1. This doesn’t mean they meet our interpretation – they still fail to defend a hypothetical implementation of the plan by the United States federal government 2. Their form of thinking is bad – regardless of whether “thinking is good”, a failure to engage in governmental reforms causes a takeover by imperialist elites 3. This interpretation is arbitrary and unlimiting – in their view, anything can count as politics, which justifies all counter interpretations, that is impacted by the 1NC Lutz evidence 4. Switch-Side debate solves this – all conceptions of politics can be run on the negative ***Violation Debate*** 2NC Violation Extension Extend our violation – the affirmative doesn’t defend a hypothetical implementation of the plan/resolution 2NC AT: We Meet – We Affirm the Rez as “X” This does not meet our interpretation 1. You do not defend an implementation by the USfg – that is the vital internal link to all of our offense 2. This is the death of fairness – you can affirm the topic as a metaphor, doorknob, dance, rap, dream, or literally anything you want – Lutz impacts this 3. Our definitions of Resolved and the USfg prove that this argument is false – affirming the resolution is a governmental action – they do not do this
2NC Lutz Extension Extend the Lutz evidence – there are an infinite number of frameworks between degrees – there are two opposite extremes, and everything in between, the aff could pick any of these frameworks, jacking predictability – and Lutz says anyone can idealize about a perfect world, but our duty as debaters is to prescribe pragmatic policies that can actually have real change ***Boggs Debate*** 2NC Boggs Extension Extend the Boggs card – a failure to engage politics leaves a vacuum for elites to fill with racist, imperialist, warmongering policies – critiques of the state fail and lead to more authoritarianism Exposing the flaws of the system does nothing – real change must start with the state Johnston 5 (Adrian, Dept of Philosophy, New Mexico University, International Journal of Zizek Studies, Vol. 1)JFS However, the absence of this type of Lacan-underwritten argument in Žižek’s socio- political thought indicates something important. Following Lacan, Žižek describes instances of the tactic of “lying in the guise of truth” and points to late-capitalist cynicism as a key example of this (here, cynically knowing the truth that “the System” is a vacuous sham produces no real change in behavior, no decision to stop acting “as if” this big Other is something with genuine substantiality).149 Žižek proclaims that, “the starting point of the critique of ideology has to be full acknowledgement of the fact that it is easily possible to lie in the guise of truth.”150 Although the Lacanian blurring of the boundary between theoretical thinking and practical action might very well be completely true, accepting it as true inevitably risks strengthening a convenient alibi—the creation of this alibi has long been a fait accompli for which Lacan alone could hardly be held responsible—for the worst sort of intellectualized avoidance of praxis. Academics can convincingly reassure themselves that their inaccessible, abstract musings, the publications of which