A2: Silence K

Permutation: vote affirmative and endorse the use of silence during strategic times outside the debate round. You should presume in favor of the permutation for several reasons: 1. Presumption switches to the Aff once the Neg introduces an alternative because the Neg now has the burden to prove the alternative is an opportunity cost of voting Aff. 2. 90% of critiques can be combined with the cases they claim to attack. Presuming against the perm abuses Aff ground by allowing the Neg to endorse a world of utopian fantasy. 3. Only the perm is clear on when and when not to be silent. The Negs vagueness is a reason to void the critique and thats a voter for fairness and ground. 4. The perm is more real world because language is ALREADY premised on the uses of silence: pauses, asides, gaps between words and sentences, and even stutters all are part of discourse. Performative contradiction: the arguments my opponent reads are premised on silence, but my opponent needs speech to set up the meaning of that silence and give it impacts. Joe wrote it for my opponent: theres no genuine belief. Hypocrisy disproves that the critique has pre-standard implications. My opponents violation is worse because its argumentative irresponsibility akin to premeditated murder. Additionally, the contradiction skews my ground to debate because I would have to argue against myself to answer both halves of the Negs double-turn. My opponent should lose and negative conditionality justifies severance. The critique doesnt turn my case: my solvency claims and standards are not dependent on the target of the critique. And even if they were, the only claim I need to win is that my specific evidence proves solvency for my standards and warrants an Aff ballot. Turn: speech and debate are superior to silence. We spend most of our lives being silent about the evils of our world. Debate empowers us to learn about them, create greater awareness about them, and potentially influence people to change.

A2: Silence K Line-by-Line

(A subpoint) A2: language hegemonically consumes totality of discourse: thats not true. Language is filled with silences that help expand on its meaning and even give types of language multiple possible meanings. Pauses and stops between words are necessary components of language. Silence is already discourse, meaning the K is not unique at best. Also the impacts mentioned in this subpoint are lies: Global warming and Bush Administration crimes are evils CAUSED BY OUR SILENCE AND LACK OF ACTION, not by our failure to be silent. That impact turns the critique. The critique insists that the supposed chaos of cross-talk is the problem, but still has no reason that silence trumps our discussion and education about these issues. Also there are no reasons why silence during the AC or NC would be the linchpin to the impacts as opposed to silence at other times.

(B subpoint) A2: debate has become the problem: I impact turn this argument. Action changes the worldwhat Hannah Arendt calls words and deeds. Silence is for sell-outs, ivory-tower philosophers, bystanders, victims, and corpses. (C subpoint) A2: solution is resisting colonization: its not unique because you can stop and reflect at any other time and theres no reason you must do it any time in the debate round. Additionally, there are no articulated harms being solved, so the critique has no offense. Turn: the critiques use of the word colonization to describe silence trivializes true colonizations, like that of patriarchy over women Chesler, Phyllis. Women and Madness. 25th Anniversary ed. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1997.p.17.
many women-whether they are educated and have careers or not-still behave as if they've been colonized. Let's not forget that in many countries the colonization is physical as well as psychological. The image of women as colonized is a useful one. It explains why some women cling to their colonizers the way a child or a hostage clings to an abusive parent or captor; why many women blame themselves (or other women) when they are captured (she really wanted it, she freely chose it); and why most women defend their colonizers' right to possess them (God or Nature has ordained it). "Colonization" exists when the colonized has valuable natural resources which are used to enrich the colonizer, but not the colonized: when the colonized does the colonizer's work, but earns little of the colonizer's money; when the colonized try to imitate or please the colonizer, and truly believe that the colonizer is, by nature, superior/ inferior and that the colonized cannot exist without her colonizer. Many women still believe that men are superior to women and that a woman is worthless without a man.

Turn: the critiques claim to speak for those who cannot be heard is further degradation because it neither names or identifies those people, leaving them invisible, and it further links them to the performative contradiction above. Cross-apply the voting issue. Turn: they hurt education by avoiding the depth of a debate over vigilantism. (Implications) A2: Cultural genocide: cross-apply my trivialization argument from above. The critique articulates not a single culture that is destroyed by failure to use silence nor is there any scenario for our speech committing any act like genocide. Reject the critique for the moral repugnance of equating a strategic debate strategy with the horrors of genocide. A2: leads to human extinction: That doesnt pass the laugh test. Again, no scenario, no links, no internal links, no brink, and certainly no reasons why speech better serves capitalism than would silence. (Advocacy) A2: embrace the silence: my permutation does embrace it and is better for several reasons I articulated above. Finally, shut the fuck up. The Neg cant go all-in on this silence by remaining silent during the rebuttal. That means the Neg is in a double-bind: either the Neg is silent and drops all my offense or the Neg speaks and furthers the performative contradictions moral hypocrisy.