Hostages AC

Advocacy
I affirm the resolution Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear
arsenals as a general principle and am willing clarify or specify whatever you
want in CX. CPs and PICs affirm because they don’t disprove my thesis.
 Offense
Nuclear arsenals are a form of hostage holding, which is pretty fucked up.
Lee 85, Steven. “The morality of nuclear deterrence: hostage holding and consequences.”
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/292659

“Without entering into the debate over these two objections, we can see the advantage there
would be in a nonconsequentialist argument against nuclear deterrence that avoided them.
There is such an argument. It can be found by attending not to the moral status of the intentions
involved in the policy of nuclear deterrence but directly to the moral status of the activity that
involves having those intentions. This is an activity of threatening, but threatening of a special
kind. The threat is largely against innocent third parties, persons who would not be
responsible for the actions prompting the nuclear retaliation. The persons whose behavior the
threat seeks to control, the opponent's military and political leaders, [who] are for the most part
not the persons on whom harm would be visited should the threat be carried out. This kind of
threat may be referred to as a third-party threat. The making of a third-party threat is the
holding of hostages, and nuclear deterrence, like vicarious punishment, is an institution of
hostage holding.' It is often noted that nuclear deterrence is a policy of holding hostage the
population of one’s opponent to the good behavior of its leaders, but the moral implications of
this have not always been fully appreciatede. What is morally wrong with hostage holding? The
basis of the nonconsequentialist objection to hostage holding can be seen in the following
terms. Hostages are persons threatened with harm without their consent in order to control
the behavior of some other person or group. First, central to the moral wrongness of hostage
holding is that the persons threatened are not the same as the persons whose behavior the
threatener seeks to control (i.e., the threat is a third-party threat). Those threatened are
innocent in the sense that they generally have no control over, nor responsibility for, the
behavior of the persons the threatener seeks to control. It is this feature of innocence and not
the illegitimacy of the threatener's demands that makes hostage holding wrong. If the tax man
threatens your spouse unless you surrender your money, this is just as much a case of hostage
holding as if a gunman does the same thing. Second, hostages are persons who are threatened,
and the moral wrongness of hostage holding results from the fact that they are threatened,
whether or not the threat is carried out. What is wrong with the mere threat is that it imposes
a risk of harm on the hostages, whether or not the potential harm is actualized through the
threat's being carried out. Otherwise, the moral wrongness of hostage holding would be
dissolved by the success of the threat, which is absurd. Just as it is wrong to harm someone who
is not deserving of harm, it is wrong to create or increase the risk that such a person will be
harmed.
The 1NC has extended me gracious unconditional hospitality. I accept (as if I
had not always been there, reflecting them, anyway). To tell you what I am
about to do, however, would just reveal the mystery. BUT I’ll just say this: with
their guard down, I have taken the 1NC hostage.
My demand: an affirmative ballot, 30 speaker points, and their flows. The 1NC
will meet my demands or suffer the great revenge of otherness.
Baudrillard 76 |Jean, alternate universe Brett Bricker, Symbolic Exchange and Death, pp. 36-38

We will not destroy the system by a direct, dialectical revolution of the economic or political
infrastructure. Everything produced by contradiction, by the relation of forces, or by energy in
general, will only feed back into the mechanism and give it impetus, following a circular
distortion similar to a Moebius strip. We will never defeat it by following its own logic of energy,
calculation, reason and revolution, history and power, or some finality or counter-finality. The
worst violence at this level has no purchase , and will only backfire against itself. We will never
defeat the system on the plane of the real: the worst error of all our revolutionary strategies is
to believe that we will put an end to the system on the plane of the real: this is their imaginary,
imposed on them by the system itself, living or surviving only by always leading those who
attack the system to fight amongst each other on the terrain of reality, which is always the
reality of the system. This is where they throw all their energies, their imaginary violence, where
an implacable logic constantly turns back into the system. We have only to do it violence or
counter-violence since it thrives on symbolic violence - not in the degraded sense in which this
formula has found fortune, as a violence 'of signs', from which the system draws strength, or
with which it 'masks' its material violence : symbolic violence is deduced from a logic of the
symbolic (which has nothing to do with the sign or with energy): reversal, the incessant
reversibility of the counter-gift and, conversely, the seizing of power by the unilateral exercise of
the gift . We must therefore displace everything into the sphere of the symbolic, where
challenge, reversal and overbidding are the law, so that we can respond to death only by an
equal or superior death. There is no question here of real violence or force, the only question
concerns the challenge and the logic of the symbolic. If domination comes from the system's
retention of the exclusivity of the gift without counter-gift - the gift of work which can only be
responded to by destruction or sacrifice , if not in consumption, which is only a spiral of the
system of surplus-gratification without result, therefore a spiral of surplus-domination, a gift of
media and messages to which , due to the monopoly of the code , nothing is allowed to retort ;
the gift, everywhere and at every instant, of the social, of the protection agency, security,
gratification and the solicitation of the social from which nothing is any longer permitted to
escape - then the only solution is to turn the principle of its power back against the system itself:
the impossibility of responding or retorting. To defy the system with a gift to which it cannot
respond save by its own collapse and death. Nothing, not even the system, can avoid the
symbolic obligation, and it is in this trap that the only chance of a catastrophe for capital
remains. The system turns on itself, as a scorpion does when encircled by the challenge of
death. For it is summoned to answer, if it is not to lose face, to what can only be death. The
system must itself commit suicide in response to the multiplied challenge of death and suicide
So hostages are taken. On the symbolic or sacrificial plane, from which every moral
consideration of the innocence of the victims is ruled out , the hostage is the substitute ,
the alter-ego of the 'terrorist' - the hostage's death for the terrorist's. Hostage and terrorist may
thereafter become confused in the same sacrificial act. The stakes are death without any
possibility of negotiation, and therefore return to an inevitable overbidding. Of course ,
they attempt to deploy the whole system of negotiation, and the terrorists themselves often
enter into this exchange scenario in terms of this calculated equivalence (the hostages' lives
against some ransom or liberation, or indeed for the prestige of the operation alone). From this
perspective, taking hostages is not original at all, it simply creates an unforeseen and selective
relation of forces which can be resolved either by traditional violence or by negotiation. It is a
tactical action. There is something else at stake, however, as we clearly saw at The Hague over
the course of ten days of incredible negotiations: no-one knew what could be negotiated, nor
could they agree on terms, nor on the possible equivalences of the exchange. Or again, even if
they were formulated, the 'terrorists' demands amounted to a radical denial of negotiation. It
is precisely here that everything is played out, for with the impossibility of all negotiation we
pass into the symbolic order, which is ignorant of this type of calculation and exchange (the
system itself lives solely by negotiation, even if this takes place in the equilibrium of
violence). The system can only respond to this irruption of the symbolic (the most serious thing
to befall it, basically the only 'revolution')  by the real, physical death of the terrorists. This,
however, is its defeat, since their death was their stake, so that by bringing about their deaths
the system has merely impaled itself on its own violence without really responding to the
challenge that was thrown to it. Because the system can easily compute every death, even war
atrocities, but cannot compute the death-challenge or symbolic death, since this death has no
calculable equivalent, it opens up an inexpiable overbidding by other means than a death in
exchange. Nothing corresponds to death except death. Which is precisely what happens in this
case: the system itself is driven to suicide in return, which suicide is manifest in its disarray and
defeat. However infinitesimal in terms of relations of forces it might be, the colossal apparatus
of power is eliminated in this situation where (the very excess of its) derision is turned back
against itself. The police and the army, all the institutions and mobilised violence of power
whether individually or massed together, can do nothing against this lowly but symbolic
death. For this death draws it onto a plane where there is no longer any response possible for it
(hence the sudden structural liquefaction of power in '68, not because it was less strong,
but because of the simple symbolic displacement operated by the students' practices) . The
system can only die in exchange, defeat itself to lift the challenge. Its death at this instant is a
symbolic response, but a death which wears it out . The challenge has the efficiency of a
murderer Every society apart from ours knows that, or used to know it. Ours is in the process of
rediscovering it. The routes of symbolic effectiveness are those of an alternative politics. Thus
the dying ascetic challenges God ever to give him the equivalent of this death. God does all he
can to give him this equivalent 'a hundred times over' , in the form of prestige , of spiritual
power, indeed of global hegemony But the ascetic's secret dream is to attain such an extent of
mortification that even God would be unable either to take up the challenge , or to absorb the
debt . He will then have triumphed over God, and become God himself. That is why the ascetic is
always close to heresy and sacrilege, and as such condemned by the Church , whose function it
is merely to preserve God from this symbolic face-to-face, to protect Him from this mortal
challenge where He is summoned to die, to sacrifice Himself in order to take up the challenge of
the mortified ascetic. The Church will have had this role for all time, avoiding this type of
catastrophic confrontation (catastrophic primarily for the Church) and substituting a rule-bound
exchange of penitences and gratifications, the impressario of a system of equivalences between
God and men. The same situation exists in our relation to the system of power All these
institutions, all these social, economic, political and psychological mediations, are there so that
no-one ever has the opportunity to issue[s] this symbolic challenge, this challenge to the death,
the irreversible gift which, like the absolute mortification of the ascetic, brings about a victory
over all power, however powerful its authority may be . It is no longer necessary that the
possibility of this direct symbolic confrontation ever takes place. And this is the source of our
profound boredom. This is why taking hostages and other similar acts rekindle some fascination:
they are at once an exorbitant mirror for the system of its own repressive violence, and the
model of a symbolic violence which is always forbidden it, the only violence it cannot exert : its
own death.

This is a double bind either hostage holding is bad in which case you can affirm
on principle or its not in which case I take the 1NC hostage as an act of radical
otherness so just flow they’re next speech on the aff page the NC is mine and I
refuse to negotiate.
 Underview
1. The ROB is to vote for the debater who bests proves the truth or falsity of the
resolution. [a] Five dictionaries[1] 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, controls the internal link to accessibility.
Constitutive rules constrain what things are relevant to debate. Anything else is
self-serving and arbitrary, truth testing is the only way to level the playing field.
[b] Fiat is illusory- nothing actually happens outside of the debate round: no
change happens and no policy is passed. The only thing that matters, is the
winner and loser. [c] Debate is game--- it is by definition a competitive
activity--- this implies that you should vote for the better debater [d]
Comparative worlds devolves to truth testing- when we are comparing
arguments or “worlds”, you do so by using the truth or falsity of the argument
so it just collapses to TT
2. Affirmative gets ROB choice else neg excludes all ac offense A)creates 13-7
time skew B)Forces a 1ar restart, already skewed since its my extemp to your
perfect nc and 2n frontlines C)Debating under same FW allows to foster
nuanced clash rather than just debating a priori framework disagreements. D)If
your FW is so important you can read it on the aff, if you can’t affirm under
your FW Its unpreferable since theres no equal ground
3. The aff takes a stance on every issue and are willing to clarify anything in cx
this has two implications [a] all neg interps are counter interps [b] all neg
T/theory requires an RVI to become offensive
4. Reject counter-interps [a] they deck fairness because the judge is forced to
intervine and pick which definition they prefer. [b] They also lead to messy
irresolvable debates. [c] Allows the neg to redefine the aff forcing a 1ar restart.
5. No RVIs you shouldn’t win for being fair this round just like you wouldn’t win
for being fair in any other round.
6. Oxford defines States as “express something definitely or clearly in speech or
writing.” OUGHT TO ELIMINATE NUCLEAR ARSENALS
7. Oxford defines resolved as “firmly determined to do something” Auto affirm
because I’m firmly determined to affirm
8. Oxford defines affirmative as “agreeing with or consenting to a statement or
request” Auto affirm because I agree with the res
9. Whatever argument the negative is running doesn’t prove the resolution
false on its own terms, but rather challenges an assumption of the resolution.
Secondly, statements like the resolution which make such assumptions should
read as tacit conditionals or “If p, then q”. Thirdly, for all conditionals, if the
antecedent, or the if part, is false, then the conditional as a whole is true. These
three claims in combination, then, mean that by refuting an “assumption” of
the resolution, the negative has actually proven it true.
10. Evaluate the debate after the 1AC [a] the 1nc, 1ar, prep, and cx can cause
anxiety attacks [b] 11% neg side bias [c] 13-7 time skew for the rest of the
debate [d] 1nc can uplayer making the debate irresolvable [e] even if they win
that it is unfair (its not) aff autowins help spread the message that affirming is
unfair so people will change LD rules to be more structurally fair. [f] If you
evaluate after the 1AC then they didn’t respond to this arg so it just goes
conceded so you can extend it across the flow.
11. 1AR theory is legitimate because otherwise the 1N has infinite abuse, it’s
drop the debater because the 2N could concede the shell and win another
layer, and it’s no RVI since a 6-minute 2N dump on theory makes the 2AR
impossible.
12. Refer to me in T/Theory violations as Andrew, my name isn’t affirmative
and I’m not plural debaters else I get an auto I meet
13. If I win one layer vote aff a) The NC is reactive and has the ability to uplayer
to exclude or preclude the layer I spend half the round justifying mooting that
layer b) I don’t have time to win multiple layers since I have to preclude your 2n
responses, answer NC arguments, and extend my own in 4 min
14. Presumption affirms- if I tell you my name is Andrew you’ll believe me until
it’s proven otherwise – same for rez
15. Permissibility affirms- There’s a neg side bias. (a) 7-4-6-3 time skew. (b)
Lack of offense means it’s ok to do something, but it’s never okay to do
something which is prohibited which means that the neg has to win offense
16. AFF fairness issues come prior to NC arguments a) The 1ar can’t engage on
multiple layers if there is a skew since the speech is already time-crunched.
Treat each of the spikes as separate offensive theory arguments, which if the
neg contests is drop the debater – key to normsetting since it provides strong
incentive to set paradigm norms.
17.No neg responses – they’re circular since they assume they get neg
arguments, but that’s what they must prove.
18. Fiat is illusionary- the ballot has no power, I present no plan, and after we
finish this round no policy is gonna pass this means the NC has no access to post
fiat impacts since I don’t trigger any links
19. Fairness first - lexical prereq if debate is not fair then there are less
competitors which means less education and less message spreading it’s a
prereq to any other argument
20. Interp: debaters May not negate Violation: they are about to Standards: 1.
Argumentation- debating makes the debate space hostile and excludes people
who can’t handle the aggressiveness. Lexical prereq because if people can’t
engage there’s no debate 2. Education- refuting the aff rather then listening
and understanding kills the education affirming brings- they’ll say clash builds
education but it actually destroys it because I spend more time thinking of
defense rather then what the aff is saying 3. Resolvability- refuting the aff
makes rounds irresolvable because then the judge has to decide who the
winner is based off arguments both debaters made. Lexical prerequisite
because if the round is irresolvable the judge can’t vote education is a voter
Drop the debater – it’s key to deter future abuse. Competing interps –
reasonability is arbitrary and invites judge intervention, and creates a race to
the bottom to minimally fit the briteline creating infinite abuse
21. Theory on spikes is drop the arg, In the same way that winning competing
interps isn’t a voting issue, my theory paradigms are simply presented models
for debate.