You are on page 1of 12

Heidegger - Ven Espionage

1NC Shell
Political responses to terrorism are destined to fail a thinking of terrorism is a
prior question.
Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University,
"Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

This does not mean that being exists unperturbed somewhere behind or beyond these beings. The
withdrawal of being is found in these abandoned beings themselves and is determinative for the way they
exist. Heideggerian thinking, then, allows us to ask the question of our
times and to think terrorism. My contention in the following is that the withdrawal
of being shows itself today in terrorism, where beings exist as
terrorized. Terrorism, in other words, is not simply the sum total of
activities carried out by terrorist groups, but a challenge directed at
beings as a whole. Terrorism is consequently a metaphysical issue,
and it names the way in which beings show themselves today, i.e., as terrorized. This
"ontological" point demands that there be the "ontic" threat of real
terrorists. Further, this metaphysical aspect of terrorism also indicates that a purely political
response to terrorism is destined to fail. Political reactions to terrorism, which
depict terrorism from the outset as a political problem, miss the fact
that terrorism itself, qua metaphysical issue, is coincident with a
transformation in politics . That is to say, political responses to terrorism
fail to think terrorism. In what follows I will elaborate some of the consequences of thinking
terrorism as a question of being and sketch a few characteristics of the politicotechnological landscape
against which terrorism takes place.

It's the aff's technological enframing that makes terrorism inevitable we
should recognize that true security is impossible and not look at the
metaphysical issue of terrorism in a technological view.
Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University,
"Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

Insofar as Heideggerian thinking is a thinking of being, then it must be
able to think terrorism, for the simple reason that terrorism names the current
countenance of being for our times, and without such a correspondence to being,
Heideggerian thinking is nothing. The issue is not one of applying a
preestablished Heideggerian doctrine to an object or situation that
would remain outside of thought. Rather, the issue is one of
recognizing that the objects and situations of our world themselves
call for thought , and that in thinking the world, we enter into a correspondence with being. But
what sort of correspondence can be achieved between the thinking
of being and terrorism? Heidegger's articulation of the age of technology already contains in
germ four routes of access for the thinking of terrorism. First, Heidegger himself witnessed
a transformation in the making of war, such that he was led to think
beyond the Clausewitzian model of modem warfare and to open the
possibility for a "warfare" of a different sort. This thought beyond war is itself an
opening to terrorism. Second, Heidegger prioritizes terror (Erschrecken) as a
fundamental mood appropriate to our age of technological
enframing. Terror is a positive mood, not a privative one, and it corresponds to the way that being
gives itself today. Third, Heidegger thinks threat and danger in an
"ontological" manner that calls into question traditional notions of
presence and absence. Terrorism attends this transformation in presence. Finally, and
following from all of this, Heidegger rethinks the notion of security in a
manner that alerts us to the oxymoronic character of "homeland
security" and the impossibility of ever achieving a condition of
complete safety from terrorism. In each of these ways, Heideggerian thinking responds
to this most uncommon of challenges.

Terrorism is the result of technological domination of the world it is an
attempt to break free from the standing reserve, which the aff creates, through
their technological mindset.
Mitchell '05 [Andrew J. Mitchell, Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Humanities at Stanford University,
"Heidegger and Terrorism," Research in Phenomenology, Volume 35, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 181-218]

Nothing stable, this juncture in being itself must be followed and traced. It trembles. Terror takes a
situation that looks hopelessly doomed and finds the essential within it, but terror contains its
own demise, too. We flee from it. We respond to it with a hardening of our
own ways; we reaffirm the identity of being instead of opening
ourselves to others. The American response to terror has been one of
Americanism, there can be no doubt about that. Terror ends in this, and there is no
commemoration, just a forgetting. The commemorative aspect of terror allows us to remember the fallen
and understand how they can still be with us today in our American way of being. Terrorism will
take place in the withdrawal of being, in the unworld of machination.
The modern configuration of war is surpassed by the technological
plan of homogenized circulation, and the distinction between war
and peace falls away in their mutual commitment to furthering the
cycle of production and consumption. The abandonment of being that
forms this unworld by draining the world of its being does not occur
without a trace, however, and terror in its trembling corresponds to
that trace. Terrorism necessarily results from such a devastation-or, "becoming-desert,"
Vendiistung-of the world; terrorism is always born in the desert. Terrorism is metaphysical
because it touches everything, every particular being, all of which may be attacked
and annihilated. The circulation of the standing-reserve sets an
equivalence of value among things with a resulting worldlessness
where existence is another name for exchangeability. The exchanged and
replaceable things are already replaced and exchanged, not serially, but essentially. They are not fully
present when here. Terrorism names this absence, or rather is the effect of this absence, which is to say it
is that absence itself, since here we are not dealing with an absence that could be the effect of any loss of
presence. The absence in question is not an absence of presence, but an absence in and through
presence. It would be ridiculous to think that such a change in being
would lack a corresponding change in beings. This change in' the nature of being
shows itself in the fact that all beings today are terrorized. They all stand under a very
real threat of destruction via -terrorist acts. There would be no terrorist threat were
it not for these terrorists, yet there would be no possibility of a threat were it not for being.
Certainly terrorism is not the only "effect" of this absence in presence;
Heidegger frequently refers to the atomic bomb in precisely this regard. Terrorism's claim, however, is
distinct from that of atomic war. Like the atomic bomb, terrorism operates at the
level of threat. Insofar as it calls into question all beings, terrorism is
itself a metaphysical determination of being. Terrorism makes everything a
possible object of terrorist attack, and this is the very terror of it. Everything is a possible
target, and this now means that all beings exist as possible targets, as
possibly destroyed. But this should not be taken to mean that there are discrete beings, fully
present, now threatened with destruction. The ineradicable threat of destruction
transforms the nature ofthe being itself. The being can no longer
exist as indifferent to its destruction; this destruction does not reside
outside of the being. Instead, destruction inhabits the being and
does so, not as something superadded to the being, but as the
essence of the being itself. Beings are henceforth as though destroyed.
Terror brings about an alteration in the very mode of being of reality, the real is now the terrorized.
Reality is already terrorized; the change has already taken place, -and this regardless of whether an
attack comes or not. Beings exist as endangered, as terrorized, and this
means as no longer purely self-present. It means that, in terms of
pure presence, beings exist asalready destroyed. Destruction is not something that comes at a
later date, nor is it something that may or may not already have taken place. Destruction exists now as
threat. The effectiveness of terror lies in the threat, not the attack.
Terrorism is not located in one particular country or group its a consequence
of the new global order, which creates constant internal violence. The affs
supposed solution plays into the mindset that justifies terrorist acts.
Baudrillard in 2003 [Jean, October, The Mind of Terrorism]
All the speeches and commentaries made since September 11 betray a gigantic post-
traumatic abreaction both to the event itself and to the fascination that it exerts. The
moral condemnation anti the sacred union against terrorism are directly proportional to
the prodigious jubilation felt at having seen this global superpower destroyed, because it
was this insufferable superpower that gave rise both to the violence now spreading
throughout the world and to the terrorist imagination that (without our knowing it) dwells
within us all. That the entire world without exception had dreamed of this event, that
nobody could help but dream the destruction of so powerful a hegemon-this fact is
unacceptable to the moral conscience of the West, and yet it is a fact nonetheless, a
fact that resists the emotional violence of all the rhetoric conspiring to erase it.
In the end, it was they who did it but we who wished it. If we do not take this fact into
account, the vent loses all symbolic dimension; it becomes s a purely arbitrary act, the
murderous phantasmagoria of a few fanatics that we need only repress. But we know
well that such is not tie case. Without our profound complicity the event would not have
reverberated so forcefully, and in their strategic symbolism the terrorists knew they could
count on this unconfessable complicity. It goes well beyond the hatred that the desolate
and the exploited-those who ended up on the wrong side of the new world order-feel
toward the dominant global power. This malicious desire resides n the hearts of even
those who've shared in the spoils. The allergy to absolute order, to absolute power, is
universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center were, precisely because of their
ideaticality, the perfect incarnation of this absolute order.
Countless disaster films have borne witness to these fantasies, and the universal appeal
of the images shows just how close the fantasies always are to being acted out: the
closer the entire system gets to perfection or to omnipotence, the stronger the urge to
destroy it grows. When the world has been so thoroughly monopolized, when power has
been so formidably consolidated by the technocratic machine and the dogma of
globalization, what means of turning the tables remains besides terrorism? In dealing all the
cards to itself, the system forced the Other to change the rules of the game. And the new
rules are ferocious, because the game is ferocious. Terrorism is the act that restores an
irreducible singularity to the heart of a generalized system of exchange. All those singularities
(species, individuals, cultures) that have been sacrificed to the interests of a global system of
commerce avenge themselves by turning the tables with terrorism.
Terror against terror-this is no longer an ideological notion. We have gone well beyond
ideology and politics, The energy that nourishes terror, no ideology, no cause, not even an
Islamic one, can explain. The terrorists are not aiming simply to transform the world. Like the
heretics of previous times, they aim to radicalize the world through sacrifice, whereas the
system aims to convert: it into money through force. Terrorists, like viruses, are everywhere.
There is no longer a boundary that can hem terrorism in; it is at the heart of the very
culture it's fighting with, and the visible fracture (and the hatred) that pits the exploited
and underdeveloped nations of the world against the West masks the dominant system's
internal fractures. It is as if every means of domination secreted its own antidote. Against
this almost automatic from of resistance to its power, the system can do nothing.
Terrorism is the shock wave of this silent resistance. It is a mistake, then, to characterize
this as a clash of civilizations or of religions. It goes well beyond Islam aria' America, on
which one aright be tempted to concentrate in order to create the illusion of a
confrontation resolvable by force. There is a fundamental antagonism at work. but it
transcends the phantom of America (which is perhaps the epicenter though not the
incarnation of globalization) as well as the phantom of Islam (which likewise is not the
incarnation of terrorism). This is the clash of triumphant globalization at war with itself.
In this sense, it is accurate to speak of this as a world war-no: the third but the fourth-and
the only one that is truly global, since what's at stake is globalization itself. The first put an
end to European supremacy and to the era of colonialism; the second put an end to
Nazism; and the third to Communism. Each one brought us progressively closer to the
single world order of today, which is now nearing its end, everywhere opposed,
everywhere grappling with hostile forces. This is a war of fractal complexity, waged
worldwide against rebellious singularities that, in the manner of antibodies, mount a
resistance in every cell. These confrontations are so imperceptible that it is occasionally
necessary to resuscitate the idea of war by staging spectacular scenes such as those in
the Persian Gulf and now in Afghanistan. But World War IV happens elsewhere too. It
haunts all expressions of world order, all forms of hegemonic domination-if Islam were
dominating the world, terrorism would rise up against Islam. The globe itself is resistant to
globalization. Terrorism is immoral. The occurrence at the World Trade Center, this
symbolic act of defiance, is immoral, but it was in response to globalization, which is itself
immoral. We are therefore immoral ourselves, so if we hope to understand anything we
will need to get beyond Good and Evil. The crucial point lies in precisely the opposite
direction from the Enlightenment philosophy of Good and Evil. We naively believe in the
progress of Good, that its ascendance in all domains (science, technology, democracy,
human rights) corresponds to the defeat of Evil. No one seems to have understood that
Good and Evil increase in power at the same time -and in the same way. The triumph of
one does not result in the obliteration of the ether; to the contrary. We tend to regard
Evil, metaphysically, as an accidental smudge, but this axiom is illusory. Good does not
reduce Evil, or vice versa; they are at once irreducible, the one and the other, and
inextricably linked. In the end, Good cannot vanquish Evil except by denying to be
Good, since, in monopolizing global power, it entails a backfire of proportional violence.
In the traditional universe, there remained a balance of Good and Evil, a dialectical
relationship that guaranteed, for better or worse, the tension and equilibrium of the moral
universe. This balance was lost as soon as there was a total extrapolation of Good-the
hegemony of the positive over every form of negativity. From that moment, the
equilibrium was broken, and Evil returned to an invisible autonomy, increasing
exponentially. Relatively speaking, this is a bit like what happened to the political order
after Communism disappeared and neoliberal forces triumphed worldwide. It was then
that a phantom enemy arose, percolating throughout the planet, rising up through all
the cracks in power. Islam. But Islam. is merely the crystallized form of this antagonism.
The antagonism is everywhere, and it is in each of us. Hence, terror against terror. But it is
asymmetrical terror, and it is this asymmetry that leaves the absolute global power
disarmed. It can do nothing but strike at its own rationale for the balance of power,
without being able to compete on the playing field of symbolic defiance and of death,
having deleted that playing field from its own culture. Until now, this integrating power
had succeeded in absorbing and reabsorbing every attack, every negativity, and in
doing so created a thoroughly hopeless situation (not only for the wretched o' the earth
but also for the privileged and well-to-do in their radical comfort). But the terrorists have
started using their own deaths offensively and effectively, based on a strategic intuition,
a sense of their adversary's immense fragility, of the system's quasi-perfection, of the
explosion that would erupt at the slightest spark. They succeeded in turning their deaths
into an ultimate weapon against a system devoted to the ideal of zero losses. Any system
of zero losses is a zero-sum game. And all methods of deterrence and destruction can do
nothing against an enemy who has already turned his death into a counteroffensive
weapon. (" Who cares about the American bombing! Our men are as eager to die as
the Americans are eager to live!") Thus the imbalance of more than 3,000 deaths inflicted
in one fell swoop against a system of zero losses. Here, everything depends upon death,
not only upon the brutal irruption of death live and in real time but upon the irruption of a
death much more than real: a symbolic and sacrificial death-which is to say, the
absolute, ultimate, unappealable event.

Here's our alterntive text: Reject the aff and their misunderstanding of
terrorism and use of a technological mindset to solve. Instead open up this
space for meditative and ontological thinking on terrorism.
Our alternative grounds our thinking and dwells-upon the earth. Instead of
pursuing the rigid confines of calculative thought, we instead take root to allow
the human spirit to flourish and allow thinking about thinking.

Heidegger '66 [Martin. The 20
centurys Slavoj. Discourse on Thinking. 1966. pp. 47-49]

There are, then, two kinds of thinking, each justified and needed in its own way:
calculative thinking and meditative thinking. This meditative thinking
is what we have in mind when we say that contemporary man is in
flight-from-thinking. Yet you may protest: mere meditative thinking finds itself floating
unaware above reality. It loses touch. It is worthless for dealing with current business. It profits nothing in
carrying out practical affairs. And you may say, finally, that mere meditative
thinking, persevering meditation, is above the reach of ordinary
understanding. In this excuse only this much is true, meditative thinking does not
just happen by itself any more than does calculative thinking. At
times it requires a greater effort. It demands more practice. It is in
need of even more delicate care than any other genuine craft. But it
must also be able to bide its time, to await as does the farmer,
whether the seed will come up and ripen. Yet anyone can follow the path of
meditative thinking in his own manner and within his own limits. Why? Because man is a thinking, that is,
a meditating being. Thus meditative thinking need by no means be high-flown. It is enough if
we dwell on what lies close and meditate on what is closest; upon
that which concerns us, each one of us, here and now; here, on this
patch of home ground; now, in the present hour of history. What does this
celebration suggest to us, in case we are ready to meditate? Then we notice that a work of
art has flowered in the ground of our homeland. As we hold this simple fact in mind, we
cannot help remembering at once that during the last two centuries great poets and thinkers have been brought forth from the Swabian land.
Thinking about it further makes clear at once that Central Germany is likewise such a land, and so are East Prussia, Silesia, and Bohemia. We
grow thoughtful and ask: does not the flourishing of any genuine work depend upon its roots in a native soil? Johann Peter Hebel once wrote:
We are plants which whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not-
must with our roots rise out of the earth in order to bloom in the
ether and to bear fruit (Works, ed. Altwegg III, 314.) The poet means to say: For a truly
joyous and salutary human work to flourish, man must be able to
mount from the depth of his home ground up into the ether. Ether
here means the free air of the high heavens, the open realm of the
spirit. We grow more thoughtful and ask: does this claim of Johann Peter Hebel hold today? Does man still dwell calmly between heaven
and earth? Does a meditative spirit still reign over the land? Is there still a life-giving homeland in whose ground man may stand rooted, that
is, be autochthonic? Many Germans have lost their homeland have had to leave their villages and towns, have been driven from their native
soil. Countless others whose homeland was saved, have yet wandered off. They have been caught up in the turmoil of the big cities, and have
resettled in the wastelands of industrial districts. They are strangers now to their former homeland. And those who have stayed on in their
homeland? Often they are still more homeless than those who have been driven from their homeland. Hourly and daily they are chained to
radio and television. Week after week the movies carry them off into uncommon, but often merely common, realms of the imagination, and
give the illusion of a world that is no world. Picture magazines are everywhere available. All that with which modern techniques of
communication stimulate, assail, man-all that is already much closer to man today than his fields around his farmstead, closer than
the sky over the earth, closer than the change from night to day, closer than the conventions and customs of
his village, than the tradition of his native world. We grow more thoughtful and ask:
What is happening here-with those driven from their homeland no
less than with those who have remained? Answer: the rootedness,
the autochthony, of man is threatened today at-its core. Even more: The
loss-of-rootedness is caused not merely by circumstance and fortune,
nor does it stem only from the negligence and the superficiality of
mans way of life. The loss of autochthony springs from the spirit of
the age into which all of us were born. We grow still more thoughtful
and ask: If this is so, can man, can mans work in the future still be
expected to thrive in the fertile ground of a homeland and mount into
the ether, into the far reaches of the heavens and the spirit? Or will
everything now fall into the clutches of planning and calculation, of
organization and automation?

Acts of will cannot transform bad forms of thinking. We have to deeply reflect
and meditate with our alternatives meditative thought to allow meaning to
reveal itself to us. This allows us to rediscover our worldly home and choose
how we want to be in the world.

Thiele 95 [Leslie, Professor of Political Science at the University of Florida, Timely Meditations:
Martin Heidegger and Postmodern Politics, pg 213-214]

Heidegger offers a hint about the nature of the thinking that might loosen the grip of technology. He
writes that "the coming to presence of technology will be surmounted
\venvunden] in a way that restores it into its yet concealed truth. This
restoring surmounting is similar to what happens when, in the
human realm, one gets over grief or pain" (QT 39). Importantly, one gets
over grief not through a willful overcoming. Such self-mastery only
displaces grief, with the likelihood of its resurgence at some other
time, in an invidious form. Like moods in general, grief is overcome not by
mastery, intellect, or will, but only by another mood (WPA 99). And moods,
Heidegger insists, cannot be created, only summoned (ST 105). The mood that allows our overcoming of
grief might best be described as one of rediscovered sanctuary. One gets over grief by once
again coming to feel one's belonging in a world that, because of to its
cruel deprivations, had for a time become alien. Hannah Arendt often called to
mind Isak Dinesen's saying that "all sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story or tell a story about
them." Dinesen's point is that we get over grief by reflecting on our grief-
stricken selves and becoming interpretively reintegrated in the
world. Looking back on our grieved selves allows us to surmount
grief not by denying our misfortune but by finding meaning in the
story of our sorrow. To look back on ourselves in time is to gain
distance, and, at the same time, a nearness to the ongoing and often
tragic saga of worldly habitation. Homelessness is the mood of the technological age.
Rediscovering our worldly home (as threatened) signals the "restoring
surmounting" of technology. This rediscovered sense of (threatened)
sanctuary is chiefly summoned, Heidegger indicates, by memory or
recollective thought. Recollecting our worldly habitat not only fosters
resistance to enframing, but also provides guidance in negotiating
relations with the products of technology, namely machines and techniques.
Heidegger ac-knowledges that we should neither reject nor do without technological artifacts or skills as a
whole. He neither advocates nor accepts a retreat to a pretechnological state of being. Nor, despite much
misinterpreta-tion by his commentators, does he suggest that we fatalistically resign ourselves to the
victory of enframing. Its victory, he emphatically states, is not inevitable (OGS 61). "We cannot, of
course, reject today's tech-nological world as devil's work, nor may we destroy itassuming it does not
destroy itself," Heidegger maintains. "Still less may we cling to the view that the world of technology is
such that it will absolutely prevent a spring out of it" (ID 4041). To confuse our destined
relation to Being as if it were a fate, particularly one that leads to the
inevitable decline of our civilization because of technological rule, is
itself a historically determinist, and therefore metaphysical and
technological, understanding. According to Heidegger, "All attempts to reckon existing
reality morphologically, psychologically, in terms of decline and loss, in terms of fate, catastrophe, and
destruction, are merely technological behavior" (QT 48).14 Fatalism is no answer because
fatalism reflects the same absence of thought that is evidenced in a
naive complacency with technological "progress." Heidegger's admonition to
think the nature of technology, though far from a resigned musing, is not the devising of a
counteroffensive. We are asked to respond first to the question "What shall we think?" rather
than the question "What is to be done?" But the point is not simply that we must
think before we act. The needed thinking of what we are doing and
how we are being is not solely a strategic preparation for more
informed and effective behavior. Thought must first save us from our
typical modes of behaving, namely those oriented to possessive mastery. Heidegger warns that
"so long as we represent technology as an instrument, we remain held fast in the will to master it" (QT
32). The more we fail to experience the essence of technology as enframing, persevering in the mistaken
notion that complex machinery is the danger, the more we will believe that salvation lies in our mastering
technology before it masters us. With this in mind, Heidegger explicitly states that he
is "not against technology," nor does he suggest any "resistance
against, or condemnation of, technology" (MHC 4344). Indeed, the
development of complex machines and techniquestechnology as it
is commonly understoodhas enormous benefits that must not be
depreciated. It would be shortsighted to condemn such technology
out of hand. Apart from our obvious dependence on technical devices, their development also often
"challenges us to ever greater advances" (DT 53). From political, social, cultural, and
environmental standpoints, technology demonstrates many virtues.
Indeed, given the unrelenting extension of human power and
population, technological developments that buffer the earth from
our predaceousness seem both urgent and indispensable. A good bit of the
destruction humanity presently visits on the earth and itself makes sophisticated technological remedies
necessary. Having machines efficiently serve our needs is neither evil nor
regrettable. But this service must be grounded on our discovery of
what needs we truly have. More importantly, it must be grounded on
our discovery of what transcends human need.'* These, decidedly, are not
technological questions, and our capacity to answer them largely
rests on our recovery of the capacity to think beyond the criterion of
instrumental service. 213-214

2NC Extensions

Judge, extend our first Mitchell 05 card. What were saying here is that
terrorism isnt just the acts itself; its the thought behind it. The terroristic
mindset in itself is something that occurs in their ontology, ethics, and
metaphysical being. So political action cant solve for something like that.
History also proves because we have yet to be able to solve a terroristic conflict
to this day. Examples: Afghanistan, North Korea, the current Black Widow issue
in Russia, etc.

Judge, extend our second Mitchell 05 card. Here, were saying that the way the
affirmative is set up is the reason behind terroristic beliefs/ethics. The
affirmative doesnt see terrorism as what it is, but as something that rises out
of oppression. Sure thats one cause of it, but it stems deeper than that. Its
rooted all the way to ones sense of ontological being. The affirmative team is
violating this by their technological thought, sensing that they can fix this issue
by spying on both the government and the people. Theyre clearly
misunderstanding the root cause of terrorism. You must look at terrorism as
beyond the physical and examine the metaphysical issues that lie in these
peoples ontology, their ethics and values. The aff is totally ignoring this,
claiming they can solve by simply spying on them. Its this technological
thought that further condemns the affirmative.

Judge, extend our third Mitchell 05 card. Whats going on here is that terrorism
is a response to actions such as those the affirmative is taking. Terrorism is but
a response to the ideas of the standing reserve, which the affirmative through
US action is promoting. By thinking they can solve for terrorism in Venezuela,
the affirmative is promoting this technological thought that they can solve all
the worlds problems. The affirmative is seeing these terrorists as the result of
government oppression, but its more than that. Its about them revolting
against the standing reserve in which both the Venezuelan government, and
the US government sees them. (standing reserve is the belief that everything in
the world is for the betterment of humans. For example, damming up a river
for a hydroelectric dam. Now, instead of the river being a river and existing for
its natural purpose and beauty, its being used as a tool for humans) In this
case, the aff sees these people as terrorists just waiting to spring and that
they need to spy on them, not seeing them as people.

Extend Baudrillard 2003. Heres the argument. Their arguments assume
terrorists are a definite group of people, existing in some other country, who
we can deter and deal with as the worlds superpower. This vision is inaccurate
terrorism isnt out there, it is within the global order, as an inevitable side
effect of advancing globalization, so they can never solve the impacts they
claim. Also, the overarching power of a single country and its policies is what
gives the motive to destroy it whether or not they want to admit it, everyone
wants to see the American superpower humbled. The plan asserts US influence
to try to curb this violence, but ironically makes it more likely it will occur,
because the more the US stretches out to control the world the more the world
will backlash against it. Thats a turn.

Judge, extend our alternative text, and our Heidegger 66 card and our Thiele 95
card. What were saying here is that the affirmatives method of calculative
thought thinking that they can solve for potential terrorism by implementing
an espionage policy to Venezuela isnt going to solve the actual issue of
ontological and metaphysical terrorism. Terrorism will always exist because of
the policy actions that the aff and goernments like the US take because its not
an issue that can be solved with policy/military action. Its an issue that must
be closely examined by meditative, ontological thinking. Only then can the
problem be solved. Our alternative solves because first, by rejecting the aff, we
stop this ridiculous policy action that clearly wont solve for the terrorism they
claim will happen; then, we solve because the only way to solve for terrorism is
examining the issue on the metaphysical level, examining their culture and
their beliefs through meditative thinking is the only way to solve. Only through
meditation on meditative thought can we solve.

2NC Overview

Ok, so whats going on with the K is that we as Americans look at terrorism and
think: oh they just hate whats going on with them and cant deal with it. But
then we dont think to examine it beyond the physical actions or try to dig
deeper. We have to examine it as more than just hatred, because more often
than not especially in this case theres more to it than that. We must take a
look at it from their point of view. Like look at the US, were assholes to these
countries. There were no terrorist threats from the middle east until both
Russian and the US tried to imperialize it and use it for our own means. We
brought in western culture which is directly against their culture. And instead of
accepting and examing this culture, we practically force it and strengthen it
with Americanism. Terrorism is something that happens based on
metaphysical and ontological issues that come from anger and
misunderstanding. We have yet to recognize that its more than just the action,
its the reasons behind it. Religious, cultural, ethical, these ontological issue
that we havent confronted yet. No one can solve for terrorism without
examining it first in an ontological manner. Our alt is the only thing that can