1

RACE WAR
We are in the midst of a race war and They have refused to definitively align
themselves with militant revolution in the 1AC or wiki
Hesitation in the Race War is a voting issue:
(1) Survival Planning – debate is not a safe space proven by debaters calling the cops
on black students playing music and labeling native debaters cheaters for publishing
their scholarship in journals to read in debates They must be clear on where they
stand on the race war so colored debaters can navigate hostile spaces – remedies
violence- that outweighs since every other impact assumes the ability to access the
debate space. side disclosure is key to planning out survival tactics and circumventing
racial violence by mapping coalitions and enemies.
(2) Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing – White Being supervises Reconstructionist politics
sustaining supremacist institutions while repackaging liberal politics as change. Think
of affirmative action policies that layers bodies in institutions while continuing to
sustain those very structures that recreate violence. Pre-round specification is key to
cross-checking their specification with their content to fight back against supremacies
implantation in resistance. Anything else allows for in round flip-flops and lying that
allow them to sustain supremacist structures while not being held accountable for
violence in the race war.

2
Interpretation: Manu must include a picture of themselves and a sheet of paper listing
the online tourney name in the first speech of the round.
Violation: They don’t

Standards:
[1] Identity impersonation: It’s the only way to verify we are who we say we are –
otherwise I could have a random debater impersonating me who is really good. The
picture verifies that I am the person behind the screen. Key to fairness otherwise
debaters could have really good debaters represent them before round. Fairness is a
voter constitutive of any competitive activity. Lack of fairness means I can’t engage
with their position because I don’t have
the capability to do so, so it comes prior.
Fairness is a voter
1. the judge can’t accurately make a decision if the round is unfair
2. Vote for fairness because fairness is constitutive of any competitive activity, it prevents the
judge from evaluating the better debater, and it determines my ability to engage so it
precludes other impacts
 3. The opponent may attempt to make the debate more education but that kills fairness since I
wouldn’t know what we are debating about which prevents me from making arguments

Education is a voter
1. Only long term benefit we get out of debate which allows for portable skills and better
critical thinking
2. Reasons why schools fund debate in the first place
3. I wouldn’t be here in the first place if it wasn’t for the education we got out of debate

Drop the debater

1. I had to irreversibly alter my strategy to run theory in the first place
2. it deters future abuse and drop the argument encourages debaters to run abusive
arguments and kick them if they’re called out
3. the ballot says vote for the better debater so if I debate better on the highest layer of the
flow vote for me.

Evaluate the theory debate after the 2n:

1. Time skew - u have one more speech to give. I solve reciprocity
2. Strat skew - u can extend args and extrapolate new things in the next speech that I can’t respond to.

No RVIs- chilling effect

DTD to deter future abuses

3
Interpretation: Manu must defend that the hypothetical enactment of the resolution
by which States eliminates their nuclear arsenals. This does not require any specific
content which means their impact turns conceptually do not make any sense because
T-FW does not exclude the thesis of what their aff says.
Resolved denotes a proposal to be enacted by law
Words and Phrases 1964 Permanent Edition
Definition of the word “resolve,” given by Webster is “to
express an opinion or determination by resolution or
vote; as ‘it was resolved by the legislature;” It is of similar force to the word “enact,” which is
defined by Bouvier as meaning “to establish by law”.
Vote Neg:
1. Procedural Fairness- Not all topics offer equitable ground. Absent a topical
requirement, the aff will be biased by competitive incentives to find the most
uncontroversial advocacy possible with a germane relation to the topic. That limits me
to offensive arguments against the AC like oppression good. The only way to make
sure that debates are fair is to have one chosen by a 3 rd party topic committee. In-
round competitive equity is a voting issue and outweighs the K.
A. Resolvability- the judge has to indicate who won the round, fairness best coheres
with this since if one debater had ten minutes to speak and the other had three there
would be incongruence that alters ability to judge the truth value of who wins on the
AC so cross-applications don’t work.
2. Limits- Affs outside the topic justify a literal infinite number of affs because you only
need to be germanely topical. You can combine any idea with a direction of the
resolution. You can read fem rage, DnG, afropess, afrofuturism, and the list goes on
and on. Only the topic can serve as a stable starting point on which to base research.
Only limited topics protect participants from research overload which materially
affects our lives outside of round.
Controls the internal link to the aff- I can’t engage in the 1AC’s critical issues in round
AND you cause research overload so I cannot be politically active for your cause
outside of round because I am too busy researching. Also proves your model of debate
has material disparities that you create that prevent dialogue.
Ballot paradox – either they want the ballot and prove the competition arguments, or
they’re only here for the discussion in which case vote neg but recognize the aff’s
education is valuable – proves T comes first.
1] Evaluation – even if their arguments seem true, that’s only because they already had an
advantage – fairness is a meta constraint on your ability to determine who best meets their
ROB. If one debater had ten minutes to speak and the other had three there would be
incongruence that alters ability to judge the truth value of who wins on the AC so cross-
applications don’t work. Presume their arguments are false absent an opponent that is
adequately prepared to contest them

4
The role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who best proves the truth or falsity of
the Resolution; the aff must prove it true and the neg must prove it false
Prefer:
[1] Text: Five dictionaries1 define to negate as to deny the truth of and affirm 2 as to
prove true which means the sole judge obligation is to vote on the resolution’s truth
or falsity. This outweighs on common usage – it is abundantly clear that our roles are
verified. Any other role of the ballot enforces an external norm on debate, but only
truth testing is intrinsic to the process of debate i.e. proving statements true or false
through argumentation. Constitutivism outweighs because you don’t have the
jurisdiction not to truth test – if a chess player says you should break the rules for a
more fun game, the proper response is to ignore them as a practice only makes sense
based on its intrinsic rules. Jurisdiction is also an independent voter and a meta
constraint on anything else since every argument you make concedes the authority of
the judge fulfilling their jurisdiction to vote aff if they affirm better and neg the
contrary – otherwise they could just hack against or for you which means it also
controls the internal link to fairness since that’s definitionally unfair.
[2] Logic: Any counter role of the ballot collapses to truth testing because every
property assumes truth of the property i.e. if I say, “I am awake” it is the same as “it is
true that I am awake” which means they are also a question of truth claims because
it’s inherent. It also means their ROB warrants aren’t mutually exclusive with mine.
[3] Inclusion: Any offense can function under truth testing whereas your specific role
of the ballot excludes all strategies but yours. This is bad for inclusive debates because
people without every technical skill or comprehensive debate knowledge are shut out
of your scholarship which turns your ROB- truth testing solves because you can do
what you’re good at and so can I. This is also better for education because me
engaging in a debate I know nothing about doesn’t help anyone. o/w since it is a real-
world implication in round rather than a thought experiment that doesn’t do anything
[4] Truth testing is the most pragmatic – it teaches us how to become advocates for
real world solutions, sharpens critical thinking skills, and instils real world education.
Branse 15 David , 9-4-2015, "The Role of the Judge By David Branse (Part Two)," NSD Update, http://nsdupdate.com/2015/09/04/the-
role-of-the-judge-by-david-branse-part-2/ // SJCP//JG
In debate, those rules
are testing the truth of a pre-given and pre-prepared topic. Switch-side debate provides a unique forum
where we A) don’t have to endorse our arguments as true since we contradict ourselves every round, B) view
the process of warranting as
supremely valuable, and C) can challenge all ethical assumptions we hold. Truth testing allows debaters to analyze
arguments from a wide range of viewpoints, with an emphasis on contesting the warrants of every
argument. In my opinion, the value and skills garnered in debate arise from the process of debating,
not the content of the arguments or a particular pedagogical viewpoint. Debaters learn to structure
1
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/negate, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/negate,
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/negate, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/negate
2
Dictionary.com – maintain as true, Merriam Webster – to say that something is true, Vocabulary.com – to affirm something is to confirm that
it is true, Oxford dictionaries – accept the validity of, Thefreedictionary – assert to be true
logical syllogisms to warrant everything from the outrageous to the intuitive. The process of truth
testing teaches debaters how to make decisions in the real world. We learn how to justify our beliefs
and become good advocates not by rejecting this paradigm but by embracing it. Competition to determine the truth
of a proposition motivates debaters to engage in the very practices that provide us education. Debaters extensively prep and research unique topical ideas for the
sake of winning. Few debaters would have learned as much as they did about the living wage without debate’s competitive incentive.

Vote negative:
[1] Oxford Dictionary defines state as “the particular condition that someone or
something is in at a specific time.” A condition can’t possess nuclear weapons, so the
resolution must be false.
[2] Defining an arsenal is impossible – neg on presumption.
Starr 07 [Steven Starr, () "An Explanation of Nuclear Weapons Terminology" Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation, 11-29-2007, https://www.wagingpeace.org/an-explanation-of-nuclear-weapons-
terminology/, DOA:12-3-2019 // WHSRS]
Discussions of nuclear weapons and the policies which guide them often utilize terminology which lacks
standardized definition. Much of the nuclear jargon consists of words or phrases which are essentially descriptive terms whose
meaning is generally agreed upon, but in fact do not have precise technical definitions in any military or civilian dictionaries. Such imprecision in language has

created confusion among those trying to comprehend nuclear issues and has even hindered the process of negotiation among nations.
This problem of imprecision exists for a variety of reasons. Some terms may not be listed in the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) online Dictionary of Military Terms
(see http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/) because they refer to policies, such as “launch-on-warning”, which the U.S. government does not wish to acknowledge or discuss. Other terms,
such as “high-alert status”, “hair-trigger alert” and “de-alerting”, may be regarded as useless by military officers who would wish to regard their forces as always “alert”. Although civilians and

A lack of
the military may approach the use of such terminology from different perspectives, it is important that they at least be able to understand each other when conversing.

precise terminology will continue to plague discussions of nuclear policy until adequate definitions are
finally agreed upon by all parties. The U.S. recently employed imprecision in terminology as a tactic during the 2007 General Conference on Disarmament at the United Nations,
when it announced, “The fact is that U.S. nuclear weapons are not and have never been on “hair-trigger alert”. By repeatedly using the term “hair-trigger” (which lacks technical meaning but is

the U.S. deliberately muddied the semantic waters in an attempt to avoid

commonly used to describe fire-arms and bad tempers),

serious discussion about the true status of its nuclear arsenal [1].
[3] Affirming Negates because of the Good Samaritan Paradox: Premise 1 is that the
resolution is true. Premise 2 is that if the resolution is true states must have nuclear
weapons, or else we wouldn’t say we’re obligated to eliminate them. Conclusion is
that states must have nuclear weapons, so affirming logically negates.
[4] Oxford Dictionary defines eliminate as “murder”, and it’s impossible to murder
something that isn’t alive, so the resolution is impossible.
[5] It’s impossible to know the contents of a country’s arsenal.
Perkovich and Acton 09 [George Perkovich and James M. Acton, (George Perkovich is vice president for
studies and director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He is the
author of the award-winning book India’s Nuclear Bomb, which received the Herbert Feis Award from the
American Historical Association, for outstanding work by an independent scholar, and the A. K. Coomaraswamy
Prize from the Association for Asian Studies, as an outstanding book on South Asia. Perkovich is co-author of the
Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, published in September 2008 by the International Institute for
Strategic Studies, and also of a major Carnegie report, Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, a
blueprint for rethinking the international nuclear nonproliferation regime. He is an adviser to the International
Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), and a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations Task Force on U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Perkovich served as a speechwriter and foreign policy adviser
to thenSenator Joe Biden from 1989 to 1990. James M. Acton is an associate in the Nonproliferation Program at
the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before joining the Endowment in October 2008, Acton was a
lecturer at the Centre for Science and Security Studies in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London.
There he co-authored the Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, with George Perkovich and was a
consultant to the Norwegian government on disarmament issues. Prior to that, Acton was the science and
technology researcher at the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre (VERTIC), where he was a
participant in the UK–Norway dialogue on verifying the dismantlement of warheads. He has published in Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists, Jane’s Intelligence Review, Nonproliferation Review, Survival, and the New York Times.)
"Abolishing Nuclear Weapons" in “Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate” Carnegie Endowment For International
Peace, 2-13-2009, https://carnegieendowment.org/2009/02/13/abolishing-nuclear-weapons-debate-pub-22748,
DOA:12-4-2019 // WWBW Highlighted WHSRS]
Inevitable measurement errors introduce discrepancies between
The problems do not stop at verifying past production.

declarations and measured quantities of current holdings. The IAEA faces this problem today even when dealing with comparatively
small quantities of fissile material.29 Under today’s safeguards standard, the agency aims to detect the diversion of a ‘significant quantity’ of nuclear material, defined as ‘the approximate
amount of nuclear material for which the possibility of manufacturing a nuclear explosive device cannot be excluded’. This quantity is currently set at 25kg for HEU and 8kg for plutonium.

Given that HEU production in the US and Russia is measured in many hundreds of tonnes,
verifying US and Russian HEU holdings to within a significant quantity thus defined would
require an unattainable measurement error of less than 0.01%. An excellent illustration of the
problem and its possible consequences in a disarmament context can be seen in efforts made by the UK and the US on a
number of occasions over the past 15 years to account for their fissile material .31 The first row of Table 1
shows how much fissile material the two countries calculated ought to be present, according to inventories based on their records; the second row shows how much was actually measured to

In the case of
be present. The proportionately minor discrepancy between these sets of figures, shown in the third row of the table, is designated as ‘material unaccounted for’.

the US, the material unaccounted for would be enough to build around a thousand warheads.
It would be a formidable challenge for the US to convince other states that none of this
material had been retained in a clandestine stockpile. And the UK and US accounts were probably among the most accurate in the
nuclear-armed states; the uncertainties for the Russian programme in particular are likely to be much

higher.32 A former high-ranking Chinese nuclear official reflected his nation’s sensitivity to these issues when he observed in a recent conversation with one of the authors that the
inevitable uncertainties in US and Russian fissile-material production inventories were
greater than China’s total fissile-material production. Given this, reassuring China about the
possibility of major powers’ evasion of a total ban on nuclear weapons would not be an easy
task.33 There is a second, distinct challenge that would arise in the context of nuclear-disarmament verification. Much of the fissile material listed in
states’ declarations would not be available for verification. Substantial quantities have, for example, been
used in nuclear detonations. Other material, such as that used in reactors, transformed by radioactive decay or lost in waste streams during
processing, is extremely hard to verify with any accuracy . Moreover, much fissile material is held in classified form. Weapons pits, for instance,
have classified shapes, masses and isotopic compositions, making it impossible for inspectors to verify the amount of material present in a pit (although, as discussed above, information about

the isotopic composition and possibly mass of warheads could perhaps be declassified for inspection purposes). Similar limitations apply to naval reactor fuel. Under current rules, even
material that was once in weapons but has now been converted into other forms is still
sensitive, unless it has been blended in such a way as to hide its original isotopic composition. Whereas a national agency could verify all classified material, international inspectors
could not (recall that information-barrier technology does not permit inspectors to measure the quantity of fissile material in a warhead). Thus, substantial amounts of the fissile material that

Inspectors would have to take on trust the inspected

states have produced would, for various reasons, be unavailable for verification.

state’s claims about the whereabouts of this material. They would have no way of knowing
that the material had not been diverted to a clandestine stockpile in violation of a
disarmament agreement. This would not be a concern for national inspectors conducting an
internal audit (such as the UK and US stocktakings described above), but it would concern international inspectors
charged with verifying disarmament. Shown in the fourth row of Table 1 are very conservative estimates of the quantities of fissile material produced by
the UK and the US that would be unavailable for verification, derived solely from estimates of material used in tests (as such material is impossible to verify).34 In practice, because of
classification rules and the material that is made extremely hard to verify by process losses, use in a reactor, decay, or transportation abroad, these quantities would probably be a great deal

Even with blameless intentions and honest

larger. In short, substantial uncertainties in fissile-material inventories are unavoidable.

accounting, such uncertainties would be on the order of at least a few per cent of production.
Given that it is impossible to account for material to an accuracy anywhere near one nuclear weapon’s worth, states would need to take a decision

about how much effort and money they were prepared to expend attempting to verify past
production and current holdings.
[6] States can’t eliminate their nuclear arsenals because they wouldn’t be their
arsenals after elimination because the nukes are incapable of being possessed by
anyone.

5
Semiocapitalism Neoliberalism has fundamentally changed our interactions
with the material world. Semiocapitalism is ingrained in our society and has
created an oversaturation of information. The affirmative’s fantasy of political
change just reentrenches semiocap by ignoring how future orientations are
always rooted in modern capitalism. Berardi:
By the end of the decade, notwithstanding the victory of Barack Obama in the United States, the
prospect was gloomy. Corporate capitalism and neoliberalism have produced lasting damage in
the material structures of the world and in the social, cultural, and nervous systems of
humankind. In the century's last decade, a new movement emerged and grew fast and wide,
questioning everywhere the power of capitalist corporations. I use the word "movement" to
describe a collective displacing of bodies and minds, a changing of consciousness, habits,
expectations. Movement means conscious change, change accompanied by collective
consciousness and collective elaboration, and struggle. Conscious. Collective. Change. This is
the meaning of "movement." From Seattle 1999 to Genoa 2001 a movement tried to stop the
capitalist devastation of the very conditions of civilized life. These were the stakes, no more, no
less. Activists around the world had a simple message: if we don't stop the machine of
exploitation, debt, and compulsory consumption, human cohabitation on the planet will become
dismal, or impossible. Well, ten years after Seattle, in the wake of the 2009 Copenhagen summit
failure, we can state that those people were speaking the truth. The global movement
against capitalist globalization reached an impressive range and
pervasiveness, but it was never able to change the daily life of society. It
remained an ethical movement, not a social transformer. It could not create a
process of social recomposition, it could not produce an effect of social
subjectivation. Those people were silenced by President Bush, after the huge
demonstrations of February 1 5, 2003, when many millions of people worldwide gathered in the
streets against the war in Iraq. The absence of movement is visible today, at the end of the zero
zero decade: the absence of an active culture, the lack of a public sphere, the void of collective
imagination, palsy of the process of subjectivation. The path to a conscious collective subject
seems obstructed. What now? A conscious collective change seems impossible at the level of
daily life. Yes, I know, change is happening everyday, at a pace that we have never experienced
before. What is the election of a black President in the United States if not change? But change is
not happening in the sphere of social consciousness. Change happens in the spectacular sphere of
politics, not in daily life-and the relationship between politics and daily life has become so
tenuous, so weak, that sometimes I think that, whatever happens in politics, life will not change.
The fantastic collapse of the economy is certainly going to change things in daily life: you can
bet on it. But is this change consciously elaborated? Is this connected with some conscious
collective action? It isn't. This is why neoliberal fanaticism, notwithstanding its failure, is
surviving and driving the agenda of the powers of the world. The so-called counter globalization
movement, born in Seattle at the close of the century, has been a collective conscious actor, a
movement of unprecedented strength and breadth. But, I repeat, it has changed nothing in the
daily life of the masses; it hasn't changed the relationship between wage labor and capitalist
enterprise; it hasn't changed daily relationships among precarious workers; it hasn't changed the
lived conditions of migrants. It hasn't created solidarity between people in the factories, in the
schools, in the cities. Neoliberal politics have failed, but social autonomy hasn't emerged. The
ethical consciousness of the insanity of neoliberal politics spread everywhere, but it did not
shape affective and social relations between people. The movement remains an expression of
ethical protest. It has, nonetheless, produced effects. The neoliberal ideology that was once
accepted as the word of God, as a natural and indisputable truth, started to be questioned and
widely denounced in the days following the Seattle riots. But the ethical demonstrations did not
change the reality of social domination. Global corporations did not slow the exploitation
of labor or the massive destruction of the planet's environment. Warmongers
did not stop organizing and launching deadly attacks against civilian
populations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, and many other parts of the world. Why?
Why did the largest demonstration in human history, the antiwar Global Action that the
movement launched on February 15, 2003, fail to stop the bombing of Baghdad? Why was
conscious collective action, although massive and global, unable to change things? This is the
question I've been trying to answer for the last ten years. This is the question that I am trying to
answer in this book. I'll say here, in shore, that the answer is not to be found in the political
strategy of the struggle, but in the structural weakness of the social fabric. During the twentieth
century, social struggle could change things in a collective and conscious way because industrial
workers could maintain solidarity and unity in daily life, and so could fight and win. Autonomy
was the condition of victory, because autonomy means the ability to create social solidarity in
daily life, and the ability to self-organize outside the rules of labor and exploitation. Autonomous
community was the condition of political strength. When social recomposition is possible, so is
collective conscious change. In social history we can speak of recomposition when the forces of
labor create common cultural flows and a common ground of sensibility, so that they become a
collective actor, sharing the same questions and sometimes the same answers. In conditions of
social recomposition, social autonomy from capital becomes possible. Autonomy is the
possibility of meeting the power of capital, with counterpower in daily life, in factories,
neighborhoods, homes, in the affective relationships between people. That seems to be over. The
organization of labor has been fragmented by the new technology, and workers' solidarity has
been broken at its roots. The labor market has been globalized, but the political organization of
the workers has not. The infosphere has dramatically changed and accelerated,
and this is jeopardizing the very possibility of communication, empathy, and
solidarity.
Their lustful extrapolation of catastrophe with lines like “Leads to extinction ”
is a psychological blindfold used to serve the purposes of governmentality and
ignore the disaster of the everyday. Unable to ever be realized, Armageddon
becomes simulated in order to summon a specific solution already decided in
advance, creating a desire for real disaster as a relief from continually
constructed anxiety—capitalism captures this desire and creates exhaustion
The Invisible Committee 16:
The Invisible Committee is a collective and anonymous pen name, it is believed to be a group of
French insurrectionist anarcho-communists. Its writing discusses the current epoch of
insurrectionist movements around the world in relation to theory, movements, capital,
governments, and other topics. “To Our Friends” Semiotext(e), Intervention Series, No. 18, pg
35-37.

One shouldn’t underestimate the craving for apocalypse, the lust for
Armageddon that permeates the epoch. Its particular existential pornography involves ogling
prefigurative documentaries showing clouds of computer-animated grasshoppers descending on
the Bordeaux vineyards in 2075, juxtaposed with “climate migrants” storming the southern
shores of Europe—the same migrants that Frontex is already making a point of decimating.
Nothing is older than the end of the world. The apocalyptic passion has always been
favored by the powerless since earliest antiquity. What is new in our epoch is that the
apocalyptic has been totally absorbed by capital, and placed in its service. The horizon of
catastrophe is what we are currently being governed by. Now, if there is one thing
destined to remain unfulfilled, it’s the apocalyptic prophecy, be it economic, climatic, terrorist,
or nuclear. It is pronounced only in order to summon the means of averting it, which is to say,
most often, the necessity of government. No organization, whether political or religious, has ever
declared itself defeated because the facts contradicted its prophecies. Because the purpose of
prophecy is never to be right about the future, but to act upon the present: to impose a waiting
mode, passivity, submission, here and now. Not only is there no catastrophe to come
other than the one that’s already here, it’s evident that most actual disasters
offer an escape from our daily disaster. Many examples attest to the relief
from existential apocalypse that real disaster brings, from the earthquake that
struck San Francisco in 1906 to Hurricane Sandy that devastated New York
in 2012. One generally assumes that the relations between people in an
emergency situation reveal their deep and eternal bestiality. With every
destructive earthquake, every economic crash and every “terrorist attack,”
one desires to see a confirmation of the old chimera of the state of nature and
its train of uncontrollable violent acts. When the thin dikes of civilization give way, one
would like for the “vile core of man” that obsessed Pascal to show itself, that “human nature”
with its evil passions—envious, brutal, blind and despicable— which has served the holders of
power as an argument at least since Thucydides. Unfortunately the fantasy has been
disconfirmed by most of the historically known disasters. The disappearance of a civilization
generally doesn’t take the form of a chaotic war of all against all. In a situation of extreme
catastrophe, that hostile discourse only serves to justify the priority given to
the defense of property against looting, by the police, the army or, for lack of
anything better, byvigilante militias formed for the occasion. It can also serve
to cover misappropriations by the authorities themselves, like those of the Italian
Civil Protection Department after the Aquila earthquake. On the contrary, the decomposition of
this world, taken on as such, creates openings for other ways of living, including in the middle of
an “emergency situation.” Consider the inhabitants of Mexico City in 1985, who, among the
ruins of their neighborhoods struck by a deadly quake, reinvented the revolutionary carnival and
the figure of the superhero serving the people—in the form of a legendary wrestler, Super Barrio.
In the euphoria of regaining control of their urban existence, they conflated the collapse of
buildings with a breakdown of the political system, releasing the life of the city from the grip of
government as much as possible and starting to rebuild their destroyed dwellings. An
enthusiastic resident of Halifax said something similar when he declared after the hurricane of
2003: “Everybody woke up the next morning and everything was different. There was no
electricity, all the stores were closed, no one had access to media. The consequence was that
everyone poured out into the street to bear witness. Not quite a street party, but everyone out at
once—it was a happy feeling to see everybody even though we didn’t know each other.” The
same as with those miniature communities formed spontaneously in New Orleans in the days
after Katrina, faced with the contempt of the public authorities and the paranoia of the security
agencies, communities that organized daily to feed and clothe themselves and attend to each
other’s needs, even if this required looting a store or two.

Thus the CP text: Debaters ought to engage in a game of imaginary ruins—a

critique of the capitalist world around us by imagining its implosion. Intrinsic
to imagination is unproductivity, a refusal to engage in a world that is defined
unrelentless consumption; instead, imagining a post-capitalist future through
fomenting hatred into new potential subjectivities. It’s conditional
Cunningham 15:
There’s a game that can be played when walking through the city. Any zone of the contemporary
capitalist metropolis will do but it’s best played in one of the centres of accumulation, say
London, than one of the less developed sectors. This rule is not absolute since decaying post-
industrial cities also have their attractions. The game involves an imaginary testing of
the city’s buildings and neighbourhoods for their worthiness for destruction.
This testing asks the question whether or not these office blocks, shops,
apartment blocks, and other excrescent forms of the built environment
deserve to exist in some imaginary post-capitalist future. And needless to say,
whether the forms of life and social relations the contemporary metropolis helps to engender are
not also worthy of a similar negation. It’s a game that can be played singularly or in groups, and
does not so much open up the metropolis as reduce it to a series of potentially empty spaces.
Most of the time this game is disturbingly easy, with the city throwing up future ruins at every
street corner. That squat, concrete block of a police station needs to be reduced to rubble if only
for the misery encrusted in its walls. The many-storied, uninhabitable financial office block
deserves ruination despite the odd attraction of its well-tended atrium as a place of rest. Other
husks of brick, glass, concrete, and dead labour are much less straightforward. A shopping mall,
enlightened glass arcade of circulating bodies and commodities, might also serve other purposes,
glass surfaces and transparencies being capable of reflecting more than the relations of exchange.
The utopian potential of glass architecture, the revolutionary virtues of transparency and
openness, might be realised in the midst of a wider negation of capitalism. Utopian and
revolutionary thinkers such as Charles Fourier and Walter Benjamin thought that such
architecture promised a break with the opacity and interior poverty of private life. Perhaps, the
game suggests, this break could be made actual if the glass cages of the present were put to use
by new collectivities and subjects. It’s a shame that this game is little more than a way of
critically passing the time walking through the shadows cast upon us by the metropolis, its
structures, and apparatuses. Walking around transcribing the potentially empty spaces of the
metropolis, enjoyable as it is, also traces the lack of agency that might make such a negation real.
And such a lack ironically makes negation more necessary than ever. Negation and negativity as
such, that inchoate combination of affects and passions such as boredom, hatred, depression, is
more like a knot pulled ever tighter by this seeming lack of anti-capitalist negation in the present.
Despite the rigours of a long drawn out socio-economic and environmental crisis, the actuality of
the negation of capitalism seems as far away as ever. However, even if critique must operate in
this suspended space it can still register the subjective and political brokenness that accumulates
through the exertions of capitalist value production. The activity of the communist critic can
hopefully be negative enough to find some purchase upon the contradictions
of capitalism that might be valid tender in the marketplaces of negation. The
stalling of negation might in itself provide the possibility of rethinking it
John Cunningham, 2015 "Negation At A Standstill" published in "Bad Feelings" a collection
produced by Arts Against Cuts and published by Book Works as part of Common Objectives
 Case
Spikes Must Be Shells
Interp: All theoretical interpretations in the AC with potential ballot implications must be read
in the form of a preemptive shell with a labeled interpretation, potential violations, reasons to
prefer the interpretation, links to explicitly stated voters, punitive implications, and
paradigmatic stances on competing interps vs reasonability.
The standard is strat skew.
A. No risk theory- if I drop a spike because I don’t think I link, the 1AR can make no-risk
violations, and any risk of me violating becomes a voter, so I’m always way behind on the
theory debate. My interp solves because first, you have to explain potential violations, and
second you have to clarify drop the arg or the debater. This kills clash and education because
you can hide arguments and explode them into enormous issues in the 1AR, crowding out
substantive education and avoiding the arguments I respond to.
B. Prewriting the shell ensures I know what the implications of the spike are- it’s much harder
to answer all the implicit assumptions without a shell, and you can’t weigh against warrants
that aren’t explicitly stated- this outweighs substantive skew because (1) the spike can be
deployed to directly implicate the ballot (2) the aff gets infinite theory ground I can’t weigh
against because there’s no warrants to compare and (3) failing to respond to a spike in the NC is
a game-over issue because the 1AR gets to claim 100% of what was stated. This also precludes
my ability to answer the spikes- evaluate this shell first because it determines whether I was
actually able to engage the spikes which is huge mitigation and determines whether the judge is
allowed to evaluate the spikes.
C. Without specifying paradigm issues, the aff is way ahead on theory because (1) I can’t attach
an RVI because you don’t specify drop the arg or drop the debater but the 1AR can always get
access to that layer which is totally unreciprocal and (2) skews time allocation on the spikes in
the AC, since I decide whether to answer a spike based on whether it has implications for the
ballot (3) responses vary based on how theory is evaluated- through competing interps or
reasonability. Strat skew kills fairness because you can only win a round based on strategy, and
this link outweighs because theory operates on the highest layer so the 1AR can use the spikes
strategically to constrain my options.
D. No strategy loss to the aff- you can always read theory in the 1AR if I’m actually abusive, or
invest time into establishing good interps in the aff- this is better for you because judges often
gut check against spikes and you get to make better warrants for your arguments. The aff also
has to justify why this strat is good- even if the AC needs to take some theoretical stances you
can add these extra components.
Voter for fairness because fairness is constitutive of any competitive activity, it prevents the
judge from evaluating the better debater, and it determines my ability to engage so it precludes
other impacts
Drop the debater: (1) I had to irreversibly alter my strat to run theory and (2) it deters future
abuse- drop the arg encourages debaters to run abusive arguments and kick them if they’re
called out (3) the ballot says vote for the better debater so if I debate better on the highest
layer of the flow vote for me.
No RVIs on theory. (1) RVIs are illogical because they turn defense into offense without a
legitimate reason to vote and (2) RVIs cause a chilling effect that discourages legitimate theory
and (3) RVIs encourage the aff to run sketchy positions to prep out theory- the standards are
DAs to the RVI and (4) RVIs kill education because the 1AR just collapses to theory.
Prefer competing interpretations over reasonability: (1) Reasonability is in a double bind- either
we accept an arbitrary brightline for reasonability, which invites judge intervention, or we
debate over what the brightline is, which devolves into competing interpretations. (2)
Competing interps forces debaters to defend their interpretation which helps us set better
norms for debate

Framing- we outweigh prefer all defintions and 6 point justifcations

States is defined as “ a soverign or territory.”

I prove false look at defintions in 4th off

Infinite truth arg- the universe can also be universley false there is no justification

Curry;s paradox is unwarranted and just logically incorrect