You are on page 1of 17


At the top, they have conceded trafficking is a major problem going on at the US-Mexico region that renders bodies as disposable. Extend Todres- only by rejecting trafficking can we being to open up new forms of politics that can solve. The plan is sufficient in reforming the epistemology on the state away from a discourse of trafficking, as we no longer see bodies as expendable pieces of property- Truong. Big Concession on Shahinian- Reform within the system, through our legislation is key to solve, or else we are complicit with slavery- bales Extend Giroux- This will be covered on the DnG k They dropped this- dont let them bring up new block answers 1) Key to fairness- cant predict new modifications 2) 2ac strat skew- strategy was based on 1nc

Extend both our solvency cards a) Garza states that the plan is sufficient to solve by the creation of a bilateral partnershipexpedites info sharing, stops status quo silence, and allows sufficient cooperation of the USMexico to stop trafficking policies. b) Dragiewicz- this card is cold Conceded- independent reason to vote aff- Discourse

shapes reality- what we do in this round is key to shape how future policies are formed, meaning that we can reform the state by reforming our conceptions of human trafficking.
On the line-by-line-

Group Ebbe and Van Schendel- A) these cards assume a structure the problem of trafficking just exists and we condone silence about the issue. Dragiewicz Solves back
these issues to the point that our discourse in this round shapes how policy takes place on the outside. B) The affirmative breaks down the dominant conceptions of how

trafficking occurs, what we can do to stop it, and how it affects every day economics. And, both Giroux cards state that status quo policies of disposability allow these economic disparities to continue unabated. They say state doesnt care and is profit driven, but, A) we reform the epistemology of the state through our policies, that was above and b) Even if the state does bad things, any
alternative is more violentonly the state can provide peace and liberation- Cross apply to both DnG args Englhart 03 - Neil A., Assistant Professor of Government and Law at Lafayette College, (In Defense of State Building: States, Rights, and
Justice, Dissent, Fall, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Academic Search Elite, p. 18) State failure has become an increasingly important policy concern since 9/11. Strengthening or reconstructing failed states has even become an explicit goal of American foreign policy. Yet many Americans across the political spectrum regard states with deep suspicion

states are more likely to protect human rights than any other form of political organization. Acknowledging that potential is
and abiding hostility, as instruments of oppression. In truth,

today a moral and political imperative. The evil that states do is well known. There are abundant examples:
from the brutality of the Thirty Years War to the Stalinist purges, the Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and the Rwandan genocide. Because its repressive capacities are so clear, political theorists seek to protect us from the state (Locke), to divide and limit its power (Madison), to liberate us from it (Marx), or to dissolve it entirely (Foucault). Yet

Hobbess picture of life without the state poor, nasty, brutish, and shortstill resonates. States can only be called oppressive if there is an alternative available, a more promising political order. States dominate our minds as much as they dominate the
globe. The conceptual hegemony of the state is so great that there has been little serious thinking about alternative arrangements.

Anarchist visions may sound liberating, but only because they assume that life under anarchy would be much like it is nowonly better. In fact, anarchists depend on the very
order they seek to abolish, assuming that people will be treated as free and equal, able to make uncoerced choices outside the protection

Their utopian visions set the parameters of critiques of the state, but they seldom recognize that the necessary substructure of their utopia doesnt exist nowhere it exists only where states have established law and order. In
of the state.

real life, the alternatives to the state are more violent, more coercive social and political orders dominated by warlords and gangs. Not quite the Hobbesian war of all against all, they are rather wars of group against group, dividing society and destroying the possibility of a peaceful public sphere, of civil society, rights, and social justice. The corollary to the oppressiveness of non-state politics is that, contrary to our commonsense understanding, states are relatively liberating and

egalitarian. Compared to actually existing alternatives, states have more potential for protecting human rights, human security, and international peace than any other
political order. Thats why state building is so important.

We meet- we are economic engagement; Haas concedes that solving for impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country is topical W/m- We establish a bipalateral partnership WITH Mexico C/I: Economic engagement is engagement between two countries that has a direct and intended effect on the market Trafficking relies fundamentally on market imperfectionsthe plan is economic engagement because its a remedy to economic distortions
DANAILOVA-TRAINOR AND LACZKO 2010 (Gergana, US GAO; and Frank, International Organization for Migration, International Migration 48:4,
Wiley Online Library)

Individuals participate in the economy by providing labour services, receiving income in return, and buying goods and services supplied by firms. With complete information on job openings at various locations, and free movement of labour, individuals provide labour services to firms regardless of firms location so as to maximize individual well-being. If individuals choose to move from one location to another over a certain time period, they do so if the return for their skills and services is higher, which enables them to afford a larger set of goods and services as well as to acquire new skills, technology and human capital. The financial market facilitates the flow of funds by channelling remittances back home and opening access to credit for those who need it.

Long-standing tradition and cultural factors, as well as new ones, such as transition to a market economy and a burgeoning underground economy, lead to labour and financial market imperfections, which increase peoples vulnerability, particularly for those at the bottom end of the income distribution. Trafficking networkscould exploit that vulnerability at any stage of the trafficking cycle by, for example, recruiting and deceptively promising employment or other gains to individuals in need of sustainable livelihoods. In such instancestrafficking could be viewed as a form of exchange between individual recruiters and firm owners hiring trafficked labour for production. This exchange may or may not take place in a market with an explicit price mechanism
that equilibrates supply and demand. The networks earn profits channelled through financial markets for the perpetuation of the crime or other related criminal activities such as money laundering, drug trafficking and human smuggling. The networks allow limited or no remuneration for the labour services of trafficking victims, thus largely eliminating the remittances channel to household members at home.

The imperfections in the labour and financial markets, as well as the absence of accurate labour market information restrict individual access to resourcesand thus relative individual poverty, which is often viewed asthe root cause of human trafficking. Poverty is usually listed first on any list of trafficking vulnerability factors in the developing world. If the trafficking of people is
to be prevented, its root causes such as poverty, discrimination against women and girls and inequality need to be addressed (DFID, 2007:7);

looks at trafficking not just as a human rights issue but also a development issueand poverty has been identified as one of the root causes of trafficking (UNDP, 2003). In this context, poverty is viewed as a broader concept with financial and nonfinancial aspects including access to both social and economic capital (see discussion of human development in the previous subsection). An understanding of the noneconomic elements of poverty -- lack of human capital and gender discrimination -- also helps identify the most vulnerable to marginalization from the development process (ADB, 2003).

2) Our defense: a. Dont under-limit: -the resolution says we should be economic engagement and the very concept of economics itself relies on the market as its indicator. Prefer real-world interpretations over arbitrary interpretations specifically made to exclude our aff b. Dont steal neg ground -neg is running 4 off and case. We do not take away any ground. Make them prove abuse and lit checks 3) Our Offense: A. Key to aff ground and innovation ---Debate demands the ability for the aff team to have the freedom to incorporate a wide variety of affirmatives so as to best access education within a debate. By limiting the aff with arbitrary limits aff ground is destroyed and education is lost. b. Key to real-world application ---Arguing understandings of economics that are counterintuitive to the real world are bad for education and non-debate application. C. At worst, default to reasonability- good is good enough Non-voters for fairness and education
And, Cross apply Goddard and DnG here- they shut down lines of flight and put into place static notions of what the topic is and isnt. The reading of T in this debate was an act of fascism.

Our interpretation is that the negative must prove that the plan worsens the systematic impacts of the status quo Clash preserves 8 minutes of 1AC offense and topic literature exclusionary frameworks artificially moot offense and disincentivizes topic research. Fairness the affirmative cant win when the negative wishes away the 1AC it makes the debate restricted to the K flow, which favors the negative because of the block Block modifications justify new 1AR answers

1) Case Outweighs and Solvency Deficit- The politics of disposability allows for the rationale to dispose of those deemed unnecessary. The alt cannot solve because reform must take place within the USfg on both the Micro and Marco scale 2) No link- The 1ac does not restrict Rhizomatics, instead, it supports them by moving outside of
ourselves in order to reform our epistemologies to reorient and conceptualize our thoughts around the idea of trafficking- thats Dragaweicz

3) Perm do both- Use the plan as a way of reforming the state AND The 1AC is a slow experiment; even if it fails to liberate us, it is better than the negatives fast rejection and overdose, which leads to collapse and death Gilles Deleuze, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Paris; and Felix Guattari, psychoanalyst, 1987, A Thousand Plateaus, pp. 160-161 You have to keep enough of the organism for it to reform each dawn; and you have to keep small supplies of
signifiance and subjectification, if only to turn them against their own systems when the circumstances demand it, when things, persons, even situations, force you to; and you have to keep small rations of subjectivity in sufficient quantity to enable you to respond to the dominant reality. Mimic the strata. You dont reach the BwO, and its plane of consistency, by wildly destratifying. That is why we encountered the paradox of those emptied

and dreary bodies at the very beginning: they had emptied themselves of their organs instead of looking for the point at which they could patiently and momentarily dismantle the organization of the organs we call the organism. There are, in fact, several
ways of botching the BwO: either one fails to produce it, or one produces it more or less, but nothing is produced on it, intensities do not pass or are blocked. This is because the BwO is always swinging between the surfaces that stratify it and the plane that sets it free. If you free it with too violent an action, if

you blow apart the strata without taking precautions, then instead of drawing the plane you will be killed, plunged into a black hole, or even dragged toward catastrophe. Staying stratifiedorganized, signified, subjectedis not the worst that can happen; the worst that can happen is if you throw the strata into demented or suicidal collapse, which brings them back down on us heavier than ever. This is how it should be done: Lodge yourself on a stratum, experiment with the opportunities it offers, find an advantageous place on it, find potential movements of deterritorialization, possible lines of flight, experience them, produce flow conjunctions here and there, try out continuums of intensities segment by segment, have a small plot of new land at all times. It is through a meticulous relation with the strata that one succeeds in freeing lines of flight, causing conjugated flows to pass and escape and bringing forth continuous intensities for a BwO. Connect, conjugate, continue: a whole diagram, as
opposed to still signifying and subjective programs. We are in a social formation; first see how it is stratified for us and in us and at the place where we are; then descend from the strata to the deeper assemblage within which we are held; gently tip the assemblage, making it pass over to the side of the plane of consistency. It is only there that the BwO reveals itself for what it is: connection of desires, conjunction of flows, continuum of intensities. You have constructed your own little machine, ready when needed to be plugged into other collective machines. Castaneda describes a long process of experimentation (it makes little difference whether it is with peyote or other things): let us recall for the moment how the Indian forces him first to find a place, already a difficult operation, then to find allies, and then gradually to give up interpretation, to construct flow by flow and segment by segment lines of experimentation, becoming-animal, becoming-molecular, etc. For the BwO is all of that: necessarily a Place, necessarily a Plane, necessarily a Collectivity (assembling elements, things, plants, animals, tools, people, powers, and fragments of all of these; for it is not my body without organs, instead the me (moi) is on it, or what remains of me, unalterable and changing in form, crossing thresholds).

4) Perm use the plan as a line of flight to solve- cross apply their alt- by trying different ways and not being held down to one static body, it can solve.

5) Cross apply both Giroux Cards a. They conceded we solve for the democracy of hope. In doing the plan, it is sufficient to reforming the state AND none of their indites of macropolitics apply to this, as it is using a micro political movement of students and educators to reform the system from the inside b. We solve the impact to the k by stepping out of the status quo norms of a policed state.

Richard Barbrook, coordinator of the Hypermedia Research Centre at the University of Westminster, 8/27/1998,, accessed 3/3/03
Deleuze and Guattari enthusiastically joined this attack against the concept of historical progress. For them, the 'deterritorialisation' of urban society was the solution to the contradiction between participatory democracy and revolutionary elitism haunting the New Left. If the centralised city could be broken down into 'molecular rhizomes', direct democracy and the gift economy would reappear as people formed themselves into small nomadic bands. According to Deleuze and Guattari, anarcho-communism was not the 'end of history': the material result of a long epoch of social development. On the contrary, the liberation of desire from semiotic oppression was a perpetual promise: an ethical stance which could be equally lived by nomads in ancient times or social movements in the present. With enough intensity of effort, anyone could overcome their

rhetoric of unlimited freedom contained a deep desire for ideological control by the New Left vanguard. While the nomadic fantasies of A Thousand Plateaus were being composed, one revolutionary movement actually did carry out Deleuze and Guattari's dream of destroying the city. Led by a vanguard of Paris-educated intellectuals, the Khmer Rouge overthrew an oppressive regime installed by the Americans. Rejecting the 'grand narrative' of economic progress, Pol Pot and his organisation instead tried to construct a rural utopia. However, when the economy subsequently imploded, the regime embarked on ever more ferocious purges until the country was rescued by an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam. Deleuze and Guattari had claimed that the destruction of the city would create direct democracy and libidinal ecstasy. Instead, the application of such anti-modernism in practice resulted in tyranny and genocide. The 'line of flight' from Stalin had led to Pol Pot.
hierarchical brainwashing to become a fully-liberated individual: the holy fool.<21> Yet, as the experience of Frequence Libre proved, this

7) Reject the argument- Attempting to bring Deleuzean thought into debate is a futile endeavour. Not only does it fly in the face of everything Deleuze and Guattari tried to do, but it shuts down lines of flight that could otherwise be explored.

Mann 1995 (Paul Mann, Professor of English at Pomona College. Stupid Undergrounds http://pmc.iath.virg...5/mann.59505/95)
even the most powerful and challenging work cannot protect itself from the order of fashion. Becoming-fashion, becomingcommodity, becoming-ruin. Such instant, indeed retroactive ruins, are the virtual landscape of the stupid underground. The exits and lines of flight pursued by Deleuze and Guattari are being shut down and rerouted by the very people who would take them most seriously. By now, any given work from the stupid undergrounds critical apparatus is liable to be tricked out with smooth spaces, warmachines, n - 1s, planes of consistency, plateaus and deterritorializations, strewn about like tattoos on the stupid body without organs. The nomad is already succumbing to the rousseauism and orientalism that were always invested in his figure; whatever Deleuze and Guattari intended for him,he is reduced to being a romantic outlaw, to a position opposite the State, in the sort of dialectical operation Deleuze most despised. And the rhizome is becoming just another stupid subterranean figure. It is perhaps true that Deleuze and Guattari did not adequately protect their thought from this dialectical reconfiguration (one is
Intellectual economics guarantees that
reminded of Bretons indictment against Rimbaud for not having prevented, in advance, Claudels recuperation of him as a proper Catholic), but no

The work of Deleuze and Guattari is evidence that, in real time, virtual models and maps close off the very exits they indicate. The
vigilance would have sufficed in any case.

problem is in part that rhizomes, lines of flight, smooth spaces, BwOs, etc., are at one and the same time theoretical-political devices of the highest critical order and merely fantasmatic, delirious, narcissistic models for writing, and thus perhaps an instance of the all-too-proper blurring of the distinction between criticism and fantasy. In Deleuze-speak, the stupid underground would be mapped not as a margin surrounding a fixed point, not as a fixed site determined
strictly by its relation or opposition to some more or less hegemonic formation, but as an intensive, n-dimensional intersection of rhizomatic plateaus. Nomadology and rhizomatics conceive such a space (if one only had the proverbial nickel for every time that word is used as a critical metaphor, without the slightest reflection on what might be involved in rendering the conceptual in spatial terms) as a liquid, colloidal suspension, often retrievable by one or another techno-metaphorical zoning (e.g., cyberspace). What is at stake, howev er, is not only the topological verisimilitude of the model but the *fantastic* possibility of nonlinear passage, of multiple simultaneous accesses and exits, of infinite fractal lines occupying finite social

Nomad thought is prosthetic, the experience of virtual exhilaration in modalities already mapped and dominated by nomad, rhizomatic capital (the political philosophy of the stupid underground: capital is more radical than any of its critiques, but one can always pretend otherwise). It is this very fantasy, this very narcissistic wish to see oneself projected past the frontier into new spaces, that abandons one to this economy, that seals these spaces within an order of critical fantasy that has long since been overdeveloped, entirely reterritorialized in advance. To pursue nomadology or rhizomatics as such is already to have lost the game. Nothing is more crucial to philosophy than escaping the dialectic and no project is more hopeless; the stupidcritical underground is the curved space in which this opposition turns back on itself. It is not yet time
space. In the strictest sense, stupid philosophy. to abandon work that so deeply challenges our intellectual habits as does that of Deleuze and Guattari, and yet, before it has even been comprehended, in the very process of its comprehension, its fate seems secure. One pursues it and knows that the pursuit will prove futile;

that every

application of these new topologies will only serve to render them more pointless. Thestupid optimism of every work that takes up these figures is, by itself, the means of that futility and that immanent obsolescence. One must pursue it still.
8) Alt cant solvea) Soley micropolitics fails it breeds inaction and nihilism action towards structures has been empirically successful to reduce oppression Collins, 97 (Dr. Patricia Hill, professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland; Fighting Words; p. 136-7) postmodern views of power that overemphasize hegemony and local politics provide a seductive mix of appearing to challenge oppression while secretly believing that such efforts
In this sense,

are doomed. Hegemonic power appears as ever expanding and invading. It may even attempt to "annex" the
counterdiscourses that have developed, oppositional discourses such as afrocentrism, postmodernism, feminism, and Black feminist thought. This is a very important insight. However,

there is a difference between being aware of the power of one's enemy and

arguing that such power is so pervasive that resistance will, at best, provide a brief respite and, at worst, prove ultimately futile. This emphasis on power as being hegemonic and seemingly absolute, coupled with a belief in local resistance as the best that people can do, flies in the face of actual, historical successes. AfricanAmericans, women, poor people, and others have achieved results through social movements, revolts, revolutions, and other collective social action against government, corporate, and academic structures . As
James Scott queries,

"What remains to be why theories of hegemony...have...retained an

enormous intellectual appeal to social scientists and historians " (1990, 86). Perhaps for colonizers who refuse, Overemphasizing hegemony and stressing nihilism not only does not resist injustice but participates in its manufacture. Views of power grounded exclusively in
individualized, local resistance is the best they can envision.

notions of hegemony and nihilism are not only pessimistic, they can be dangerous for members of historically marginalized groups. Moreover, the emphasis on local versus structural institutions makes it difficult to examine major structures such as racism, sexism, and other structural forms of oppression. Social theories that reduce hierarchical power relations to the level of representation,
phenomena performance, or constructed

not only emphasize the likelihood that resistance will fail in the face of a pervasive hegemonic

presence, they also reinforce perceptions that local, individualized micropolitics constitutes the most effective terrain of struggle. This emphasis on the local dovetails nicely with increasing emphasis on the "personal" as a source of power and with parallel attention to subjectivity. If politics becomes reduced to the "personal," decentering relations of ruling in academia and other bureaucratic structures seems increasingly unlikely. As Rey Chow opines, "What these intellectuals are doing is robbing the terms of oppression of their critical and oppositional import, and thus depriving the oppressed of even the vocabulary of protest and rightful demand" (1993, 13). Viewing decentering as a strategy situated within a larger process of
resistance to oppression is dramatically different from perceiving decentering as an academic theory of how scholars should view all truth. When weapons of resistance are theorized away in this fashion, one might ask, who really benefits?

b) They cant wish away the state- It is utopian and creates a double bind: either a) The state is so bad that it will destroy art and impede on their vacuoles, destroying alt solvency or b) the state has the ability to be reformed, in which case there is no need to sever ties from the state. C) And, opening spaces does not allow for a changing of the dominant structures of the state or trafficking d) pure rhizomatic thinking only encouarges thinking in the present- that means the alt is irrelevant and causes a intensity that deleuze himself critisized

8) And, our in-round discourse solves- Debate about the implementation of policies through the government is key to avoid facism Lewis 92 (Martin, Green Delusions p 247)
A majority of those born between 1960 and 1980 seem to tend toward cynicism, and we can thus hardly expect them to be converted en masse to radical doctrines of social and environmental salvation by a few committed thinkers. It is actually possible that radical education may make them even more

cynical than they already are. While their professors may find the extreme relativism of subversive postmodernism bracingly liberating, many of todays students may embrace only the new creeds rejection of the past. Stripped of leftist social concerns, radical postmodernisms contempt for established social and political philosophyindeed, its contempt for liberalismmay well lead to right-wing totalitarianism. When cynical, right-leaning students are taught that democracy is a sham and that all meaning derives from power, they are being schooled in fascism, regardless of their instructors intentions.

State Pik
1) Cross apply Perm do Both from above and Englhart from Case- the space opened by the cp is filled with more violence

2) . Desiring Perm do the plan, then engage in the kritik. If they win that the alt solves, it overcomes any residual link. We can embrace multiple forms of desiring production. Your author.
DELEUZE & GUATTARI, 1983 (Anti-Oedipus, p. 379-380)
Secondly, we have not at all minimized the importance of preconscious investments of class or interest, which are based in the infrastructure itself. But we attach all the more importance to them as they are the index in the infrastructure of a libidinal investment of another nature, and that can coincide as well as clash with them. Which is merely a way to pose the question, "How can the revolution be betrayed?" once it has been said that betrayals don't wait their turn, but are there

if we put forward desire as a revolutionary agency, it is because we believe that capitalist society can endure many manifestations of interest, but not one manifestation of desire, which would be enough to make its fundamental structures explode, even at the kindergarten level. We believe in desire as in the irrational of every form of rationality, and not because it is a lack, a thirst, or an aspiration, but because it is the production of desire: desire that produces real-desire, or the real in itself. Finally, we do not at all think that the revolutionary is schizophrenic or vice versa. On the
from the very start (the maintenance of paranoiac unconscious investments in revolutionary groups). And contrary, we have consistently distinguished the schizophrenic as an entity from schizophrenia as a process; now the schizophrenic as entity can only be defined in relation to the arrests, the continuations in the void, or the finalist illusions that repression imposes on the process itself. This explains why we have only spoken of a schizoid pole in the libidinal investment of the social field, so as to avoid as much as possible the confusion of the schizophrenic process with the production of a

The schizophrenic process (the schizoid pole) is revolutionary, in the very sense that the paranoiac method is reactionary and fascist; and it is not these psychiatric categories, freed of all familialism, that will allow us to understand the politico-economic determinations, but exactly the opposite.

3) Turn- rejecting the state closes off Lines of Flight which contradicts the thesis of DnG 4) No link to desire- The Ac makes no claims to create a static organism structure. We use our fiat advocacy to create change and use our democratic agency to work within the system- to be the nomad- to attack the dominant systems of power via human trafficking. 5) They say state will shadow, but, if we win that the state is redeemable or that our agency within the state is good, then we solve back this argument.

6) Deleuzes philosophy is not pertinent to policymakingthe abstract quality of their elitist contemplation ignores materialist suffering and dooms alt-inspired political action
Hallward, 6 Professor in the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy at Middlesex University, London, (Peter, Out of This World: Deleuze and the Philosophy of Creation, p. 161-162) Now Deleuze understands perfectly well why most of the objections raised against the great philosophers are empty. Indignant readers say to them: things are not like that *+. But, in fact, it is not a matter of knowing whether things are like that or not; it is a matter of knowing whether the question which presents things in such a light is good or not, rigorous or not (ES, 106). Rather than test its accuracy according to the criteria of representation, the genius of a philosophy must first be measured

by the new distribution which it imposes on beings and concepts (LS, 6). In reality then, Deleuze concludes, only one kind of objection is worthwhile: the objection which shows that the question raised by a philosopher is not a good question, that it does not force the nature of things enough (ES, 107; cC WP, 82). Deleuze certainly forces the nature of things into conformity with his own question. Just as certainly however, his question inhibits any consequential engagement with the constraints of our actual world. For readers who remain concerned with these constraints and their consequences, Deleuzes question is not the best available question. Rather than try to refute Deleuze, this book has tried to show how his system works and to draw attention to what should now he the obvious (and perfectly explicit) limitations of this philosophy of unlimited affirmation. First of all, since it acknowledges only a unilateral relation between virtual and actual, there is no place in Deleuzes philosophy for any notion of change, time or history that is mediated by actuality In the end, Deleuze offers few resources for thinking the consequences of what happens within the actually existing world as such. Unlike Darwin or Marx, for instance, the adamantly virtual orientation of Deleuzes constructivism does not allow him to account for cumulative transformation or novelty in terms of actual materials and tendencies. No doubt few contemporary philosophers have had as an acute a sense of the internal dynamic of capitalism but equally, few have proposed so elusive a response as the virtual war machine that roams through the pages of Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Like the nomads who invented it, this abstract machine operates at an absolute speed, by being synonymous with speed, as the incarnation of a pure and immeasurable multiplicity; an irruption of the ephemeral and of the power of metamorphosis (TP, 336, 352). Like any creating, a war machine consists and exists only in its own metamorphoses (T~ 360). By posing the question of politics in the starkly dualistic terms of war machine or state by posing it, in the end, in the apocalyptic terms of a new people and a new earth or else no people and no earth the political aspect of Deleuzes philosophy amounts to little more than utopian distraction. Although no small number of enthusiasts continue to devote much energy and ingenuity to the task, the truth is that Deleuzes work is essentially indifferent to the politics of this world. A philosophy based on deterritorialisation, dissipation and flight can offer only the most immaterial and evanescent grip on the mechanisms of exploitation and domination that continue to condition so much of what happens in our world. Deleuzes philosophical war remains absolute and abstract, precisely, rather than directed or waged *menee+. Once a social field is defined less by its conflicts and contradictions than by the lines of flight running through it, any distinctive space for political action can only be subsumed within the more general dynamics of creation or life. And since these dynamics are themselves anti-dialectical if not anti-relational, there can be little room in Deleuzes philosophy for relations of conflict or solidarity, i.e. relations that are genuinely between rather than external to individuals, classes, or principles.

On kappeler- no trade off with agency- debaters still hold their agency in the political system by shaping how politics are formed- thats dragewicz Individual focus is insufficient to resolve the Keven if institutions are flawed, reforming them is critical to end the manifestations of oppression Jensen 05
Robert Jensen, Texas University Journalism Professor, Nowar Collective Founder, 2005, The Heart of Whiteness, p.78-87 I'm all for diversity and its institutional manifestation, multiculturalism. But we should be concerned about the way in which talk of diversity and multiculturalism has proceeded. After more than a decade of university teaching and political work, it is clear to me that a certain kind of diversity-talk actually can

impede our understanding of oppression by encouraging us to focus on the cultural and individual, rather than on the political and structural. Instead of focusing on diversity, we should focus on power. The fundamental frame for pursuing analyses of issues around race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class should be not cultural but political, not individual but structural. Instead of talking about diversity in race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, we should critique white supremacy, economic inequality in capitalism, patriarchy, and heterosexism. We should talk about systems and structures of power, about ideologies of domination and subordinationand about the injuries done to those in subordinate groups, and the benefits and privileges that accrue to those in dominant groups. Here's an example of what I mean: A professor colleague, a middle-aged heterosexual white man, once told me that he thought his contribution to the worldhis way of aiding progressive causes around diversity issues came by expanding his own understanding of difference and then working to be the best person he could he. He said he felt no obligation to get involved in the larger world outside his world of family and friends, work and church. In the worlds in which he found himself personal and professional, he said he tried to be kind and caring to all, working to understand and celebrate difference and diversity. There are two obvious problems with his formulation, one concerning him as an individual and one concerning the larger world. First, without a connection to a political struggle, it is difficult for anyone to grow morally and politically. My own experience has taught me that it is when I am engaged in political activity with people across identity lines that I learn the most. It is in those spaces and those relationships that my own hidden prejudices and unexamined fears emerge, in situations in which comrades whom I trust call hold me accountable. Without that kind of engagement, I rarely get to levels of honesty with people that can propel me forward. The colleague in question saw himself as being, as the clich goes, a sensitive new age guy, but from other sources I know that he continued to behave in sexist ways in the classroom. Because he had no connection to a feminist movementor any other liberatory movement where women might observe his behavior and he in a position to hold him accountable there was no systematic way for him to correct his sexist habits. His self-image as a liberated man was possible only because he made sure he wasn't in spaces where women could easily challenge him. The second problem is that if everyone with privilege especially the levels of privilege this man haddecided that all they were obligated to do in the world was to be nice to the people around them and celebrate diversity, it is difficult to imagine progressive social change ever taking place. Yes, we all must change at the micro level, in our personal relationships, if the struggle for justice is to move forward. But struggle in the personal arena is not enough; it is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for change. Lots of white people could make significant progress toward eliminating all vestiges of racism in our own psycheswhich would be a good thingwithout it having any tangible effect on the systems and structures of power in which white supremacy is manifested. It would not change the ways in which we benefit from being white in that system. It doesn't mean we shouldn't "work on" ourselves, only that working on ourselves is not enough. It is possible to not be racist (in the individual sense of not perpetrating overtly racist acts) and yet at the same time fail to be antiracist (in the political sense of resisting a racist system). Being not-racist is not enough. To he a fully moral person, one must find some way to be antiracist as we Because white people benefit from living in a white-supremacist society, there is an added obligation for us to struggle against the injustice of that system. The same argument holds in other realms as well. Men can be successful at not being sexist (in the sense of treating women as equals and refraining from sexist behaviors) but fail at being antisexist if we do nothing to acknowledge the misogynistic sys- tern in which we live and try to intervene where possible to change that system. The same can be said about straight people who are relatively free of antigay prejudice but do nothing to challenge heterosexism, or about economically privileged people who do nothing to confront the injustice of the economic system, or about U.S. citizens who don't seek to exploit people from other places but do nothing to confront the violence of

the U.S. empire abroad. We need a political and structural, rather than a cultural and individual, framework. Of course we should not ignore differences in cultural practices, and individuals should work to change themselves. But celebrating cultural differences and focusing on one's own behavior are inadequate to the task in front of us. I have been clearer on that since September 11, 2001 after which George W. Bush kept repeating "Islam is a religion of peace," reminding Americans that as we march off on wars of domination we should respect the religion of the people we are killing. Across the United States after 9/11, people were saying, "I have to learn more about Islam."

No solvency for the CP- Action by the USfg is key to solve because it has to be a POLICY initiative that breaks away from the status quo silence- thats shahinian.

1. Capitalism is inevitable and the case is a disad to the alternative
There is no risk of a short-term transition away from capitalism imagining away the status quo is useless and ensures that the harms we have isolated will continue. The alternative fails to provide a lasting impression. And, reforming capitalism does nothing to affect the ideals behind trafficking- only plan can sovle. No link to Brown and we solve back this argument- The aff does not push the problems onto other parts of the world- Garza and Shahinian- The affirmative is key to break away from the status quo norms of silence. And, this solves back our epistemologies on how we conceive of trafficking.

2. Their totalizing critique of capitalism impedes effective resistancevote affirmative to endorse positive change within the confines of capitalism that affirms compassion, empathy, and love.
Nancy Ettlinger, Associate Professor of Geography at the Ohio State University, 2009 *Whose capitalism? Mean discourse and/or actions of the heart, Emotion, Space and Society, Volume 2, Issue 2, December, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ScienceDirect ] Actually existing capitalism can be cruel, ruthless, and destructive, deriving in part from negative emotions such as envy, hate, and indifference to others; but it also can be benevolent, deriving in part from positive emotions such as compassion, empathy, and love. It is this latter, often unrecognized dimension of capitalism-in-practice that has much to offer if we recognize, value, and draw upon it in the construction of efforts to create positive change by revaluing emotions, whether on the basis of policy ([Folbre, 2001] and [Tronto, 2003]) or grassroots organization. Discourse of The State, like the economy, commonly is devoid of issues of emotions and ethics(Askew, 2009). But what about the compassionate human service workers who often work at the interstices of government departments, local institutions, and communities to fortify conditions of living ([Askew, 2009] and [Larner and Butler, 2007])? That we lack accounts of many other instances of state or quasi-state agents whose behavior may derive as much from positive, relational emotions and ethics as from self-interested calculation may pertain to the relative infancy of research on how actions of the heart, both positive and negative, figure in everyday political economy. Reductionistic accounts of hegemonic capitalism, and neoliberalism in particular, impede a vision of the future based on a critique of the problems as well as hopeful prospects of lived experience. The critical normative dimension of seeing and accounting for emotions and related practices in capitalist life pertains to redefining capitalism and revaluing emotions ([Askew, 2009], [Easterlow and Smith, 2004], [Ettlinger, 2003], [Ettlinger, 2004], [Ettlinger, 2009], [Folbre, 2001], [McDowell, 2004], Robinson, 2006 Fiona Robinson, Beyond labour rights: the ethics of care and women's work in the global economy, International Feminist Journal of Politics 8 (2006), pp. 321342. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)[Robinson, 2006], [Sayer, 2007], [Sevenhuijsen, 2003], [Smith, 2005] and [Tronto, 2003]). If the mean discourse of capitalism represents the status quo, then resistance might fruitfully be defined not in terms of opposition to the state or groups defined as the capitalist class, but rather to the separate spheres doctrine (Folbre, 2001) the idea that actions of the heart lie outside, and in opposition to, capitalism. Whereas oppositional or confrontational accounts of resistance connect with the idea of power as located in

persons and positions at the apex of societal hierarchies (with powerlessness residing among the subjugated), resistance as a critique of societal norms connects with the idea of power as diffuse. Back to power, then, which, depending on one's perspective, is understood in terms of the implicit binary of productive or destructive. The view here denies neither the destructive elements of capitalist life nor the problems of power held by a few over the majority (Foucault, 1980c); rather, it highlights the problematizing potential of practices that diverge from societal discourse towards possibilities for transformational change (Foucault, 2007).

3. Permutation do Both
There is no forced choice between the affirmative and the critique. Doing a historical materialist method and the plan are feasible together. The permutation is not only possible, but is net-beneficial. Because the permutation accepts that some parts of capitalism are good, it avoids the turns.

5. Capitalism is inevitable their alternative caricaturizes the left and cedes the political sphere to the right.
John K. Wilson, best-selling progressive author and coordinator of the Independent Press Associations Campus Journalism Project, 2001 [How the Left Can Win Arguments and Influence People: A Tactical Manual for Pragmatic Progressives, Published by NYU Press, ISBN 0814793630, p. 15-16 ] Capitalism is far too ingrained in American life to eliminate. If you go into the most impoverished areas of America, you will find that the people who live there are not seeking government control over factories or even more social welfare programs; they're hoping, usually in vain, for a fair chance to share in the capitalist wealth. The poor do not pray for socialismthey strive to be a part of the capitalist system. They want jobs, they want to start businesses, and they want to make money and be successful.What's wrong with America is not capitalism as a system but capitalism as a religion. We worship the accumulation of wealth and treat the horrible inequality between rich and poor as if it were an act of God. Worst of all, we allow the government to exacerbate the financial divide by favoring the wealthy: go anywhere in America, and compare a rich suburb with a poor townthe city services, schools, parks, and practically everything else will be better financed in the place populated by rich people. The aim is not to overthrow capitalism but to overhaul it. Give it a social-justice tune-up, make it more efficient, get the economic engine to hit on all cylinders for everybody, and stop putting out so many environmentally hazardous substances.To some people, this goal means selling out leftist ideals for the sake of capitalism. But the right thrives on having an [end page 15] ineffective opposition. The Revolutionary Communist Party helps stabilize the "free market" capitalist system by making it seem as if the only alternative to free-market capitalism is a return to Stalinism. Prospective activists for change are instead channeled into pointless discussions about the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. Instead of working to persuade people to accept progressive ideas, the far left talks to itself (which may be a blessing, given the way it communicates) and tries to sell copies of the Socialist Worker to an uninterested public.

AND This turns their impacts pragmatism is key to progressive success their infatuation with revolution only worsens their impacts- Cross apply to both the DnG Pik and K- the alt causes worse forms of oppression
John K. Wilson, best-selling progressive author and coordinator of the Independent Press Associations Campus Journalism Project, 2001

Progressives need to be pragmatic in order to bepowerful. However, pragmatism shouldn't be confused with Clintonian centrism and the abandonment of all substance. Pragmatists have principles, too. The difference between a pragmatic progressive and a foolish one is the willingness to pick the right fights and fight in the right way to accomplish these same goals. The current failure of progressivism in America is due to the structure of American politics and media, not because of a wrong turn that the movement took somewhere along the way. What the left needs is not a "better" ideology but a tactical adaptation to the obstacles it faces in the contemporary political scene. A pragmatic progressivism does not sacrifice its ideals but simply communicates them better to the larger public.The words we use shape how people respond to our ideas. It's [end page 121] tempting to offer the standard advice that progressives should present their ideas in the most palatable form. But palatable to whom? The media managers and pedestrian pundits who are the intellectual gatekeepers won't accept these ideas. By the time progressives transform their ideas into the political baby food necessary for inclusion in current debates, it barely seems to be worth the effort. Leftists need to seize the dominant political rhetoric, even though it may be conservative in its goals, and turn it in a progressive direction. Progressives need to use the antitax ideology to demand tax cuts for the poor. Progressives need to use the antigovernment and antiwelfare ideology to demand the end of corporate welfare. Progressives need to translate every important issue into the language that is permissible in the mainstream. Something will inevitably be lost in the translation. But the political soul underlying these progressive ideas can be preserved and brought to the public's attention. The left does not need to abandon its progressive views in order to be popular. The left only needs to abandon some of its failed strategies and become as savvy as the conservatives are at manipulating the press and the politicians. The language of progressives needs to become more mainstream, but the ideas must remain radical. In an age of soulless politicians and spineless ideologies, the left has the virtue of integrity. Until progressives become less self-satisfied with the knowledge that they're right and more determined to convince everyone else of this fact, opportunities for political change will not be forthcoming.Progressives have also been hampered by a revolutionary instinct among some leftist groups. According to some left wingers, incremental progress is worthlessthat is, nothing short of a radical change in government will mean anything to them. Indeed, for the most radical left wingers, liberal reforms [end page 122] are a threat to the movement, since they reduce the desire for more extreme changes.What the revolutionaries fail to realize is that progressive achievements can build on one another. If anything approaching a political revolution actually happens in America, it will be due to a succession of popular, effective, progressive reforms. A popular uprising in the ballot box is possible only if the left can change its political assumptions about smaller, specific issues.

6. Alternative can't solve case A) Marx states that a revolution is the only way to solve the capitalist system- the alternative is merely an analysis b) The case is sufficient to resolve the kritik. It begins to analyze the rationale behind the economic disparity of Human trafficking and analyzes those oppressive structures. c) Cross apply Giroux and Dragewicz- Our education in round is key to spur the revolution to analyze and repoliticize capitalism as it exists in the status quo.
Perm do the Alt if it results in the plan Piks are bad- Steals 8 minutes of aff offense - they disincentivize topic research and make it impossible for the aff to win reject them

7. Permutation do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of their world view

Either the alt is strong enough to remedy the remnant link, or its not enough to overcome the squo.

8. Conditionality is illegitimate
A. Education They destroys argument development that hurts clash and leads to argumentative irresponsibility, which kills advocacy skills by killing in-depth discussion. B. ContradictionsIn Round abuse- They justifies contradictory arguments, we dont read our best offense against their positions. If we did, they could concede one flow and cross apply the offense against us. C. Our interpretation is two conditional, non-contradictory advocacies- Solves all their offense D. Voting Issue Because of the effect on the 2AC its a voting issue. Evaluate this round through a lens of productivity- Reject the args and the team

9. Working within the system is key rejecting capitalism before accumulating popular support is anti-democratic and turns the alternative
Robin Hahnel, Professor of Economics at American University, 2007 *Eco-localism: A Constructive Critique, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Volume 18, Number 2, June, p. 63 ] In the aftermath of the collapse of communism, debate about alternatives to capitalism has divided into three camps: advocates of market socialism, proponents of democratic planning, and supporters of community-based economics.1 Few anti-capitalistswhether they favor market socialism, democratic planning, or community-based economicsdeceive themselves that there is more than a tiny minority in any advanced economy who are ready to replace capitalism at this time. Most of us understand all too well how strong capitalist hegemony is at present. Moreover, market socialism, democratic planning, and community-based economics are all visions of a thoroughly democratic economy, and supporters understand that this means that until a super-majority supports their vision of a more desirable future, it cannot come to fruition. Therefore, advocates of all three alternative visions understand thatwith the exception of a few countries where significant portions of the population may now, or soon, support abandoning capitalismthe struggle to eventually replace capitalism must, for the foreseeable future, concentrate on fighting to reform capitalism and building experiments in equitable cooperation within capitalism