilateral reductions if Putin keeps doing what he’s doing. Nor would unilateral U.S. reductions make the next NPT Rev iew Con ference any easier

second to none but they still matter reinforce Putin’s belief system useful for leveraging others delay Russian reductions not succeed unilateral reductions make the next NPT

['The next US president faces lots of questions relating to nuclear weapons and nuclear threat reduction. Here’s one: Should the United States unilaterally reduce strategic forces deemed to be in excess of the Pentagon’s needs, or wait instead for an agreement to proceed in parallel with the Russian Federation?', 'The arguments to proceed unilaterally with deeper cuts are straightforward. The Obama Administration has determined that the United States can drop below New START limits without harming US national security, so why not save money now, rather than later? We’re all familiar with the “bargaining chip” phase of arms control, when expensive chips were deployed rather than cashed in. So why repeat this sorry history? Unilateral reductions could also affirm Washington’s commitment to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in US defense posture, while reinforcing the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s grand bargain, which calls on the nuclear “haves” to move toward zero and the “have-nots” to continue their abstinence.', 'The counterarguments to wait for Russian President Vladimir Putin are as follows: Friends and allies are reassured by the United States having a nuclear arsenal “second to none.” Numbers may be a lesser indicator of capability than qualitative aspects of the competition, but they still matter, which is why treaties spell them out. Another reason to wait is to avoid sending the wrong signal to Mr. Putin, who is engaged in bullying tactics that harken back to an earlier era when Kremlin leaders brandished the Bomb. Unilateral reductions might inadvertently reinforce Putin’s belief system that nuclear weapons are useful for leveraging others. In this event, cutting unilaterally might even delay Russian reductions, rather than accelerating them.', 'While New START allows for and even anticipates deeper cuts, President Barack Obama has decided to hold off on further reductions until Mr. Putin decides to downsize Russia’s ambitious and costly strategic modernization programs. What might the next U.S. president decide? I come down on the side of waiting, primarily because unilateral reductions below New START levels would be a[n oblivious] tone-deaf response to Russian warplanes buzzing US surface ships and simulating nuclear attacks on Sweden. Plus, there’s the matter of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and what’s going on in eastern Ukraine, Georgia, etc. The United States will not succeed in reducing the salience of nuclear weapons by unilateral reductions if Putin keeps doing what he’s doing. Nor would unilateral U.S. reductions be likely to make the next NPT Review Conference any easier.', '', '', '', '']

[(0, 9)]

ndtceda

MichiganState-BeMo-Neg-7---ADA-Round-4.docx

MichiganState

BeMo

966435cfbfb1ca9f686869a243825805d9a474c6d93dfbcf78bc3060fb9ca2ab

NFU is solely a declaratory policy.

Michael Nacht et al. 21, Michael Nacht is with the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley; Michael Frank is with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Stanley Prussin is with the Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, “Technical, Political, and Strategic Evolution of Deterrence and Arms Control,” Nuclear Security: The Nexus Among Science, Technology and Policy, edited by Michael Nacht et al., Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 161–212 Springer Link, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-75085-5_4

NFU is a pledge by a government not to be first to use nuc s during conventional conflict It must be emphasized that NFU is solely a declaratory policy

“no first use ( NFU ) ” of nuclear weapons is a pledge by a government not to be the first state to use nuc lear weapon s during a conventional conflict . The U S has never chosen to adopt such a policy Several administrations, including the Clinton and Obama administrations, considered the issue but rejected this declaratory policy, choosing instead to present a purposefully vague formulation It was argued internally in both administrations that keeping all options open strengthened the credibility of the nuclear deterrent . The United States’ chief nuclear allies, Great Britain and France, also have chosen to refrain from making such a commitment. A key consideration motivating the rejection of NFU was the need to be able to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against the significant Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces then threatening Western Europe. It was widely believed that preemptive nuclear use was the most credible deterrent to Soviet aggression. It must be emphasized , however, that NFU is solely a declaratory policy

“no first use ( NFU ) ” nuclear weapons pledge government not to be first state use nuc s conventional conflict U S never chosen purposefully vague all credibility nuclear deterrent must be emphasized solely declaratory policy

['A few other key concepts have permeated the debate about nuclear weapons declaratory policy over the decades. One has been “no first use (NFU) ” of nuclear weapons. This is a pledge by a government not to be the first state to use nuclear weapons during a conventional conflict. The United States has never chosen to adopt such a policy since 1945. Several administrations, including the Clinton and Obama administrations, considered the issue but rejected this declaratory policy, choosing instead to present a purposefully vague formulation that allowed for first use if the circumstances warranted. It was argued internally in both administrations that keeping all options open strengthened the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent. The United States’ chief nuclear allies, Great Britain and France, also have chosen to refrain from making such a commitment. A key consideration motivating the rejection of NFU was the need to be able to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against the significant Soviet and Warsaw Pact forces then threatening Western Europe. It was widely believed that preemptive nuclear use was the most credible deterrent to Soviet aggression.', 'China, however, has been the chief adherent of this NFU policy from the outset. China detonated its first nuclear device in October 1964, and it has since chosen to develop and deploy only a relatively small nuclear force (estimated to be about 350 deployed nuclear weapons in 2020) compared with the United States and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union). Simultaneous to its first nuclear test, China announced “it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons at any time or under any circumstances.” China has since periodically endorsed the NFU policy, and it has sought to have the United States adopt a similar policy, although the United States has consistently refused.Footnote17', 'Communist Party Chairman Leonid Brezhnev adopted a NFU pledge for the Soviet Union in 1982, although a noteworthy alteration was made to the pledge in 1993. At that time, Russian Chief of the General Staff Pavel Grachev announced that the Russian doctrine ruled out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that had signed the NPT unless they were allied with a nuclear-armed country. However, he added, “As for those states that have nuclear weapons, the doctrine says nothing.”Footnote18', 'The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review instituted by President Obama made an important modification to long-standing US policy. It stated that “the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the NPT and in compliance with their nuclear non-proliferation obligations.” It should be noted that this pledge does not apply to Russia and China, which are both nuclear weapon states, nor to North Korea, which is no longer a party to the NPT. Its application to Iran remains contentious, depending upon whether “it is in compliance with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations.”', 'India is another nuclear weapons state that has adopted varying NFU positions. These will be briefly discussed in a later section of this book.', 'It must be emphasized, however, that NFU is solely a declaratory policy and so does not preclude a state, such as China, from violating the principle and using nuclear weapons first in a crisis.', '', '']

[(8, 23)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-VaWa-Neg-USNA-Round-2.docx

Dartmouth

VaWa

e028dee398a2a976550b7d18d6ef4b9153b13a1fa962573e25c9010bcd9b371e

2---Democracy Promotion lays the groundwork for imperial control and military intervention – those who don’t fit Western values must either submit or be violently overthrown

Güney and Gökcan ’10 (Aylin and Fulya, Professors of Political Science @ Bilkent University, “The Greater Middle East as a ‘Modern’ Geopolitical Imagination in American Foreign Policy” Geopolitics 15(1) retrieved 6/22/14 R.C.)

the emphasis on democracy promotion can be attributed to decreased legitimacy symptomatic of hegemonic decline The GMEI was the attempt to forge global leadership by integrating failed states’ concerns carrying a neo-conservative imprint were used as a pretext to shape the geopolitical imagination of the USA institutions that support the hegemonic power's global project are repackaged as necessary foundations for life faltering states” are identified as those whose institutions do not meet the preferred definition Next, such states are equated with terrorism This creates its own set of exclusions, with forms of violence awaiting those who are unwilling or unable to be incorporated integrative power facilitated the opportunity to establish alliances guaranteeing US world leadership That is why this theory constituted a solid ground for US extra-territorial activities

the increased emphasis on democracy promotion can be attributed to the decreased legitimacy of its role this was a time when the world leader faced a challenge symptomatic of hegemonic decline military actions and ensuing democracy promotion were driven by the desire to restore US strength and credibility The GMEI was a clear indication of the attempt by the USA to forge its global leadership in this region by integrating these ‘ failed states’ into the modern world that it had in mind discourse and policy concerns carrying a neo-conservative imprint were coming to be increasingly used as a pretext or justification to shape the geopolitical code and the geopolitical imagination of the USA . The projection of power in the Middle East, was one outcome state and inter-state political institutions that can support the hegemonic power's global project of an open economic space are repackaged as the necessary foundations for a way of life that has been defined as modern and therefore should be wanted by most states prime modernity is used to construct a prime morality Thus “ faltering states” are identified as those whose institutions do not meet the preferred definition imposed by the USA. Next, such states are equated with terrorism This integration strategy in turn creates its own set of exclusions, with forms of violence awaiting those who are either unwilling or unable to be incorporated if the calculations of war are traceable back to material interests then governments must usually emphasise values and ideas this theory of integrative power of prime modernity contextualised the positions, objectives and problems of the region. It also facilitated the opportunity to establish alliances guaranteeing US world leadership and regional interests. That is why this theory constituted a solid ground for justification for the US extra-territorial activities

["The timing of the increased emphasis on democracy promotion as the ultimate goal of US foreign policy can be attributed to the hegemonic decline that coincided with the decreased legitimacy of its role with the unjust war declared on Iraq. As Flint puts it, this was a time when the world leader faced a challenge symptomatic of the beginning of a period of de-concentration and hegemonic decline.The National Security Strategy Document clearly stated that it was time to reaffirm the essential role of American military strength. Monten argues that military actions and ensuing democracy promotion programmes in Afghanistan and Iraq, in addition to their immediate security motivations, were driven in part by the neoconservative desire to restore US strength and credibility. They also aimed at reversing popular reluctance about the use of force, and reversing perceptions of US weakness and failure of will. The language of the NSS balanced an identification of a threat to US society and people, in terms of continued terrorist attacks, with a global commitment to promoting a particular vision of order, including economic relationships.Thus, the GMEI appears as a perfect example of American internationalism in this respect.¶ The GMEI was a clear indication of the attempt by the USA to forge its global leadership in this region by integrating these ‘failed states’ into the modern world that it had in mind. This was seen as a way to prevent the spread of terrorism from these countries. The war on Afghanistan and Iraq were thus perceived by the USA to be two opportunities to begin transforming the whole region of the Greater Middle East. It seems therefore that discourse and policy concerns carrying a neo-conservative imprint were coming to be increasingly used as a pretext or justification to shape the geopolitical code and the geopolitical imagination of the USA. The projection of power in newly imagined geographies, such as the Middle East, was one outcome of this new geopolitical code and vision. In short, ‘global social engineering’ became a primary goal of the USA because it had acquired the capability to use military intervention as a means of forcing political change.¶ Another influential pretext was the new US strategic vision that can be termed ‘integration’ into a Western and American set of values and modus operandi. Falah and Flint refer to this integrative power of ‘prime modernity’.According to this view, state and inter-state political institutions that can support the hegemonic power's global project of an open economic space are repackaged as the necessary foundations for a way of life that has been defined as modern and therefore should be wanted by most states.They further argue that prime modernity is used to construct a prime morality.Thus “faltering states” are identified as those whose economic practices, political institutions, and civil society do not meet the preferred definition imposed by the USA. Next, such states are equated with terrorism, with terrorism against the USA being portrayed as a crime against the ‘basic’ moral values of humanity.This integration strategy in turn creates its own set of exclusions, with forms of violence awaiting those who are either unwilling or unable to be incorporated.Although geopolitical actions under the guise of world leadership provide material benefits for the United States, this self-interest becomes equated instead with benefits for the whole world. Such benefits are presented and defined through values.Flint further argues that if the calculations of war are traceable back to material interests, such as access to oil, then governments must usually emphasise values and ideas in justifying their foreign policy, especially when it involves invading another country. The world leader must therefore convince its international as well as domestic audience, that the actions are for the benefit of all rather than its own interests. In this respect, the GMEI represents a US search for allies. Flint also argues that the power of the world leader rests not on its military strength alone, but rather on a package of innovations that it claims will benefit the whole world. The central ingredients of this package are national self-determination and democracy, or the rule of law. Together, these “innovations” combine to form the integrative power of the world leader: the collection of ideas, values, and institutions designed to bring order and stability to the world. Regarding GMEI, this theory of integrative power of prime modernity contextualised the positions, objectives and problems of the region. It also facilitated the opportunity to establish alliances guaranteeing US world leadership and regional interests. That is why this theory constituted a solid ground for justification for the US extra-territorial activities.", '', '', '']

[(0, 5), (6, 9), (10, 16), (17, 20), (21, 31), (32, 37), (37, 72), (73, 80), (81, 202), (204, 227)]

ndtceda

Emory-PiWa-Neg-UMW-Debate-Tournament-Round-4.docx

Emory

PiWa

3355e2af6a163388e8e256e73511fab625f2745b640c11cb71f6a10b7c985705

Trolls are risk averse---they only target legitimately invalid patents.

Sipe ’16 [Matthew; 2016; J.D. at Yale Law School; Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, “Patent Privateers and Antitrust Fears,” vol. 2]

Even if privateers caused assertions , most are still meritorious privateers by nature have quality patents rather than broad threats privateering contributes to merit through transparency in threat s privateering makes it less attractive for entities to cover for weak claims of infringement Privateers take on substantial risk They risk non-infringement that sink costs or invalidation that destroys their only asset The result is privateers avoid unfounded assertions

Even if privateers have caused patent assertions , most of those claims are still ultimately meritorious privateers by their very nature will tend to have higher- quality patents Their enforcement efforts are also more likely to be narrow towards practicing competitors rather than broad , blanketing threats privateering actually contributes to merit orious claims through transparency in negotiations, threat letter s , and complaints filed. The privateering model makes it less attractive for operating entities to bring their whole portfolio to the table to cover for weak or unspecified claims of infringement Privateers take on a substantial amount of downside risk in the tradeoff. They risk findings of non-infringement that sink their costs of litigation, or worse, patent invalidation that destroys their only asset The result is that privateers will assert “in cases where the risk is the lowest ” and will avoid frivolous or unfounded assertions

if patent assertions still meritorious very nature higher- quality more likely narrow practicing broad blanketing threats contributes merit transparency threat s less attractive whole portfolio cover weak unspecified claims substantial amount downside risk non-infringement sink their costs invalidation destroys only asset result lowest avoid frivolous unfounded

['C. Privateers Facilitate Meritorious Patent Assertions ', 'Even if privateers have caused an increase in patent assertions, most of those claims are still ultimately meritorious. As explained in Section I.B, privateers by their very nature will tend to have higher-quality patents than other kinds of patent trolls by virtue of acquiring them from operating entities.157 Their enforcement efforts are also more likely to be narrowly targeted towards practicing competitors rather than broad, blanketing threats against end users or entire industries. Taken together, these indicate that the privateer model would be expected to assert claims that are generally meritorious as a rule.', 'Additionally, operating entities tend to use privateers to break up their patent portfolios into intelligible, coherent chunks that make more sense for assertion.158 For example, a company may have a vast portfolio overall, but only a few patents relating to semiconductors. By splitting off a sub-portfolio of only the semiconductor patents, the privateer simplifies litigation for all parties involved, minimizing the patents that need to be examined in any dispute. Contrast this with what is sometimes called the IBM method of intimidation, wherein an entire massive portfolio is coupled with vague threats and used as a cudgel.159 During negotiations between Sun Microsystems and IBM in the 1980s, IBM’s chief negotiator was quoted as saying:', 'OK, maybe you don’t infringe these seven patents. But we have 10,000 U.S. patents. Do you really want us to go back to Armonk [IBM headquarters in New York] and find seven patents you do infringe? Or do you want to make this easy and just pay us $20 million?160', 'Perhaps ironically then, privateering actually contributes to meritorious claims through transparency in negotiations, threat letters, and complaints filed. The privateering model makes it less attractive for operating entities to bring their whole portfolio to the table to cover for weak or unspecified claims of infringement with IBM-style intimidation.', 'Analogizing to the world of litigation finance offers further evidence that privateers ultimately assert disproportionately meritorious claims. The business model of privateers is in many ways modeled after litigation financiers: buying up patents—”claims”—from operating entities that don’t have the resources or willingness to bear the risk of litigation, and then asserting them. Intellectual Ventures is perhaps the most well-publicized of these privateers, and they state their business model as such:', '[I]magine an inventor out there, someone with a brilliant idea, a breakthrough. This inventor has a patent, but still, companies are stealing his idea and he doesn’t have the money or legal savvy to stop them. That’s where Intellectual Ventures comes in. They buy this inventor’s patent and make sure that companies who are using the idea pay for it.161', 'Privateers, like litigation financiers, take on a substantial amount of downside risk in the tradeoff. They risk findings of non-infringement that sink their costs of litigation, or worse, patent invalidation that destroys their only asset. Even where victorious, failure to reach a licensing agreement with the infringer (resulting solely in an injunction or exclusion order) brings them little or no financial benefit since they do not participate in the product market themselves. Moreover, where an operating entity maintains some kind of partial interest in royalties that the privateer collects or sets minimum revenue targets, the stakes are raised even further.162 The result is that, like litigation financiers, privateers will assert “in cases where the risk is the lowest” and “the underlying law giving rise to the . . . claim” favors their position as plaintiff.163 In other words, privateers will avoid frivolous or unfounded assertions.']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Michigan-McSk-Neg-NDT-Round-1.docx

Michigan

McSk

3d3e752bd01250cb3841120fb5260b9ea4de6f07db60a4cce16aad612815f782

There are obviously a lot of ways to ‘categorize’ nuclear weapons. Their interpretation can’t shape neg prep and is no better than ‘only our aff is topical.’

IPNDV 19, International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament Verification, June 2019, “Working Group 4 Deliverable: Part IV. Detailed Analyses of Various Aspects of Verification of Declarations,” https://www.ipndv.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/WG4-Part-IV-Papers-1-4.pdf

nuc s may be categorized according to tech use delivery Operational status Names or model designations Depending on deployment , the same weapon could have strategic or non-strategic function often referred to as “ tactical or “ theater There are no strict definitions they could refer to yield , delivery use the differentiation should be of no importance to disarm All types have a model designation each warhead a unique serial number nuc s may be described by all of these categorization s

nuc lear weapon s may be categorized according to Weapons tech nology Intended use Means of delivery Operational status ; or Names or model designations Many different ways and terms are used to characterize nuclear weapons There are two different types of nuclear weapons making use of fission: gun-type assemblies and implosion weapons Categorization According to Intended Use divides all nuclear weapons into one of two possible categories : strategic and non-strategic The dividing line is fuzzy strategic weapons are intended to play a role in the bigger picture with deterrence and power balance non-strategic nuclear weapons may play a more operative role Depending on their deployment , the same weapon systems could in many cases have either a strategic or a non-strategic function the only usable definition seems to be the simple one stating that a strategic nuclear weapon is any weapon covered by a strategic arms control treaty Non-strategic nuclear weapons ” are often referred to by numerous other names such as “ tactical sub-strategic battlefield or “ theater nuclear weapons.” There are no strict definitions of the se terms ; they could refer to yield , delivery vehicle , intended use , or other criteria in the U S differentiation between battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons and theater nuclear weapons are related to both range and intended use Whether a specific nuclear weapon is strategic or not should be of no importance to nuclear disarm ament because the tools and procedures applied would be largely independent of the intended use of the weapon Many ways exist for delivering nuclear weapons all nuclear weapons would fall into one of three general categories ground sea or air-launched As an example of the lack of standardization of these terms INF defines an “intermediate-range missile” to have a range of 1,000–5,500 km and a “shorter-range missile” to have a range of 500– 1,000 km This remains a non-standard definition of short range Categorization According to Operational Status may be carried out in multiple ways all nuclear warheads are either part of the military stockpile in military custody earmarked for military use, or are awaiting dismantlement retired, but still intact warheads in the military stockpile may be further subdivided into those that are deployed with operational forces and those that are non-deployed deployed warheads may be subdivided into those that are on high alert and those that are not the military stockpile can be further divided into the active stockpile and the inactive stockpile There are three subcategories in the U.S. active stockpile: active ready , active hedge , and active logistics The inactive stockpile is composed of inactive hedge , inactive logistics , and inactive reserve Categorization According to Names or Model Designations is quite obvious and s traightforward. All types of nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons have a name and/or an alphanumeric model designation (for example B61 W78 the B61 gravity bomb has appeared in several different modifications identified as B61-1, B61-2 one would expect each individual warhead or bomb to be identified by a unique serial number In principle , any nuc lear weapon s may be described by terms from all of these five categorization system s

nuc s may be categorized tech Names or model designations Many different ways Categorization According to Intended Use one of two possible categories fuzzy Depending on their deployment same weapon systems only usable definition Non-strategic nuclear weapons tactical sub-strategic battlefield theater no strict definitions of the se terms yield delivery vehicle intended use other criteria U S both range and intended use strategic or not no importance to nuclear disarm three general categories ground sea or air-launched lack of standardization non-standard definition Operational Status part of the military stockpile awaiting dismantlement deployed with operational forces non-deployed on high alert further divided three subcategories active ready active hedge active logistics inactive hedge inactive logistics inactive reserve Names or Model Designations B61 W78 each individual warhead or bomb unique serial number In principle nuc s terms from all of these five categorization s

['This paper presents how nuclear weapons may be categorized according to ', '• Weapons technology; ', '• Intended use; ', '• Means of delivery; ', '• Operational status; or ', '• Names or model designations. ', 'The relevance for nuclear disarmament verification of each method of categorization is discussed. ', 'Introduction ', 'Many different ways and many different terms are used to characterize nuclear weapons. Some may be relevant to nuclear disarmament verification, others most likely not. Some characteristics may be impossible to verify due to proliferation concerns. This paper provides a short overview of the terminology. ', 'In Phase I of the IPNDV, a “nuclear explosive device” was defined simply as a device containing both weapons usable fissile materials and high explosives. For Phase II, the official P5 definition may be more appropriate: A “nuclear weapon” is a “weapon assembly that is capable of producing an explosion and massive damage and destruction by the sudden release of energy instantaneously released from self-sustaining nuclear fission and/or fusion.” ', 'Nuclear weapons may be categorized in multiple ways according to weapons technology, intended use, means of delivery, and operational status, as well as by their actual names or model designations. This is discussed below. ', 'How an inspector can be become confident that the system being verified is indeed of a specific, uniquely identified type, is a further question beyond the scope of this paper. Verifying that two systems are of the same type, based on measurable characteristics and supporting information as described throughout the paper, is more straightforward to accomplish. ', 'Categorization According to Weapons Technology ', 'Basic nuclear physics describes two different ways of releasing energy from atomic nuclei: “fission” (splitting) of heavy nuclei or “fusion” (merging) of light nuclei. ', 'The early nuclear weapons were all fission weapons in which the fissile material, that is, uranium and/or plutonium of suitable quality, undergoes a very rapid fission chain reaction. Fissile material emits alpha and gamma radiation, the former is stopped by any kind of casing and is therefore irrelevant for nuclear disarmament verification, but the latter, especially gamma radiation from plutonium, will get through substantial layers of material and may therefore be of interest to disarmament verification inspectors. ', 'There are two different types of nuclear weapons making use of fission: gun-type assemblies and implosion weapons. The type used in a given weapon may affect how and where the inspectors make their measurements. ', 'Fusion weapons are also known as thermonuclear weapons. The fusion process requires large amounts of energy to begin, which is provided by first setting off a fission charge. Fusion weapons are therefore often referred to as two-stage weapons because each weapon contains two charges, a primary (fission) stage and a secondary (fusion) stage. The primary stage will contain fissile material as described above and may be of use for nuclear disarmament verification inspectors. Very little official information about the secondary stage has been made available to the public. ', 'Basic nuclear physics limits the yield (the released energy) of a fission weapon, while in principle the yield of a fusion weapon is almost unlimited. The physical characteristics of nuclear weapons will, to some extent, depend on the technology used in a given weapon. However, this is hard to generalize because weight and shape also depends heavily on intended use of the weapon, engineering sophistication, yield, etc. Some weapons have been several meters long and weighed several tons, whereas other weapons could be launched by artillery guns. ', 'Some knowledge of the technology applied in a given weapon is essential for nuclear disarmament verification purposes because this determines what possible radiation may be detected and which methods may or must be used in the verification process. Physical characteristics such as shape and dimensions of the outer casing may provide supporting verification information. Relevant technical information can only be provided by the weapons owner, for example as part of the declaration process. ', 'Categorization According to Intended Use ', 'This categorization divides all nuclear weapons into one of two possible categories: strategic nuclear weapons and non-strategic nuclear weapons. The dividing line between the categories is rather fuzzy. As the names imply, strategic weapons are intended to play a role in the bigger picture with deterrence and power balance, whereas non-strategic nuclear weapons may play a more operative role. Depending on their deployment, the same weapon systems could in many cases have either a strategic or a non-strategic function. Furthermore, for one State, strategic balance may be measured relative to its neighbor, while for another State, global balance may be the most important. ', 'Several definitions exist of strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons. However, the only usable definition seems to be the simple one stating that a strategic nuclear weapon is any weapon covered by a strategic arms control treaty. This definition applies only between the United States and Russia, although China also considers its longer-range weapons to be strategic nuclear weapons. Other States possessing nuclear weapons may have different views on what constitutes a “strategic weapon”; for example, if a nuclear weapon is capable of hitting the territory of a given State, the States in question may consider that weapon to be strategic regardless of its range. ', '“Non-strategic nuclear weapons” are often referred to by numerous other names such as “tactical nuclear weapons,” “sub-strategic nuclear weapons,” “battlefield nuclear weapons,” or “theater nuclear weapons.” There are no strict definitions of these terms; they could refer to yield, delivery vehicle, intended use, or other criteria, but again very similar systems in different States are likely to be defined differently. For example, in the United States, there is a differentiation between battlefield or tactical nuclear weapons and theater nuclear weapons, which are related to both range and intended use. ', 'Whether a specific nuclear weapon is considered strategic or not should be of little or no importance to nuclear disarmament verification because the tools and procedures applied would be largely independent of the intended use of the weapon. ', 'Categorization According to Means of Delivery ', 'Many ways exist for delivering nuclear weapons to their intended point of detonation. At the highest level, all nuclear weapons would fall into one of three general categories classified by where the delivery systems are based: ground-launched, sea-launched, or air-launched/air-delivered. Space-based nuclear weapons, although possible, are not considered in this paper because they are prohibited by the widely accepted Outer Space Treaty, which entered into force in 1967. ', 'Ground-launched nuclear weapons include ground launched ballistic missiles (GLBMs) and ground launched cruise missiles (GLCMs) as well as artillery shells and landmines with nuclear charges. Many different types of ballistic missiles have been developed for different purposes. They have been designed to carry different weights over different ranges, and they use different propellants. They are often subcategorized according to range, for example as shown in the Table IV-1-1 below: ', '', 'As an example of the lack of standardization of these terms, one may observe that the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) defines an “intermediate-range missile” to have a range of 1,000–5,500 km and a “shorter-range missile” to have a range of 500– 1,000 km. (This remains a non-standard definition of short range, however; the MTCR definition of 300 km as the lower limit appears to have gained greater credence.) ', 'Both GLBMs and GLCMs may be launched from fixed launchers (such as missile silos) or from mobile, land-based transporter-erector-launchers (TELs). ', 'Many ballistic missiles are equipped with multiple re-entry vehicles (MRVs) or multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs); thereby each containing several nuclear warheads. The term “nuclear warhead” is therefore often used for general bookkeeping purposes instead of the term “nuclear weapon,” even though the term “warhead” is defined conventionally as referring only to the explosive elements delivered by a missile. ', 'Sea-launched nuclear weapons include ballistic missiles and cruise missiles as well as torpedoes, depth charges, and mines equipped with nuclear charges. These weapons may be launched from surface vessels or submarines. The terms “SLBM” and “SLCM” are used somewhat ambiguously. They are often taken to mean submarine-launched ballistic missile and submarine-launched cruise missile, respectively, but “SL” could also be read as “sea-launched” or “ship-launched.” For example, the United States generally uses SLCM to mean a sealaunched cruise missile regardless of whether it is launched from a ship or from a submarine. However, sometimes the term “ShLCM” has been used to specify a “ship-launched cruise missile.” Sea-launched ballistic missiles may be further subcategorized according to range as described above for ground-launched ballistic missiles. ', 'Air-launched nuclear weapons include air-launched ballistic missiles (ALBMs) and air-launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). Torpedoes may also be launched from aircraft. Air-delivered nuclear weapons are nuclear bombs that are dropped close to the intended point of detonation. Traditionally, these were unguided bombs, also known as gravity bombs, but modern bombs may be precision-guided bombs, also referred to as smart bombs, which include tail kits to improve the accuracy of the bomb. ', 'The term “nuclear triad” is used when discussing nuclear weapon possessor States that deploy (strategic) nuclear weapons in all three general basing modes, that is, ground-launched ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and nuclear capable aircraft. ', 'As far as nuclear disarmament verification goes, the techniques and technologies applied would be the same regardless of means of delivery. One useful aspect of describing systems this way, however, is that it provides inspectors with an approximate idea of what they are likely to encounter in the field. Consistency with regard to delivery vehicle, location, certain characteristics, etc. may help build confidence. ', 'Access requirements to sites with different categories of nuclear weapons may vary, and hence the verification procedures will depend somewhat on the type of site the systems are on (naval bases, silos, mobile launchers, etc.). In summary, some information on means of delivery may be important regarding the practicalities of nuclear disarmament verification, but may not provide sufficient information on its own to identify weapon systems or individual weapons or warheads. ', 'Categorization According to Operational Status ', 'This categorization may be carried out in multiple ways. The discussion below first follows the approach used by the Status of World Nuclear Forces, a commonly quoted non-governmental organization (NGO) and then presents the system used in the United States. Other nuclear weapon possessing states probably have similar categories for weapons in their stockpiles. ', 'At the top level in the NGO categorization, all nuclear warheads are either part of the military stockpile, that is, they are in military custody earmarked for military use, or they are awaiting dismantlement, that is, retired, but still intact. In late 2018, roughly one-third of all warheads fell in the latter category. ', 'The warheads in the military stockpile may be further subdivided into those that are deployed with operational forces and those that are non-deployed. According to the same NGO source, in late 2018, about 40 percent of the nuclear warheads in the military stockpiles were deployed. ', 'The deployed warheads may be subdivided into those that are on high alert (ready to be used on short notice) and those that are not. ', 'Non-deployed weapons may be awaiting deployment, undergoing maintenance, or be kept in long-term reserve. Reasons for keeping a substantial number of nuclear weapons in reserve may be to ensure that the State can meet possible future geopolitical challenges and/or to safeguard against potential technical problems due to an aging arsenal. ', 'In the U.S. categorization, all nuclear warheads are part of the military stockpile. This stockpile can be further divided into the active stockpile and the inactive stockpile. Weapons in the active stockpile are maintained to ensure that the military requirements for operational warheads are met. The inactive stockpile is composed of warheads retained in a nonoperational status and can provide augmentation or replacement warheads to the active stockpile. These two categories can be further broken down into subcategories. ', 'There are three subcategories in the U.S. active stockpile: active ready, active hedge, and active logistics. Active ready consists of warheads available for wartime employment planning. Active ready warheads can be loaded onto missiles or made available for use on aircraft within required timelines. Active hedge warheads are retained for deployment to manage technological risks in the active ready stockpile or to augment the active ready stockpile in response to geopolitical developments. Active logistics warheads are used to facilitate workflow and sustain the operational status of active ready or active hedge quantities. They may be in various stages of assembly. ', 'The inactive stockpile is composed of inactive hedge, inactive logistics, and inactive reserve. The inactive hedge consists of warheads retained for deployment to manage technological risks in the active ready stockpile or to augment the active ready stockpile in response to geopolitical developments. Inactive logistics warheads are used for logistical and surveillance purposes; these warheads may be in various stages of disassembly. Inactive reserve warheads are retained to provide long-term risk mitigation. Warheads in this category are exempt from future refurbishment modifications or alterations. ', 'Warheads in some of the different categories may have different characteristics, but these would not be directly observable to the nuclear disarmament verification inspectors. Different categories of warheads may be stored in different locations. ', 'In and of themselves the above categories do not add much verification value unless they are accompanied by further information as to what this means for the physical location or state of the warhead. If a deployed system refers to the system being mated with a delivery vehicle, this would be verifiable, and similarly if it refers to the system being at a specific location. The nuclear disarmament verification inspectors would most likely prefer to meet the warhead that is to be dismantled as close to its end of deployment as possible. This will increase their confidence that the device that they are introduced to really is the warhead that it is claimed to be. ', 'Categorization According to Names or Model Designations ', 'This form of categorization is quite obvious and straightforward. All types of nuclear warheads and nuclear weapons have a name (for example, Little Boy or Blue Danube) and/or an alphanumeric model designation (for example, B61, Mk53, W78, or WE177). Warheads of the same general model may also have different modifications that can further differentiate the warhead or bomb. For example, the B61 gravity bomb has appeared in several different modifications to enable different uses or to increase its safety, security, and reliability (identified as B61-1, B61-2, etc.). The differences represented by the modifications may or may not be observable for a nuclear disarmament verification inspector. ', 'Furthermore, one would expect each individual warhead or bomb to be identified by a unique serial number. ', 'In the field of nuclear disarmament verification, these designations are important for bookkeeping purposes. It is important to uniquely identify each object under verification in ways that are meaningful to all participating parties. ', 'Conclusion ', 'In this paper, we have presented five independent ways of categorizing nuclear weapons according to: ', '(1)\tWeapons technology; ', '(2)\tIntended use; ', '(3)\tMeans of delivery; ', '(4)\tOperational status; and ', '(5)\tNames or model designations. ', 'In principle, any nuclear weapons may be described by terms from all of these five categorization systems. In the earlier sections of this paper, we have discussed the relevance of each of the different systems to nuclear disarmament verification. ']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Dartmouth-VaWa-Neg-Texas-Round-6.docx

Dartmouth

VaWa

105ba4f8961125116378334226bc16778a5f2020d309a0ddfafdf39ea33462eb

Restrict definition is so out of context.

Graber 95 [Susan P. Graber, Supreme Court of Oregon, Bayridge Assocs. Ltd. Partnership v. Department of Revenue, 321 Ore. 21, 4-21-1995, Lexis]

A restriction is "a limitation placed on the use or enjoyment" of the property without any necessary reference to the process that led to the placement of that restriction

In ordinary usage, a "restriction" is: something that restricts as a regulation that restricts or restrains A restriction thus is "a limitation placed on the use or enjoyment" of the property without any necessary reference to the process that led to the placement of that restriction , without any necessary reference to the form of the restriction (e.g., by statute

something that restricts regulation restricts or restrains placed on the use or enjoyment" of the property without any necessary reference process led placement form statute

['We use the foregoing principles in interpreting ORS 308.205(2) (1989). That statute did not define "restriction." In ordinary usage, a "restriction" is: "1: something that restricts: QUALIFICATION: as a: a regulation that restricts or restrains * * * b: a limitation placed [***9] on the use or enjoyment of real or other property; esp: [*28] an encumbrance on land restricting the uses to which it may be put." Webster\'s Third New Int\'l Dictionary, 1937 (unabridged ed 1993). A restriction thus is "a limitation placed on the use or enjoyment" of the property, without any necessary reference to the process that led to the placement of that restriction, without any necessary reference to the form of the restriction (e.g., by statute or by contract), and without any necessary reference to the absence of an economic benefit in exchange for placement of that restriction.']

[(0, 9), (28, 51)]

ndtceda

Emory-LoKi-Neg-3---Shirley-Round-5.docx

Emory

LoKi

111a4234ce4ce6e98f46e282361d00bcef04894796c915ea717d54d1cad68444

It’s only a question of time, which hinges on deterrence.

Zhou 23, Associate Professor, Hobart and William Smith Colleges (Jinghao Zhou, July 15, 2023, “Deterrence Won’t Stop China’s Unification with Taiwan,” National Interest, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/deterrence-won%E2%80%99t-stop-china%E2%80%99s-unification-taiwan%C2%A0-206636?page=0%2C1)

unification has been a goal for CCP If Xi gave up he would be abandoning his core mission face serious consequences within CCP lose credibility and legitimacy even a coup from the party or military risk backlash from public Xi’s legitimacy been based on unification he cannot give up While U.S. deterrence may cause the CCP to reconsider and carefully evaluate its approach it won’t halt China’s progression Therefore, the CCP’s mission to take Taiwan is inevitable sooner or later

unification with Taiwan has been a n established goal for the CCP If Xi gave up this objective , he would be seen as abandoning his core mission he would likely face serious political consequences within the CCP lose credibility and legitimacy and face even a coup from within the party or the military he would also risk nationalist backlash from the public Xi’s legitimacy has been based on the unification with Taiwan he cannot afford to give up unification While U.S. deterrence strategy may cause the CCP to reconsider and carefully evaluate its approach to unification, it won’t halt China’s progression in that direction Therefore, the CCP’s mission to take over Taiwan is inevitable sooner or later

Taiwan goal CCP Xi objective abandoning serious consequences credibility legitimacy coup party military risk backlash legitimacy unification While U.S. deterrence cause the CCP reconsider carefully evaluate approach it won’t halt China’s progression CCP’s inevitable sooner or later

['Apparently, unification with Taiwan has been an established goal for the CCP and the Chinese people. If Xi gave up this objective, he would be seen as abandoning his core mission and betraying his own promise. In addition, he would likely face serious political consequences within the CCP and among the Chinese people, lose credibility and legitimacy as a leader who can defend China’s national interests and dignity against external pressures and challenges, and face criticism, opposition, or even a coup from within the party or the military. More seriously, he would also risk\xa0provoking social unrest or nationalist backlash\xa0from the public, who have been indoctrinated with patriotic education and propaganda for decades. Xi’s legitimacy has been largely based on the unification with Taiwan since the\xa0Therefore, he cannot afford to give up his historical unification task voluntarily.', 'While U.S. deterrence strategy may cause the CCP to reconsider its actions and carefully evaluate its approach to unification, it won’t halt China’s progression in that direction.', 'The CCP may postpone the implementation of the unification mission under certain circumstances: Significant shifts in the regional or global landscape might prompt a reassessment of priorities. Substantial domestic opposition to the unification task or mounting international pressure could compel a leader to reconsider their top priority. The potential Chinese domestic political fallout may lead to backlash from factions or interest groups within China. A change in the CCP’s political ideology can also influence a leader’s position on the unification task. A significant shift in public attitudes toward the unification task has the potential to influence a leader’s decision-making process and could also create opportunities for alternative arrangements and potentially reduce the urgency of pursuing reunification through military force. Nevertheless, all these hypothetical conditions are highly unlikely to occur under any CCP administration.', 'Therefore, the CCP’s mission to take over Taiwan is inevitable sooner or later. While Xi has not ruled out the use of force, he has also expressed his preference for\xa0based on the One-China principle and the. Is it possible for the PRC to reach the goal of peaceful unification with Taiwan based on the 1992 Consensus? Reality shows that since Taiwan transitioned to democracy in the 1980s, Taiwanese people’s minds are getting farther and farther away from the PRC.', '']

[(0, 7)]

ndtceda

Kansas-MaPa-Aff-7---Texas-Round-4.docx

Kansas

MaPa

3b1fc0db7fb71cf09983e37f867910382a05336c2d3ac603618924d3614bed76

Less likely than nuclear war in other theaters

Al Mauroni 19, director of the U.S. Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence, 10/15/19, “TEARING DOWN THE NUCLEAR FIREWALL,” https://warontherocks.com/2019/10/tearing-down-the-nuclear-firewall/

arms control, nonprolif and c b m s have reduced possibility of strategic nuclear exchange between Russia and the U S However risk of a conventional crisis in Europe , the Middle East , or Asia escalating into nuclear war remains

In recent decades, arms control, nonprolif eration agreements, and c onfidence- b uilding m easure s have reduced the possibility of a strategic nuclear exchange between Russia and the U S However , the risk of a conventional military crisis in Europe , the Middle East , or Asia escalating into a theater nuclear war remains

nonprolif c b m s U S Europe Middle East Asia theater nuclear war

['In the U.S. nuclear community, you’ll often hear a strangely contradictory statement about nuclear weapons. It goes something like this: “We have nuclear weapons so that nuclear weapons will never be used.” U.S. nuclear deterrence, however, hinges on the assumption that adversaries believe that the United States has a functioning stockpile of nuclear weapons that can and will be used. In recent decades, arms control, nonproliferation agreements, and confidence-building measures have reduced the possibility of a strategic nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States. However, the risk of a conventional military crisis in Europe, the Middle East, or Asia escalating into a theater nuclear war remains.']

[(3, 13)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-ChDe-Neg-ADA-Nationals-at-Indiana-University-Doubles.docx

Northwestern

ChDe

7bdea3f0966f90872037caf6d916dac939a2229ee3d16b10d2d29365eaebe50f

Confluence of legal factors inhibit RoN effectiveness

Dr. Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Toulouse Capitole, “Rights of Nature: why it might not save the entire world?”, https://publications.ut-capitole.fr/id/eprint/42307/1/PUBLI-RON-J.Btaille.pdf, 2019

effectiveness depends on large variety of factors a lot can be identified norms’ coherence sanctions corruption impartiality of judges admin inertia regulators’ capture access to justice judges’ interpretation judicial decisions etc Environmental Law looking much more interesting because of complexity RoN’s not a legal revolution that could save the world

effectiveness depends on a large variety of factors legal and extra-legal RoN would have to look at all those factors there a lot of legal factors that can be identified norms’ coherence sanctions corruption impartiality of public authorities and judges admin istrative inertia regulators’ capture access to justice , judges’ interpretation , execution of judicial decisions etc That’s why Environmental Rule of Law is looking much more interesting because of its complexity RoN’s theory is not “ a legal revolution that could save the world it might be better to improve Environmental Law from the inside

large variety RoN factors identified norms’ coherence sanctions corruption impartiality judges admin istrative inertia regulators’ capture interpretation decisions interesting complexity not save the world

['More broadly, effectiveness has not much to do with the chosen approach, whatever it is objective or subjective. Indeed, effectiveness depends on a large variety of factors, both legal and extra-legal. Therefore, if RoN supporters wants to “save the world”, they would have to look at all those factors instead of focusing on a philosophical paradigm shift. For example, there a lot of legal factors that can be identified and are looking for improvement, such as, inter alia, norms’ coherence, sanctions, corruption, impartiality of public authorities and judges, administrative inertia, regulators’ capture, access to justice, judges’ interpretation, execution of judicial decisions, etc. Therefore, the issue must be addressed more broadly than the RoN approach does. That’s why the concept of Environmental Rule of Law is looking much more interesting, because of its complexity and, thus, its ability to include the multiplicity of the effectiveness factors.', 'As a conclusion, the RoN’s theory needs to be putted into perspective to show that it is not “a legal revolution that could save the world”. If the goal is to save the world, and if Law can be part of the solution, it might be better to improve Environmental Law from the inside, helping it to be faster, more radical and more effective to fight the ecological crisis. This implies to work on a large scale of factors rather than focusing on a philosophical siren song. ']

[(11, 22)]

ndtceda

Kentucky-GrKi-Neg-Wake-Round-1.docx

Kentucky

GrKi

d673927d4ed6ae810391e07ad001af279eeac50db0d10fbe6dbe7b3abd43d3f8

Turn---capitalism is an effect of power that we critique---focusing on class is a covert method of oppressing non-normative bodies by ignoring different vectors of oppression---their Kritik only results in a distortion of oppression

Holly Lewis 22, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Texas State University, 02/24/2022, The Politics of Everybody: Feminism, Queer Theory, and Marxism at the Intersection: A Revised Edition, Bloomsbury Academic, pp. 190-194

class is a covert method of oppressing by putting class at the top of the oppression hierarchy class becomes marked by whiteness and maleness those situated on subjugated planes vectors cut through the body like lasers privilege acts like a mirrored ball the red laser sights of Power can be redirected towards more vulnerable bodies For those outside vectors of privilege the trick is to twist the pain of disciplinary power into strength and self-empowerment let Power know that you will resist disciplinary power is refracted through the masses by the masses Capitalism is not an arrangement that produces social violence ; it is an effect of Power The best one can do is care for the self and attend to Violent speech is a discursive activity disseminating Power the care of the self can extend to an awareness of others and attentiveness towards them small ethical acts micro-heal the world

Identity politics might be better understood as a form of schematic politics where the development of theories of oppression is detached from theories of exploitation . Race, class, nation, gender, sexuality, and disability are understood as wholly different vectors capable of intersecting . Marxists supposedly distort the math by identifying class as the most important and worst oppression, and the subjects of class are those who, subtextually, have no other oppressions : straight , white , cis , heterosexual men . So, according to this model, attention to class is a covert method of oppressing women, queer, trans, and colonized people by putting class at the top of the oppression hierarchy , thereby reinforcing the trauma of all other vectors . class becomes so marked by whiteness and maleness that it must become a secondary consideration , only meaningful when another oppression already exists. Oppression is thought to emerge from an abstract lust for domination and therefore has a life separate from the economy . Although social problems might intersect they have wholly different points of origin and they jet out towards the individual , transparent , blank-slate subjects to cut through them. For those situated on the dominant plane the vectors are privileges that pass through their bodies like beams of healing white light . For those situated on subjugated planes these vectors cut through the body like lasers . Each new line of oppression uncovered helps better explain the total force field of human suffering . This model of understanding suffering has some positive aspects. It is humane and attentive to the experience of marginalized people . Those who have experienced subjugation can build new languages to express their suffering . this ‘ vector model of oppression’ attempts to build a unitary theory of oppressions through the figure of the individual body , the body that experiences the oppressions and privileges that pass through it. By the continuing discovery of new vectors that shape experience, the human condition becomes concrete . The subject is always an individual experiencing the pleasures or pains that come from a privilege or oppression that constitutes them. With individual bodies experiencing the vectors of privilege and oppression flowing through them , the individual becomes social through its status as a conduit for Power . privilege acts like a mirrored ball so that the red laser sights of Power can be redirected towards other, more vulnerable bodies . The grounding principle of sociality in this model is self- preservation . One saves oneself by refracting Power onto other bodies . Ethics and the interpersonal become the horizon of politics , where recognizing one’s privilege is the first step towards blackening the mirror so that Power will be absorbed and not violently projected onto others . For those outside the vectors of privilege , the trick is to twist the pain of disciplinary power into strength and self-empowerment , to let Power know that you , although powerless , will resist . But there are downsides to this model of oppression. The first is that it is an interpersonal model of politics grounded in individual experience. The rational man of the Enlightenment may not be at the center of the universe in this model, but the individual is still the focus . What ultimately determines political meaning and interaction is the pleasure and/or mortification of the individual body arranged in a transactional , market-like configuration where disciplinary power is refracted through the masses by the masses . The model’s individualism produces other problems. A history that is the sum of individual responses to and refractions of Power is no more of a history of human existence than a relay of blinking lights is a history of light. Such a schema is not a history, but a situation, a meaningless existential crisis in which one is positioned arbitrarily. This schematic, space-driven focus on the individual experience of oppression rejects the notion of History as metaphysically suspect, but requires a strange and godlike field called Power2 to ground the meaning of existence. All we can see is Power as it is refracted through the other. We can see only the traces it leaves behind. So what kind of political solutions are generated by this model? First of all, individual behavior is the limit of political power . One can limit the effects of Power , but Power itself is an eternal force . Capitalism is not an arrangement that produces certain types of social violence ; it is an effect of Power . The best one can do is care for the self and attend to one’s language , language itself being the symbol of human interaction . To punch, strangle or rape someone is a discursive activity that conveys the message of Power to the body of the other. Violent speech is a nother discursive activity disseminating Power . To misrecognize or mis-categorize the being of the other through intention or ignorance is another form of asserting Power . Sarcasm is the form of discursive blasphemy that tames the power of Power . Finally, the care of the self can extend to an awareness of others and attentiveness towards them . What kind of politics is this? It is left (neo)liberal politics promoted by the academy as a critique of neoliberalism : awareness campaigns, ‘ dismantling the system’ by putting aware individuals in positions of power so that they can better extinguish power , commitment to ethical living , locating one’s privileges and renouncing them by not acting upon them or extending them. Thinking deeply about Power leads to a recognition that capitalism is but one of Power’s effects . However , just because subjects are not capable of stopping capitalism does not mean that they are not ethically bound to resist it as they would any other vector of Power If reflecting violence onto another is micro-aggression , small ethical acts micro-heal the world .

Identity politics schematic politics theories of oppression detached theories of exploitation different vectors intersecting Marxists distort class important worst subjects of class no other oppressions straight white cis heterosexual men class covert method of oppressing class top of the oppression hierarchy reinforcing trauma vectors class marked whiteness maleness secondary consideration Oppression abstract lust domination life economy social problems intersect different points of origin jet individual transparent blank-slate subjects situated dominant plane vectors privileges beams of healing white light situated subjugated planes vectors lasers uncovered explain total force field human suffering humane attentive marginalized people subjugation new languages express suffering vector model of oppression’ unitary theory of oppressions figure individual body experiences oppressions privileges discovery of new vectors human condition concrete subject individual pleasures pains privilege oppression constitutes individual social status as a conduit Power privilege mirrored ball red laser Power redirected vulnerable bodies principle of sociality self- preservation refracting bodies Ethics interpersonal horizon of politics recognizing privilege first step blackening Power absorbed violently others outside vectors of privilege trick twist the pain of disciplinary power strength self-empowerment powerless resist rational man Enlightenment center universe individual focus political meaning interaction pleasure mortification individual body transactional market-like configuration disciplinary power refracted masses by the masses individual behavior limit political power limit effects Power Power eternal force Capitalism arrangement social violence effect Power care for the self attend language language symbol human interaction Violent speech discursive activity Power misrecognize mis-categorize intention ignorance asserting Power Sarcasm discursive blasphemy tames power of Power care of the self awareness of others attentiveness (neo)liberal politics academy critique of neoliberalism awareness campaigns, dismantling the system’ individuals positions of power extinguish power commitment to ethical living locating privileges renouncing acting extending Thinking deeply Power recognition capitalism Power’s effects subjects not capable stopping capitalism ethically bound resist vector of Power reflecting violence micro-aggression small ethical acts micro-heal the world

['Identity politics might be better understood as a form of schematic politics where the development of theories of oppression is detached from theories of exploitation. Race, class, nation, gender, sexuality, and disability are understood as wholly different vectors capable of intersecting. From this perspective, Marxists supposedly distort the math by identifying class as the most important and worst oppression, and the subjects of class are those who, subtextually, have no other oppressions: straight, white, cis, heterosexual men. So, according to this model, attention to class is a covert method of oppressing women, queer, trans, and colonized people by putting class at the top of the oppression hierarchy, thereby reinforcing the trauma of all other vectors. In this model, class becomes so marked by whiteness and maleness that it must become a secondary consideration, only meaningful when another oppression already exists. What distinguishes identity politics from Marxist politics is how it detaches oppression from exploitation and separates each oppression from every other.', 'Oppression is thought to emerge from an abstract lust for domination and therefore has a life separate from the economy. Although social problems might intersect – like two lines from nowhere that suddenly crash into one another at angles – they have wholly different points of origin and they jet out towards the individual, transparent, blank-slate subjects to cut through them. For those situated on the dominant plane – wealthy, European, white, cis, male, able-bodied, heterosexual, non-immigrant people from imperialist nations – the vectors are privileges that pass through their bodies like beams of healing white light. For those situated on subjugated planes – poor, Black or brown, trans, female, intersex, disabled, queer, and colonized – these vectors cut through the body like lasers. Each new line of oppression uncovered (having experienced sexual abuse, having a multiple personality, age bias, lookism) helps better explain the total force field of human suffering. This model of understanding suffering has some positive aspects. It is humane and attentive to the experience of marginalized people. Those who have experienced subjugation can build new languages to express their suffering. In its own way, this ‘vector model of oppression’ attempts to build a unitary theory of oppressions through the figure of the individual body, the body that experiences the oppressions and privileges that pass through it. By the continuing discovery of new vectors that shape experience, the human condition becomes concrete.', 'Of course, the above model is inspired by Foucault and the source of these vectors is ‘Power’. While poststructuralism has a cynical disdain for terms such as ‘Truth with a capital T’ and ‘Knowledge with a capital K’, the entire edifice depends upon a mysterious ‘Power with a capital P’. The subject is always an individual experiencing the pleasures or pains that come from a privilege or oppression that constitutes them. With individual bodies experiencing the vectors of privilege and oppression flowing through them, the individual becomes social through its status as a conduit for Power. To continue the metaphor, privilege acts like a mirrored ball so that the red laser sights of Power can be redirected towards other, more vulnerable bodies. The grounding principle of sociality in this model is self-preservation. One saves oneself by refracting Power onto other bodies. Ethics and the interpersonal become the horizon of politics, where recognizing one’s privilege is the first step towards blackening the mirror so that Power will be absorbed and not violently projected onto others. For those outside the vectors of privilege, the trick is to twist the pain of disciplinary power into strength and self-empowerment, to let Power know that you, although powerless, will resist.', 'But there are downsides to this model of oppression. The first is that it is an interpersonal model of politics grounded in individual experience. The rational man of the Enlightenment may not be at the center of the universe in this model, but the individual is still the focus. What ultimately determines political meaning and interaction is the pleasure and/or mortification of the individual body arranged in a transactional, market-like configuration where disciplinary power is refracted through the masses by the masses. The model’s individualism produces other problems. A history that is the sum of individual responses to and refractions of Power is no more of a history of human existence than a relay of blinking lights is a history of light. Such a schema is not a history, but a situation, a meaningless existential crisis in which one is positioned arbitrarily. This schematic, space-driven focus on the individual experience of oppression rejects the notion of History as metaphysically suspect, but requires a strange and godlike field called Power2 to ground the meaning of existence. Is it possible to see this mysterious force called Power? All we can see is Power as it is refracted through the other. We can see only the traces it leaves behind.', 'So what kind of political solutions are generated by this model? First of all, individual behavior is the limit of political power. One can limit the effects of Power, but Power itself is an eternal force. Capitalism is not an arrangement that produces certain types of social violence; it is an effect of Power. The best one can do is care for the self and attend to one’s language, language itself being the symbol of human interaction. To punch, strangle or rape someone is a discursive activity that conveys the message of Power to the body of the other. Violent speech is another discursive activity disseminating Power. To misrecognize or mis-categorize the being of the other through intention or ignorance is another form of asserting Power. Sarcasm is the form of discursive blasphemy that tames the power of Power. Finally, the care of the self can extend to an awareness of others and attentiveness towards them.', 'What kind of politics is this? It is left (neo)liberal politics promoted by the academy as a critique of neoliberalism: awareness campaigns, ‘dismantling the system’ by putting aware individuals in positions of power so that they can better extinguish power, commitment to ethical living, locating one’s privileges and renouncing them by not acting upon them or extending them. Thinking deeply about Power leads to a recognition that capitalism is but one of Power’s effects. However, just because subjects are not capable of stopping capitalism does not mean that they are not ethically bound to resist it as they would any other vector of Power: ethical consumption is therefore paramount – buying local, reusing and recycling, promoting ‘fair’ trade, and eating organic are all little ways of resisting Power. If reflecting violence onto another is micro-aggression, small ethical acts micro-heal the world. Despite the rejection of Aristotle’s essentialism, his virtue ethics are foundational to this configuration of radical resistance. In many ways this mode of political activity is a distortion of Gramsci’s idea of the war of position. Here, the war of position does not lead to or complement the war of maneuver; it supplants it.3']

[(6, 14)]

ndtceda

Northwestern-StSu-Aff-77th-National-Debate-Tournament-Round-1.docx

Northwestern

StSu

8e79a36a66f5cd6e84cf89bba45e5a55cc0ed54385bf812ad97c003fe6a89e60

Farming’s not key to rural communities---ag, forestry, fishing, AND mining combined employ ONLY 10% of the economy.

Laughlin ’16 [Lynda; December 8; Industry and Occupation Statistics Branch at the US Census; United States Census Bureau, “Beyond the Farm: Rural Industry Workers in America,” https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/12/beyond_the_farm_rur.html]

contributions go beyond the farm rural economy diversified Jobs in ag are on the decline while manufacturing retail and education are on the rise economy is diverse not dependent on farming largest segment employed in education health care and social assistance Another 10 percent employed in retail industry ag forestry, fishing, hunting and mining employ one out of 10 workers A higher share in manufacturing

contributions of rural communities go far beyond the farm . The rural economy diversified substantially since the mid-20th Century. Jobs in the ag ricultural sector are on the decline while jobs in manufacturing , retail sales and education al services are on the rise the economy in rural counties is diverse and not necessarily dependent on farming the largest segment of the civilian workforce in rural counties is employed in the education services , and health care and social assistance industry . This industry is mainly made up of schools, hospitals, home health care services and similar employers Another 10 .9 percent of the workforce in rural counties is employed in the retail trade industry ag riculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining still employ one out of 10 workers in rural counties. A higher share of rural employment in is in manufacturing 12.1 percent of the rural civilian workforce is in this industry

far beyond the farm diversified substantially the decline manufacturing retail sales education al services diverse not necessarily dependent largest segment education services health care social assistance industry 10 .9 percent rural counties retail trade industry and still employ higher share 12.1 percent rural civilian workforce

['Rural America faces unique challenges and opportunities compared with urban America. However, the contributions of rural communities go far beyond the farm. The rural economy has diversified substantially since the mid-20th Century. Jobs in the agricultural sector are on the decline while jobs in manufacturing, retail sales and educational services are on the rise.', 'Rural is often a catch phrase denoting everything that is not urban or metropolitan. This blog focuses specifically on the 704 counties in which 100.0 percent of the population lives in a rural area (referred to as “rural counties” in this analysis). For more information about how the U.S. Census Bureau defines urban and rural geographies, see Defining Rural at the U.S. Census Bureau.', 'The newly released Census Bureau data from the American Community Survey 5-year statistics show that rural counties vary widely among themselves and across regions as demonstrated by industry statistics.', 'Figure 1 shows the economy in rural counties is diverse and not necessarily dependent on farming or manufacturing. In fact, the largest segment of the civilian workforce in rural counties (22.3 percent) is employed in the education services, and health care and social assistance industry. This industry is mainly made up of schools, hospitals, home health care services and similar employers. It is in this industry where you find our elementary and middle school teachers and registered nurses. Another 10.9 percent of the workforce in rural counties is employed in the retail trade industry. A smaller share of the workforce is employed in the finance, wholesale trade and information industries combined.', 'Figure 1. Percent Employed by Type of Industry: Completely Rural Counties', 'While no longer the top industries in these areas, resource-based activities such as agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting and mining still employ one out of 10 workers in rural counties. A somewhat higher share of rural employment in is in manufacturing. In fact, 12.1 percent of the rural civilian workforce is in this industry, performing duties as assemblers and fabricators, production workers and managers.']

[(0, 12)]

ndtceda

Michigan-Hormozdiari-Dombcik-Neg-Northwestern-Triples.docx

Michigan

HoDo

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Michigan/HoDo/Michigan-Hormozdiari-Dombcik-Neg-Northwestern-Triples.docx

601acf6553e44ab5ec3f969cec395df8296a2e4828bfe152aaf196079248021a

US-China nuclear conflict causes extinction.

Klare 21, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Peace and World-Security Studies, Hampshire College (Michael T. Klare, February 26, 2021, “A New Cold War on a Scalding Planet: Biden, Climate Change, and China,” Counter Punch, https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/02/26/a-new-cold-war-on-a-scalding-planet-biden-climate-change-and-china/)

American forces are to strike vital targets on the Chinese mainland if preparations for use are detected , a preemptive U.S. nuclear strike . Any thermonuclear conflagration resulting from that would cause a nuclear winter and death of billions making climate moot Fires ignited would add carbon to the atmosphere

Because American forces are to strike at vital targets on the Chinese mainland , it’s impossible to preclude China’s use of nuclear weapons or, if preparations for such use are detected , a preemptive U.S. nuclear strike . Any full-scale thermonuclear conflagration resulting from that would probably cause a nuclear winter and the death of billions of people, making the climate -change peril moot Fires ignited in the course of battle would , of course, add additional carbon to the atmosphere

forces strike targets Chinese China’s use preparations detected nuclear strike thermonuclear resulting from nuclear winter death of billions climate -change moot Fires course battle carbon atmosphere

['Because American forces are\xa0\xa0to strike at vital targets on the Chinese mainland, it’s impossible to preclude China’s use of nuclear weapons or, if preparations for such use are detected, a preemptive U.S. nuclear strike. Any full-scale thermonuclear conflagration resulting from that would probably cause a\xa0nuclear winter\xa0and the death of billions of people, making the climate-change peril moot. But even if nuclear weapons are not employed, a war between the two powers could result in immense destruction in China’s industrial heartland and to such key U.S. allies as Japan and South Korea. Fires ignited in the course of battle would, of course, add additional carbon to the atmosphere, while the subsequent breakdown in global economic activity would postpone by years any transition to a green economy.', '']

[(0, 8)]

ndtceda

Michigan-ShGa-Aff-Long-Beach-Round-6.docx

Michigan

ShGa

be02f0bedb839c7e0fdc5e403a43a0812c3c4bd8b94910688cde410f60406510

2. Antinuclear activism doesn’t trade off with other progressive projects. Insofar as it does, it outweighs on scope.

Frida Berrigan 23. Author, serves on the board of The War Resisters League, helped to found Witness Against Torture, served as a researcher at the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative in New York City. “How to Avoid Nuclear Stand-Offs That Threaten the Entire World.” In These Times, 17 January 2023. https://inthesetimes.com/article/doomsday-clock-nuclear-abolition. Accessed 28 August 2023.

We know it’s possible we’ve done it before As attention moved away from nuc s, weapons manufacturers fought to increase market share Cross-movement solidarity is never easy the call to abolish nuc s can sound like a distraction from other pressing concerns , The movement has ways to remind that nukes kill everyone Progressives don’t have to drop everything to come to the demonstration, but we need all platforms to keep a spotlight on the stockpile until it is dismantled

We know it’s possible to move the world toward disarmament because we’ve done it before As public attention moved away from nuc lear weapon s, weapons manufacturers fought to maintain and increase their market share in a changing world Cross-movement solidarity around a single cause is never easy and the call to abolish nuc lear weapon s can sound like a distraction from work on other pressing concerns , like prison abolition or workers’ rights The antinuclear movement has experimented with different ways to remind everyone that nukes kill everyone Progressives of all stripes don’t have to drop everything to come to the ​“abolish nukes” demonstration, but we need to use all of our platforms and modalities to keep a spotlight on the nuclear stockpile until it is dismantled

we’ve done it before public attention moved away weapons manufacturers maintain increase market share never easy sound like a distraction other pressing concerns prison abolition workers’ rights nukes kill everyone don’t have to drop everything all of our platforms keep a spotlight until it is dismantled

['We know it’s possible to move the world toward disarmament because we’ve done it before. During the Cold War, an enormous movement\u2009—\u2009made up of lobbyists and Greenpeace activists, scientists and Catholic nuns and priests, Black Power proponents and Pan-Africanists, Pacific Islanders and Native American nations, lawyers and hippies, and so many others\u2009—\u2009turned the tide toward disarmament. Through a series of arms control agreements, Russia and the United States reduced their nuclear arsenals by about 87% from a peak of a combined 63,000 warheads in the mid-1980s.', 'As public attention moved away from nuclear weapons, weapons manufacturers fought to maintain and increase their market share in a changing world. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman lobbied and threw around campaign contributions to push for increased weapons spending and more open markets for their weapons, including the expansion of NATO into former Soviet states. By 2009, the United States was spending $29 billion on the maintenance, operation and upgrading of its nuclear arsenal. Now, the only remaining arms control agreement between the United States and Russia expires in 2026, and Russia pressed pause on scheduled talks in November 2022. The United States is investing up to $1.5 trillion over the next 30 years on updating and modernizing its nuclear weapons and their air, sea and ground delivery systems. We don’t have hard numbers for Russia, but they are spending billions as well.', 'Tough times require bold vision. We can’t rest until the weapons are eradicated. Our demand can be nothing short of abolition.', 'Bright lights, big bombs ', 'Cross-movement solidarity around a single cause is never easy\u2009—\u2009why unite around this cause and not another?\u2009—\u2009and the call to abolish nuclear weapons can sound like a distraction from work on other pressing concerns, like prison abolition or workers’ rights.', 'The antinuclear movement has experimented with different ways to remind everyone that nukes kill everyone. For example, when talking to someone from the Audubon Society, you might say, \u200b“If you care about birds, you should care about nuclear weapons\u2009—\u2009they’ll kill off all the birds!” But that strategy comes off as condescending and simplistic. ', 'There is a more profound way to get at it: \u200b“Is your movement animated by a beautiful and equitable vision for the future of life on earth?” There’s a growing understanding that we’re all climate activists now, that because we all care about the future of human and nonhuman life, climate must be woven into everything, from how a municipality responds to the needs of the unhoused to what food or education policy should look like in 10 years. The Movement for Black Lives has a Red, Black & Green New Deal initiative, for example. ', 'Nuclear war is on the same existential scale as climate change. Progressives of all stripes don’t have to drop everything to come to the \u200b“abolish nukes” demonstration, but we need to use all of our platforms and modalities to keep a spotlight on the nuclear stockpile until it is dismantled. ']

[(6, 17)]

ndtceda

Emory-MiPi-Aff-4---Wake-Forest-Quarters.docx

Emory

MiPi

41860a59a64b5732bf735058dc537df380ce9c1a94fc2e6c9fc56aaeaf065242

Manchin won’t budge—tanks the bill.

Walsh 9/14—(National Affairs Correspondent). Joan Walsh. 9/14/21. “For Joe Manchin, It’s Always About Joe Manchin”. The Nation. . Accessed 9/14/21.

on the Rescue Plan Manchin ultimately voted for the plan the sides are too far apart this time . Manchin’s problem s aren’t merely climate but also corporate tax hikes . Lower rates are politically problematic

what’s the endgame here? on the American Rescue Plan Manchin made loud noises about opposing the bill, but ultimately demanded modest reductions in unemployment benefits, then voted for the $1.9 trillion plan fairly intact . Can we expect a similar outcome? the two sides are too far apart this time . Manchin’s problem s aren’t merely climate provisions but also corporate tax hikes which he’d like to see set at lower rates . Lower rates are politically problematic voters support the bill’s higher rates for corporate and capital gains taxes and fiscally: They’ll result in less revenue, which means greater debt

American Rescue Plan loud noises modest reductions Can we expect a similar outcome? too far apart this time aren’t climate corporate tax hikes politically problematic

['', 'So what’s the endgame here? As my colleague John Nichols reports, Senate Budget Committee chair Bernie Sanders quickly slapped back at Manchin’s proposal to slash the reconciliation bill. “That $3.5 trillion [figure] is already the result of a major, major compromise, and at the very least this bill should contain $3.5 trillion,” Sanders said. But on ABC Sunday, Sanders left room for compromise with Manchin. “We worked together [on the American Rescue Plan], and I think we’re going to do it again,” he said. In that skirmish, you’ll recall, Manchin made loud noises about opposing the bill, but ultimately demanded modest reductions in unemployment benefits, then voted for the $1.9 trillion plan fairly intact.', 'Can we expect a similar outcome? That Manchin poses as a foe of big spending, for his home-state voters and his donors, but then accepts minor concessions and votes with the Democrats? I’m impressed with Sanders’s dealmaking, but I think the two sides are too far apart this time. For one thing, Manchin’s problems aren’t merely with the bill’s essential climate provisions but also with its corporate tax hikes, which he’d like to see set at lower rates. Lower rates are both politically problematic—voters support the bill’s higher rates for corporate and capital gains taxes—and fiscally: They’ll result in less revenue, which means greater debt—which Manchin is already complaining about. And when on Tuesday Sanders reiterated that the bill would remain at $3.5 trillion, Manchin replied, “God bless him is all I can say.” But maybe that’s how he negotiates.', '']

[(0, 10)]

ndtceda

Minnesota-Parrish-Sun-Aff-2-Kentucky-Round3.docx

Minnesota

PaSu

https://api.opencaselist.com/v1/download?path=ndtceda21/Minnesota/PaSu/Minnesota-Parrish-Sun-Aff-2-Kentucky-Round3.docx