Shrek K

1nc
Right now the negative are the all-stars
Smashmouth ’99 http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/smashmouth/allstar.html

Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me I ain't the sharpest tool in the
shed She was looking kind of dumb, with her finger and her thumb In the shape of
an 'L' on her forehead¶ Well, the years start coming and they don't stop coming Fed to the
rules and I hit the ground running Didn't make sense, not to live for fun Your brain gets smart
but your head gets dumb¶ So much to do, so much to see So what's wrong with taking the back
streets You'll never know if you don't go You'll never shine if you don't glow ¶ Hey
now, you're an All Star, get your game on, go play Hey now, you're a Rock Star, get
the show on, get paid And all that glitters is gold Only shooting stars break the
mold¶ It's a cool place and they say it gets colder You're bundled up, now wait 'til you get older But the meteor men beg to differ Judging by the hole in the satellite picture ¶ The ice we skate is getting
pretty thin The waters getting warm, so you might as well swim My world's on fire how about yours That's the way I like it and I never get bored ¶ Hey now, you're an All Star, get your game on, go play Hey now,
you're a Rock Star, get the show on, get paid All that glitters is gold Only shooting stars break the mold ¶ Go for the moon Go for the moon Go for the moon Go for the moon ¶ Hey now, you're an All Star, get your
game on, go play Hey now, you're a Rock Star, get the show on, get paid And all that glitters is gold Only shooting stars ¶ Somebody once asked, could I spare some change for gas I need to get myself away from
this place I said, Yep, what a concept I could use a little fuel myself And we could all use a little change ¶ Well, the years start coming and they don't stop coming Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running Didn't
make sense not to live for fun Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb ¶ So much to do, so much to see So what's wrong with taking the back streets You'll never know if you don't go You'll never shine if you

Hey now, you're an All Star, get your game on, go play Hey now, you're a Rock
don't glow¶

Star, get the show on, get paid And all that glitters is gold Only shooting stars break
the mold¶ And all that glitters is gold Only shooting stars break the mold

Shrek is love, Shrek is life

Jesus Christ ’15 http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=shrek+is+love+shrek+is+life

Pray to Shrek every night before bed, thanking him for the life you've been given

And you will find out

It's never ogre.

<Link and Internal Link’s for China goes here>

If we don’t praise Shrek we defy God
Roberts ’10 http://www.thehighcalling.org/reflection/why-should-we-obey-god#.VPeXX_nF-So

Why should we obey God? There are many answers to this question—many that are right, many that are wrong. Among the most commonly held,
but incorrect, answers would be the following: We should obey God in order to earn salvation . We should obey God because

otherwise he'll make our lives miserable. We should obey God because that
guarantees a painless life.¶ Right reasons for obeying God are many, including: We should obey God because it's the right thing to
do. We should obey God because obedience leads to a fulfilling life. We should obey God because Jesus taught us to do so. One could easily come up
with dozens more answers by a careful study of Scripture.¶ Leviticus 22 provides a reason for obeying God that we might easily overlook. The whole
chapter spells out a variety of laws pertaining to the offering and eating of sacrifices. Verse 31 summarizes: "You must faithfully keep all my commands
by putting them into practice, for I am the LORD." Obedience is a response to God's very nature as embodied in his holy name. Verse 33 adds, "It was I
who rescued you from the land of Egypt, that I might be your God. I am the LORD."¶ At first this might seem like an odd way to sum up a chapter on
obedience. But, in fact, the last verse of Leviticus 22 provides a powerful rationale for obedience. The Israelites are to obey the Lord in response to his
gracious salvation. Their obedience isn't meant to earn God's favor, but rather to respond to this favor already given. God's own name, the LORD,
embodies his grace and mercy (see Exod. 34:6-7). Thus, to honor God's name is to live in response to his grace by obeying his commands.¶ As
Christians, our call to obedience is in many ways similar to that of Leviticus 22. Romans 12:1-2 reveals that though we do not offer literal sacrifices, we
are to offer our whole lives as living sacrifices to God. We do so because of God's mercy given in Jesus Christ. Thus, we should obey God out of love for
God and gratitude for all that he has done for us.¶ QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER REFLECTION: If you were to be asked the question "Why obey God?"
what answer(s) would you give? In what ways does obedience benefit God? In what ways does it benefit us?¶ PRAYER: Merciful God, today I begin by
thanking you for your amazing grace, for coming in Christ to save the world, including me. Thank you, Lord, for the way your grace has filled, shaped,
and guided my life. Thank you for the privilege of living in your grace each day.¶ May I seek to obey you in all that I do, Lord, not in order to earn your
favor, but so that I might respond appropriately to your favor already given to me. As I receive your mercies, which are new every morning, may they
motivate me to offer myself to you, all that I am, all that I do. May my obedience to you be an act of thanksgiving, a demonstration of my love for you.¶

All praise be to you, O God, because you have rescued me from sin and death and because your grace fills my life each day. Amen. It’s
all ogre now.
 Optional Narrative
I was only 9 years old I loved shrek so much, I had all the merchandise and movies
I pray to shrek every night before bed thanking him for the life I've been given.
Shrek is love I say, Shrek is life
My dad overhears me and calls me a faggot
I knew he was just jealous of my devotion for Shrek
I called him a cunt
He slaps me and sends me to go to sleep
Im crying now, and my face hurts
I lay in bed and its really cold
A warmth is moving towards me.
I feel something touch me
Its shrek
I am so happy
He whispers in to ear "this is my swamp”
He grabs me with his powerful ogre hands and puts me on my hands and knees
I'm ready
I spread my ass cheeks for Shrek
He penetrates my butthole
It hurts so much but I do it for Shrek
I can feel my butt tearing as my eyes start to water
I push against his force
I want to please Shrek
He roars a mighty roar as he fills my butt with his love
My dad walks in
Shrek looks him straight in the eye and says "Its all ogre now"
Shrek leaves through my window
Shrek is love, Shrek is life
4chan 13. Troll.
 2NC
2NC Overview:
Our Shrek K is satirical, painting a picture of the harmful nature of the current
debate space. We defend the fact that the actual debate space is harmful, thus you
must vote for the alt:

Alt: Vote neg as a criticism of the aff’s role playing: we aren’t actually
policymakers- they aren’t real world and destroy education by creating role
confusion—there’s no benefit to policy if we can’t put it into effect.
Kappeler, 95 (Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)
`We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society - which
would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of
`collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal
responsibility becomes the equivalent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and
differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken at particular levels of
power by those in a position to make them and to command such collective action. We need to hold them clearly responsible for
our habit of focusing
their decisions and actions without lessening theirs by any collective `assumption' of responsibility. Yet
on the stage where the major dramas of power take place tends to obscure our sight in relation
to our own sphere of competence, our own power and our own responsibility - leading to the
well-known illusion of our apparent `powerlessness’ and its accompanying phenomenon, our so-called
political disillusionment. Single citizens - even more so those of other nations - have come to feel secure in
their obvious non-responsibility for such large-scale political events as, say, the wars in Croatia and Bosnia-
Hercegovina or Somalia - since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere. Yet our insight that indeed we are not
responsible for the decisions of a Serbian general or a Croatian president tends to mislead us into thinking that therefore we have no
responsibility at all, not even for forming our own judgement, and thus into underrating the responsibility we do have within our
own sphere of action. In particular, it
seems to absolve us from having to try to see any relation between
our own actions and those events, or to recognize the connections between those political decisions and our own
personal decisions. It not only shows that we participate in what Beck calls `organized irresponsibility', upholding the apparent lack
of connection between bureaucratically, institutionally, nationally and also individually organized separate competences. It also
proves the phenomenal and unquestioned alliance of our personal thinking with the thinking of the major powermongers: For we
tend to think that we cannot `do' anything, say, about a war, because we deem ourselves to be in the wrong situation; because we are
not where the major decisions are made. Which is why many of those not yet entirely disillusioned with
politics tend to engage in a form of mental deputy politics, in the style of `What would I do if I
were the general, the prime minister, the president, the foreign minister or the minister of defence?' Since we seem to
regard their mega spheres of action as the only worthwhile and truly effective ones, and since our political
analyses tend to dwell there first of all, any question of what I would do if I were indeed myself tends to
peter out in the comparative insignificance of having what is perceived as `virtually no
possibilities': what I could do seems petty and futile. For my own action I obviously desire the range of action of a
general, a prime minister, or a General Secretary of the UN - finding expression in ever more prevalent formulations like `I want to
stop this war', `I want military intervention', `I want to stop this backlash', or `I want a moral revolution." 'We are this war',
however, even if we do not command the troops or participate in so-called peace talks, namely as Drakulic says, in our `non-
comprehension’: our willed refusal to feel responsible for our own thinking and for working out our own understanding, preferring
innocently to drift along the ideological current of prefabricated arguments or less than innocently taking advantage of the
advantages these offer. And we `are' the war in our `unconscious cruelty towards you', our tolerance of the `fact that you have a
yellow form for refugees and I don't' - our readiness, in other words, to build identities, one for ourselves and one for refugees, one of
our own and one for the `others'. We
share in the responsibility for this war and its violence in the way we let
we shape `our feelings, our relationships, our values' according to
them grow inside us, that is, in the way
the structures and the values of war and violence .
Our Violent representations matter, and are the root cause of war and violence.
Kappeler 95
(Susanne, 1995, lecturer in English at the University of East Anglia and an Associate Professor at the
School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Al Akhawayn University,[2] and now works as a freelance writer
and teacher in England and Germany. Kappeler also taught 'The literary representation of women' in the
Faculty of English at Cambridge while a research fellow at Jesus College, Cambridge[3] and was a part-
time tutor for the Open University Course, “A History of Violence,” pg 8-9)
Violence — what we usually recognize as such — It is no misbehaviour of a minority amid good
behaviour by the majority, nor the deeds of inhuman monsters amid humane humans, in a society in
which there is no equality, in which people divide others according to race, class, sex
and many other factors in order to rule, exploit, use, objectify, enslave, sell, torture and
kill them, in which millions of animals are tortured, genetically manipulated, enslaved
and slaughtered daily for 'harmless' consumption by humans. It is no error of judgement, no
moral lapse and no transgression against the customs of a culture which is thoroughly steeped in the
values of profit and desire, of self-realization, expansion and progress. Violence as we usually perceive
it is 'simply' a specific —and to us still visible — form of violence, the consistent and logical application
of the principles of our culture and everyday life. War does not suddenly break out in a peaceful
society; sexual violence is not the disturbance of otherwise equal gender relations.
Racist attacks do not shoot like lightning out of a non-racist sky, and the sexual
exploitation of children is no solitary problem in a world otherwise just to children. The
violence of our most commonsense everyday thinking, and especially our personal will
to violence, constitute the conceptual preparation, the ideological armament and the
intellectual mobilization which make the 'outbreak' of war, of sexual violence, of racist
attacks, of murder and destruction possible at all.`We are the war', writes Slavenka Drakulic
at the end of her existential analysis of the question, 'what is war?': I do not know what war is, I want
to tell [my friend], but I see it everywhere. It is in the blood-soaked street in Sarajevo, after 20 people
have been killed while they queued for bread. But it is also in your non-comprehension, in my
unconscious cruelty towards you, in the fact that you have a yellow form [for refugees] and I don't, in
the way in which it grows inside ourselves and changes our feelings, relationships, values — in short:
us. We are the war ... And I am afraid that we cannot hold anyone else responsible. We make this war
possible, we permit it to happens 'We are the war' — and we also 'are' the sexual violence, the
racist violence, the exploitation and the will to violence in all its manifestations in a
society in so-called 'peacetime', for we make them possible and we permit them to
happen.

Their world of debate is bad- it causes disinterested argumentation and reinforces

oppression.
Spanos 04 (William Spanos, 2004, Distinguished Professor of English and comparative literature at Binghamton University
and kind of an asshole, “Spanos on debate,” http://the3nr.com/2010/01/17/spanos-on-debate/)//RTF

Dear Joe MIller, Yes, the statement about the American debate circuit you refer to was made by me, though some years ago. I
strongly believed then –and still do, even though a certain uneasiness about “objectivity” has crept into the “philosophy of debate” —
that debate in both the high schools and colleges in this country is assumed to take place
nowhere, even though the issues that are debated are profoundly historical, which means that
positions are always represented from the perspective of power, and a matter of life and death. I
find it grotesque that in the debate world, it doesn’t matter which position you take on an issue — say,
the United States’ unilateral wars of preemption — as long as you “score points”. The world we live in
is a world entirely dominated by an “exceptionalist” America which has perennially claimed that it has been
chosen by God or History to fulfill his/its “errand in the wilderness.” That claim is powerful because American
economic and military power lies behind it. And any alternative position in such a world is
virtually powerless. Given this inexorable historical reality, to assume, as the protocols of debate
do, that all positions are equal is to efface the imbalances of power that are the fundamental
condition of history and to annul the Moral authority inhering in the position of the oppressed .
This is why I have said that the appropriation of my interested work on education and empire to this transcendental debate world
constitute a travesty of my intentions. My scholarship is not “disinterested.” It is militant and intended to ameliorate as much as
possible the pain and suffering of those who have been oppressed by the “democratic” institutions that have power precisely by way
of showing that their language if “truth,” far from being “disinterested” or “objective” as it is always claimed, is informed by the will
to power over all manner of “others.” This is also why I
told my interlocutor that he and those in the debate
world who felt like him should call into question the traditional “objective” debate protocols and
the instrumentalist language they privilege in favor of a concept of debate and of language in
which life and death mattered. I am very much aware that the arrogant neocons who now saturate the
government the Bush administration — judges, pentagon planners, state department officials, etc. learned their
of

“disinterested” argumentative skills in the high school and college debate societies and that,
accordingly, they have become masters at disarming the just causes of the oppressed . This kind
leadership will reproduce itself (along with the invisible oppression it perpetrates) as long as the training ground and the debate
protocols from which it emerges remains in tact.
A revolution in the debate world must occur. It must force
that unworldly world down into the historical arena where positions make a difference. To invoke
the late Edward Said, only such a revolution will be capable of “deterring democracy” (in Noam Chomsky’s ironic phrase), of
instigating the secular critical consciousness that is, in my mind, the sine qua non for avoiding the immanent global disaster towards
which the blind arrogance of Bush Administration and his neocon policy makers is leading.

This revolution is that of SHREK, Shrek is necessary for

the debate space, becase by talking about Shrek in this
round he represents the deconstruction of the harmful
debate space.

Their complaint is with the form rather than the content of the 1AC—translating

this complaint into a rule plays into sovereign hands which turns
decisionmaking and guts education
Steele 10—Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas (Brent, Defacing Power: The Aesthetics of
Insecurity in Global Politics pg 109-111)

The rules of language and speaking can themselves serve to conceal truth in world politics. I begin here
with the work of Nicholas Onuf (1989), which has inspired constructivists to engage how “language is a rule-governed activity”
(Wilmer 2003: 221). Rules
help construct patterns and structures of language exchanges, and
“without these rules, language becomes meaningless ” (Gould 2003: 61). From the work of Onuf, we recognize
that rules do more than set appropriate boundaries for language , as the ¶ paradigm of political society is aptly
named because it links irrevocably the sine qua non of society— the availability, no, the unavoidability of rules— and of politics— the
persistence of asymmetric social relations, known otherwise as the condition of rule. (1989: 22) ¶ Rules
lead to rule— what
Onuf (1989) titles the “rule-rules coupling.” Thus, linguistic rules demarcate relations of power and serve to
perpetuate the asymmetry of social relations . The structure of language games is valued because it
provides order and continuity. But because those rules are obeyed so frequently and effortlessly,
they are hard to recognize as forms of authority. ¶ Where does the need for such continuity arise?
As mentioned in previous chapters, Giddensian sociology suggests that the drive for ontological security, for the
securing of self-identity through time, can only be satisfied by the screening out of chaotic
everyday events through routines, which are a “central element of the autonomy of the developing individual” (Giddens
1991: 40). Without routines, individuals face chaos, and what Giddens calls the “protective cocoon” of basic trust evaporates (ibid.).
Yet, as I have discussed in my other work (2005, 2008a) and as Jennifer Mitzen notes (2006: 364), rigid routines can
constrain agents in their ability to learn new information . This is what the rhythmic strata of
aesthetic power satisfies. In the context it creates for parrhesia, these routines , connected to an agent’s sense of
Self, shield that agent from the truth.4 “The shallowness of our routinized daily existence ,” Weber once
stated, “consists indeed in the fact that the persons who are caught up in it do not become aware,
and above all do not wish to become aware, of this partly psychologically, part pragmatically
conditioned motley of irreconcilably antagonistic values” (1974: 18). The need for such rhythmic
continuity spans all social organizations, including scholarly communities (thus we refer to such
communities as “disciplines”). ¶ The function of these rules creates a similar problematic faced by the
parrhesiastes who is attempting to “shock” these structured rules and habits of the targeted agent. Because the
parrhesiastes may find the linguistic rules or at least “styles” or language used by the targeted power to be part of the problem
(the notion that one must be “tactful,” for instance), she or he must perform a balancing act between two goals.
First, the parrhesiastes must challenge the conventions that serve to simplify and even conceal the
truth the parrhesiastes is speaking. Second, the parrhesiastes must observe some of these
speaking rules, part of which may themselves be responsible for or derivate toward the style of
the Self that needs to be challenged by the parrhesiastes. Favoring the first, the parrhesiastes is
prone to being ignored as irrational, as someone “on the fringe” or even unintelligible or, in the words of
Harry Gould already noted, “meaningless.” Favoring the second moves the parrhesiastes away from the
truth attempting to be told or at least obscures the truth with the language of nicety. As developed by
Epicurean philosopher Philodemus, parrhesia existed within this spectrum: at times, it bordered on
“harsh frankness” that was “not mixed with praise”; at other times, the frankness was more
subdued (Glad 1996: 41). 5 As the examples of Cynic and academic-intellectual parrhesia provided later in this chapter illustrate,
different manifestations of truth-telling as a form of counterpower occupy different spaces along this spectrum— balancing between
abiding by these conventions of decorum and style; the need to provide forceful, decloaked truth; or, in the case of Cynic parrhesia,
flauntingly contradicting the conventions altogether. ¶ The
parrhesiastes will most likely face charges of the
first order (ignoring convention) regardless of the manner in which parrhesia is delivered. If, indeed,
“the truth hurts” and if the target of such truth cannot deny the facts being delivered, the most convenient option
for the victim is to blame “the way” in which the parrhesiastes said something , knowing full well that it
was the substance of what that person said that was, for the victim, inappropriate or, more to the point, inconvenien

Satire is a key form of public pedagogy – it’s a prerequisite to meaningful debate

McClennen, 12 – Ph.D., Duke University M.A., Duke University A.B., Harvard University, cum
laude Dr. McClennen directs Penn State's Center for Global Studies as well as its Latin American
Studies program and has ties to the departments of Comparative Literature, Spanish, and
Women's Studies. She has published seven books and has three in process. Her latest single-
authored volume is Colbert's America: Satire and Democracy (2012), which studies the role of
Stephen Colbert in shaping political discourse after 9/11. (Sophia. A, “America According to
Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy post 9/11,” July 3rd,
http://societyforcriticalexchange.org/conferences/MLA%202011/Public
%20Intellectuals/America%20According%20to%20Colbert.htm)//IS
By inquiring into the ways that Colbert has functioned as a public intellectual, this paper
suggests that satire is a comedic and pedagogic form uniquely suited to provoke critical
reflection. Its ability to underscore the absurdity, ignorance, and prejudice of commonly
accepted behaviors by means of comedic critical reflection offers an especially potent form of
public critique, one that was much needed in the post 9/11 environment. This paper argues that,
in contrast to the anti-intellectualism, the sensationalism, and the punditry that tend to govern
most mass media today, Colbert’s program offers his audience the opportunity to understand
the context through which most news is reported and to be critical of it. In so doing Colbert’s
show further offers viewers an opportunity to reflect on the limited and narrow ways that
political issues tend to be framed in public debate. Colbert’s satire, then, is a form of what Henry
Giroux defines as “public pedagogy” since it demonstrates the use of media as a political and
educational force. Recognizing that the political opinions of most US citizens are shaped by an
uncritical acceptance of the issues as provided by the mainstream media, Colbert uses the same
venue to critique that process. By impersonating a right-wing pundit, Colbert differs in
significant ways from other critical comedians since his form of humor embodies that which it
critiques. This paper suggests that this form of parody has both the potential to be more incisive
in its critique and also more dangerous, since its dependence on a cult of personality could
merely mirror the same passive viewing practices common to programs like The O’Reilly Factor.
This paper also contributes to the ongoing conversation about how satire and humor post 9/11
have been able to effectively encourage critical perspectives on major social issues, thereby
providing an important source of public pedagogy. Focusing on one of the leading figures of
“satire TV,” my paper claims that Colbert’s program incorporates a series of features that foster
critical thinking and that encourage audiences to resist the status quo. By analyzing the context
within which the program emerged and the specific features of the program, this book offers
readers insight into the powerful ways that Colbert’s comedy challenges the cult of ignorance
that has threatened meaningful public debate and social dialogue since 9/11.

Satire Works---- if people don’t understand the irony at first, it’ll make an even
bigger impression on them once they get it – we can always explain the joke later
Day, 8 – Ph.D. and Assistant Professor of English and Cultural Studies at Bryant University; (Amber,
“Are They For Real? Activism and Ironic Identities,” 2008,
http://www.cios.org/www/ejc/EJCPUBLIC/018/2/01846.html)//IS

Hutcheon warns of the potential danger inherent in the use of irony in that it can easily backfire.
She explains, “those whom you oppose might attribute no irony and simply take you at your
word; or they might make irony happen and thus accuse you of being self-negating, if not self-
contradicting. Those with whom you agree (and who know your position) might also attribute
no irony and mistake you for advocating what you are in fact criticizing” (16). The Yes Men, it
seems, found themselves precisely falling prey to these traps, but have hit upon a method of
using the pitfalls to their advantage, allowing audiences to read them seriously and then
exposing them for being complicit with the offensive ideas put forward. In hindsight, the irony is
much more obvious, meaning either that those present at the live event appear morally
unscrupulous or that the media is spurred to engage in reflection about why they were taken in.
Perhaps more importantly, the revealed hoaxes speak to a growing number of fans who take
delight in witnessing organizations and corporations they are already critical of be publicly
pranked, again providing affirmation for existing discursive communities.
Framework
 Frontline
We meet because <insert why here>.
Counter Interpretation: ontology first. The plan does not happen, but your
reaction to this debate frames the way in which we structure the debate world
now, and the political world in the future. This means that only the neg can access
unique offense—try or die for the alternative.
Ontology structures all politics – ignoring is doomed to failure
Spanos 2K [William, Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Binghamtom,
America’s Shadow, 2000, p. 184-89]
It is this nonessential internationalist initiative that the New Historicism, in its tradition-
induced indifference to the global implications of the decentered (American) subject, inadvertently
blocks. Under the aegis of the New Historicism and cultural criticism in general, we encounter instead a
"postcolonial" cultural politics that has forgotten or willfully bracketed the ontological
decentering of the subject in the name of a pragmatic practice that defines itself "against
theory." It thus manifests itself as either a free-floating formalism, an indifferent localism, or, most
disablingly, an often bitter contention of essentialist subject positions the divisiveness of which, in
keeping with the logic of division and mastery endemic to the disciplinary society, leaves the
dominant culture and its imperial political institutions intact . It is to this exclusionary practice of
identity politics, if not exactly of racial or ethnic cleansing, that the post-Cold War occasion bears massive witness. It is a
politics that for all practical purposes is based on and justified by the self-present and
"sovereign" metaphysical self. It is, ironically, a politics, both domestic and global, the very
ontological ground of which enabled the historical invention of the identities of these same
emergent constituencies the better to subject, dominate, and exploit them. This, to underscore my
argument, is the metaphysically grounded ruse to which early postmodern "theory" — now discarded
as "anachronistic" by the "more practice-oriented" oppositional discourses that have superseded
it — has borne witness. In short, the oppositional discourses that prevail in the post-Cold War era
have not attained the degree of exilic — and thus spectral — consciousness that would be adequate
to the task of deterring liberal capitalist democracy.
We control UQ – debate collapsing now – recent ev
Spanos 16 [William V., distinguished professor of English and comparative literature at
Binghampton University, email to Joe Leeson-Schatz, Nov 14, 2015, delivered March 31, 2016 at
opening ceremony of the National Debate Tournament, posted publicly on College Policy
Debate]
I am deeply honored and gratified by this invitation by Joe Satz, the director of the Binghamton debate team, to address the national
debate conference at Binghamton University this year. I wish I could be here with you in person, but since that is impossible, this
indirect format will have to do, I am honored and gratified by this invitation primarily because, despite the fact that my
intellectual work has been severely critical of the protocols of debating, it has nevertheless
become increasingly a presence in the debate world. And this is evidence that the old system of
debate, which privileges disinterest inquiry, has been self -destructing ever since the Vietnam
War and, most dramatically, in the wake of the United States' inauguration of it unending global war on
terror after 9/11/01. As I told Christopher Spurlock in the controversial interview we did a few years ago, the debate world
is the major source of the American administrative and political class. I meant by this a ruling
class whose thinking, despite the antagonist labels--Republican, Democrat ; Conservative,
Liberal--is determined by a system of argument that, as in the debate world, views the agonizing
oppositions of the actual, existential, world in which we live as fundamentally equal , whereas, in
obvious fact, they are always unequal. The world implied by the essential debate protocols is, as the
protocol that allows debaters to switch sides makes clear, a worldless world, a world devoid of
the existential differences that make a difference. The debate happens nowhere. If a debater
defies this fundamental protocol in the name of this actual world, he or she is condemned as
being a subverter of the democratic community. This worldless world , where, for example, the
positions of whites and blacks, or men and women, or the world's minorities and the neoimperial
powers have equal weight is also the worldless world of the administrative political class it
largely produces. This alienation and silencing of a voice that refuses to play by the rules of the
debate system became tellingly manifest in the notorious recent case of Steven Salaita, an American of Palestinian
origins, who, after being hired by the University of Illinois, was dismissed by the university president for his
public criticism of the Israeli attack on Gaza in 2014 as a manifestation of criticism against the
Israeli government and antisemitism, a dismissal that was also approved even by a prominent
liberal Illinois professor who stated that Salieta's engaged criticism of Zionism was "uncollegial,"
that is, did not conform to the protocols of disinterested debate . The United States, particularly in the
post-9/11 era, has wreaked havoc in the world in name of its Exceptionalism , which, practically speaking,
means the disinterested inquiry it has always privileged to oppose to totalitarianism . This havoc
is especially manifested in the horrendous destabilization of the Middle East and the damaged
lives of the millions of refugees its spectacular "shock and awe" military tactics produced . The topic
of this year's national debate concerns the question of decreasing American military presence in the world. To me, this is
not a debatable issue, one that implies the equal authority of both sides of it. And that is because,
as the modern history of the planet bears incontrovertible witness, Western and, more recently, American military force
has exacerbated violence rather than reduced it in that fraught part of the world. The recent terrorist attacks in
Paris are exemplary of this. This is not to say that the US should isolate itself from the urgent problems that face the globe; it is to say, that the solution will require a radically
different orientation to them, one that abandons the arrogant Exceptionalism enabled by its democratic/ totalitarian binary and
acknowledges that it was the West's relentless imperial project in the name of its superiority that by and large produced not only the
destabilization of the planet, particularly in the Middle East, but also the fanatic terrorism that a certain segment of that ravaged world has
adopted to combat that Western domination . To put this negative positively -- and in keeping with my initial remarks about the debate
world-- the US's interest resides in taking part with the global community of peoples in behalf of transforming the friend/foe or war- to-the-end mentality it has always fostered in the name of the nation state.
I mean a community of identityless identities in which , as the late Edward Said put it, "'the complete consort dances together' contrapuntally ." Or,
in the language of the great Afro-Caribbean poet Aime Cesaire, in qhich no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force, and there is room for everyone at the rendezvous of victory.

The role of the judge is to vote for the team that best critisizes debate.
Judge vote neg, because the affirmative is hypothetical implementation of policy
“to prevent these catastrophic impacts”, only reassuring and cuasing this violence
through violent reps. However, the alternative identifies these reps, taking a step
to make our activity better.
Theoretical imagination has a bigger impact than you think – theory in university
humanities departments has manufactured the language and attitudes
determining how major political events have transpired as well as setting broader
cultural norms
Tedesco and Brennan 12 [Francescomaria, research fellow in political philosophy at the
Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna in Pisa, and Timothy, professor of English at the University of
Minnesota, “The Theory That Lives On—A Counterintuitive History: An Interview with Timothy
Brennan,” Minnesota Review, Number 78, 2012]
Although I agree with Noam Chomsky about almost everything else, I think he's wrong when he says that the
humanities are ineffectual . . . that they basically don't matter. In Wars of Position, I think I assembled some proof for
this proposition by looking, for example, at the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the
Rushdie affair, and the North American Free Trade Agreement—all of the commentary on which
was profoundly shaped by the explicit language, imagery, and attitudes manufactured in
university humanities programs. And we also tend to discount the fact that a great deal of corporate
advertising and, above all, television scriptwriting is the work of former literature grad students
who left academia and then popularized the "cultural theory" of the graduate seminar rooms in
business settings. A lot more work needs to be done on this sociological curiosity. It's difficult even to get started because one
first has to convince the audience that the humanities have concealed institutional clout and are part of a
political logic defined by a larger division of intellectual labor before one can even get to the
point of showing the [End Page 65] stakes involved in this or that position within the humanities .
Here we come to a more important issue—and certainly a much less clichéd one—namely, that the influence of the humanities by
way of "theory" has been largely negative. Briefly put, and in a variety of ways, the humanities are against the idea of
the "human" and are eager to put humans in their place by curtailing their claims to action,
thought, and feeling. In this, they provide a powerful buttressing mechanism for a number of
recent public policies. It would be easy to see my line of argument as being similar to that of others who have attacked theory
in recent decades. And let me say in passing that it is not at all the case that the era of theory is over, as many have argued; it
is vibrant and alive, as the websites of so many recent graduate student conferences show. It has,
however, moved into a more overtly political register . At any rate, here one might suppose—as in fact some
reviewers have—that if one criticizes identity politics, he or she must be a conservative like Harold Bloom (who criticizes identity
politics without following theory); or one supposes that the point is to belittle theory's arcane or pretentious ways of expressing itself
or to belittle its diversion from real, practical political work. But that is not what I am saying.

The aff’s plan is a double turn with their impact evidence – the scholarship
produced by the 1ac justifies neoconservative redeployment even if the plan’s
hypothetically a good idea. This impasse is precisely why liberal anti-war activists
fail, and they can’t access ANY of their “war conversations good” cards because
they don’t assume the shitty scholarship introduced by the aff. Put another way,
even if you generate skills, those skills suck.
Spanos 4 [(William V., prof. at Binghamton, available online cross-x.com url:
http://www.crossx.com/vb/showthread.php?t=945110&highlight=Spanos+Email, Nov. 18]
Dear Joe MIller, Yes, the statement about the American debate circuit you refer to was made by me, though some years ago. I
strongly believed then --and still do, even though a certain uneasiness about "objectivity" has crept into the "philosophy of debate" --
that debate in both the high schools and colleges in this country is assumed to take place nowhere, even though
the issues that are debated are profoundly historical, which means that positions are always
represented from the perspective of power, and a matter of life and death. I find it grotesque that in the
debate world, it doesn't matter which position you take on an issue -- say, the United States'
unilateral wars of preemption -- as long as you "score points". The world we live in is a world
entirely dominated by an "exceptionalist" America which has perennially claimed that it has been chosen by God
or History to fulfill his/its "errand in the wilderness." That claim is powerful because American economic and
military power lies behind it. And any alternative position in such a world is virtually powerless .
Given this inexorable historical reality, to assume, as the protocols of debate do, that all positions are
equal is to efface the imbalances of power that are the fundamental condition of history and to
annul the Moral authority inhering in the position of the oppressed. This is why I have said that the appropriation of my interested
work on education and empire to this transcendental debate world constitute a travesty of my intentions. My scholarship is
not "disinterested." It is militant and intended to ameliorate as much as possible the pain and
suffering of those who have been oppressed by the "democratic" institutions that have power
precisely by way of showing that their language of "truth," far from being "disinterested" or
"objective" as it is always claimed, is informed by the will to power over all manner of "others." This is also why I told my
interlocutor that he and those in the debate world who felt like him should call into question the traditional
"objective" debate protocols and the instrumentalist language they privilege in favor of a concept
of debate and of language in which life and death mattered. I am very much aware that the arrogant
neocons who now saturate the government of the Bush administration -- judges, pentagon planners, state
department officials, etc. learned their "disinterested" argumentative skills in the high school and
college debate societies and that, accordingly, they have become masters at disarming the just
causes of the oppressed. This kind leadership will reproduce itself (along with the invisible oppression it
perpetrates) as long as the training ground and the debate protocols from which it emerges remains in
tact. A revolution in the debate world must occur. It must force that unworldly world down into
the historical arena where positions make a difference. To invoke the late Edward Said, only such a
revolution will be capable of "deterring democracy" (in Noam Chomsky's ironic phrase), of instigating the secular critical
consciousness that is, in my mind, the sine qua non for avoiding the immanent global disaster towards which
the blind arrogance of Bush Administration and his neocon policy makers is leading .
That turns their cede the political arguments and makes addressing actual
oppression impossible – you should prefer criticisms that occur from exiled forms
of knowledge outside the political
Spanos 11 – distinguished professor of English and Comparative Literature at the SUNY
Binghamton
(William, “William V Spanos: An Interested Debate Inquiry”, interview with Christopher Spurlock,
http://kdebate.com/spanos.html)

WVS: The danger of being a total insider is that the eye of such a person becomes blind to alternative
possibilities. The extreme manifestation of this being at one with the system, of remaining inside
the frame, as it were, is, as Hannah Arendt, decisively demonstrated long ago, Adolph Eichmann. That's why she and Said,
among many poststructuralists, believed that to be an authentic intellectual --to see what disinterested inquiry can't see--
one has to be an exile (or a pariah) from a homeland-- one who is both apart of and apart from the dominant
culture. Unlike Socrates, for example, Hippias, Socrates' interlocutor in the dialogue "Hippias Major" (he is, for Arendt, the model
for Eichmann), is at one with himself. When he goes home at night "he remains one." He is, in other words, incapable of thinking.
When Socrates, the exilic consciousness, goes home, on the other hand, he is not alone; he is "by himself." He is two-in-one. He has
to face this other self. He has to think. Insofar as its logic is faithfully pursued, the
framework of the debate system, to
use your quite appropriate initial language, does, indeed, produce horrifically thoughtless Eichmanns, which is
to say, a political class whose thinking , whether it's called Republican or Democratic , is thoughtless in
that it is totally separated from and indifferent to the existential realities of the world it is
representing. It's no accident, in my mind, that those who govern us in America --our alleged representatives,
whether Republican, Neo-Con, or Democrat-- constitute such a "political class." This governing
class has, in large part, their origins, in a preparatoary relay consisting of the high school and college debate circuit,
political science departments, and the law profession. The moral of this story is that the debate world needs
more outsiders -- or, rather, inside outsiders -- if its ultimate purpose is to prepare young people to
change the world rather than to reproduce it.
Their interpretation masks over status quo oppression by failing to question how
debate norms and dialogue come to emerge in the first place – allow for forms of
inquiry like the alt
Spanos 11 – distinguished professor of English and Comparative Literature at the SUNY
Binghamton
(William, “William V Spanos: An Interested Debate Inquiry”, interview with Christopher Spurlock,
http://kdebate.com/spanos.html)

WVS: The reason I asked you that question is because I've always thought thatthe debate system is a rigged process, by which I mean, in your terms, it's framed
to exclude anything that the frame can't contain and domesticate. To frame also means to
"prearrange" so that a particular outcome is assured," which also means the what's outside of the frame
doesn't stand a chance : it is "framed" from the beginning. It was, above all, the great neo-Marxist Louis Althusser's analysis of the "problematic" - the perspective or frame of
reference fundamental to knowledge production in democratic-capitalist societies -- that enabled me to see what the so called distinterestness of empirical

inquiry is blind to or, more accurately willfully represses in its Panglossian pursuit of the truth. Althusser's analysis of the "problematic" is too complicated to be explained in a few words.
 we in
(Anyone interested will find his extended explanation in his introduction --"From Capital* to Marx's Philosophy" -- to his and Etienne Balibar's book *Reading Capital*. It will suffice here to say that

the modern West have been *inscribed* by our culture --"ideological state apparatuses (educational
institutions, media, and so on)-- by a system of knowledge production that goes by the name of "disinterested

inquiry," but in reality the "truth" at which it arrives is a construct, a fiction, and thus ideological . And this is
precisely because, in distancing itself from earthly being --the transience of time --this system of knowledge

production privileges the panoptic eye in the pursuit of knowledge . This is what Althusser means by the "problematic": a
frame that allows the perceiver to see only what it wants to see. Everything that is outside the
frame doesn't exist to the perceiver . He /she is blind to it. It's nothing or, at the site of humanity, it's
nobody. Put alternatively, the problematic -- this frame, as the very word itself suggests, *spatializes* or *reifies* time -- reduces what is a living,
problematic force and not a thing into a picture or thing so that it can be comprehended (taken
hold of, managed), appropriated, administered, and exploited by the disinterested inquirer . All that I've just said should suggest what I meant when, long

ago, in response to someone in the debate world who seemed puzzled by the strong reservations I expressed on being informed that the debate community in the U.S. was appropriating my work on Heidegger,

higher education, and American imperialism. I said then -- and I repeat here to you -- that the traditional form of the debate , that is, the hegemonic

frame that rigidly determines its protocols-- is unworldly in an ideological way. It willfully separates the
debaters from the world as it actually is-- by which I mean as it has been produced by the dominant democratic I
capitalist culture --and it displaces them to a free-floating zone, a no place, as it were, where all things, nor
matter how different the authority they command in the real world, are equal. But in *this* real world produced
by the combination of Protestant Christianity and democratic capitalism things -- and therefore their value --are never equal. They are framed into a

system of binaries-Identity/ difference, Civilization/barbarism I Men/woman, Whites/blacks, Sedentary/ nomadic, Occidental/ oriental, Chosen I preterit (passed over), Self-reliance I
dependent (communal), Democracy I communism, Protestant Christian I Muslim, and so on -- in which the first term is not only privileged over the

second term, but, in thus being privileged, is also empowered to demonize the second. Insofar as the debate
world frames argument as if every position has equal authority (the debater can take either side)
it obscures and eventually effaces awareness of the degrading imbalance of power in the
real world and the terrible injustices it perpetrates. Thus framed, debate gives the false impression that
it is a truly democratic institution, whereas in reality it is complicitous with the dehumanized
and dehumanizing system of power that produced it. It is no accident, in my mind, that this fraudulent form of debate goes back to the founding
of the U.S. as a capitalist republic and that it has produced what I call the "political class" to indicate not only the basic sameness between the Democratic and Republican parties but also its fundamental
indifference to the plight of those who don't count in a system where what counts is determined by those who are the heirs of this quantitative system of binaries. CS: I would love to hear more about what you
mean by the word interested. According to earlier work you had mentioned that it came from the Greek term for "in-the-midst." The relay between this "point of view" and your account of the bombing of Dresden

in your memoir In The Neighborhood of Zero seems remarkable. What lessons might we take from this? WVS: Following up on what I've just said, inquiry, whether it takes the form of knowledge
production or debate, cannot be disinterested. "Disinterested" inquiry is an orientation towards the truth
that has been exposed as a myth by the poststructuralist revolution from Martin Heidegger through Michel Foucault to Giorgio Agamben, Alain Badiou, and Judith Bulter.
Inquiry is necessarily interested precisely in the sense that it takes place in the world . The word "interest" come
from the Latin (not Greek) inter esse, which means that we, as human beings, are "beings in-the-midst " (as opposed to

beings, such as angels, who look down from a distance on or "observe" phenomena from above ). As Heidegger said,
following Kierkegaard, we, as human beings, have been "thrown into the world" and thus exist *inter esse*, "in-the-midst-of- being." We are, therefore, interested, that is, we relate to or

engage phenomena with care precisely because everything we encounter *inter esse* is transient,
uncertain, problematic, a matter of questioning, To understand human being as inter esse is thus to acknowledge that we are radically free. This is not as
easy as the word "freedom" implies under the aegis of American democracy. The freedom that comes with being-in-the-midst is a difficult, even agonizing freedom. We can't rely on

some higher cause, whether God or a framed system (such as democratic capitalism), to choose for us. We must choose for
ourselves, Being in the midst, being interested, means, as Sartre put it long ago, being "condemned to be free." But that is the price one has to pay to become

free from the degradation of servitude and for the exquisite joy of being fully human. Dis-
interested inquiry separates or, better, alienates the inquirer form this inter esse. As I said earlier, it reduces the
mysterious force of being-in-the-midst to an absolutely knowable (quantifiable) thing. Put
alternatively, in privileging the observing or panoptic or spatialzing eye -- the eye that, seeing everything in time an space at once, reduces

being's dynamics" in a "world picture" -- it privileges the answer over the question. To be interested then means to beware of those who

demand answers --or finality -and victory. They invariably turn out to be murderous brutes.
ATs Section
 AT: Cede Political
Satire doesn’t cede the political – it’s actually key to motivate action
Thai, 14 – editor for The Crimson (Anthony, “Political Satire: Beyond the Humor,” The
Crimson, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/2/6/harvard-political-satire/)//IS
Despite these advantages, some have argued that political satire encourages cynicism, trivializes
politics, and promotes a narrow point of view (stemming from the predominantly liberal
leanings of most political satirists and comedians). It is true that, when taken in isolation,
political satire poses many drawbacks, and that the constant critique of political figures and
media outlets can lead to skepticism. However, viewers of satire are more likely to watch and
read traditional news sources as well, according to an article in the Columbia Journalism
Review. In fact, satirists often refer to other news sources to provide background for their
critiques, as Stewart has done numerous times with CNN and Fox News, serving the dual
purpose of communicating news and criticizing the current methods of political media. The
same article also references research that suggests increased viewership of political humor does
not distance the audience from politics but instead “increases knowledge of current events, leads
to further information-seeking on related topics, and increases viewer interest in and attention
paid to politics and news.” This more informed and interested audience naturally has more
opportunities to share educated opinions with others and provoke discussion. Arguments that
satire actually increases narrow-mindedness because it panders to liberals also have their flaws.
While there are few Republican and conservative viewers, data show that less than half of the
viewers of “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” are liberals; in fact, 38 percent of viewers
of “The Colbert Report,” as well as 41 percent of those watching “The Daily Show,” consider
themselves independents. These shows have roughly the same percentage of Democrat viewers
as the New York Times and USA Today and a lower percentage than CNN, all of which claim to
be non-partisan news sources. Moreover, humorists connect with their audience more
effectively than news anchors do. While politics in news is often portrayed as a field separate
from daily life, Stewart and Colbert easily relate their coverage to the average viewer. In contrast
to Sunday talk shows such as NBC’s “Meet the Press” and ABC’s “This Week,” which host
roundtables of pundits discussing the political issues of the day in non-personal terms, satirists
need to be personal for their comedy to be understood and entertaining. Finally, instead of
allowing experts to express their opinions as fact as some journalists do, humorists often
challenge the views of experts to the audience’s benefit. For example, in October 2013, Stewart
hosted Kathleen Sebelius, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, and criticized
Obamacare for delaying compliance with the bill for big businesses but not individuals. He
critiqued the fact that these businesses can lobby for their interests while individuals cannot.
Although some coverage of this issue made news sources, Stewart presented it at length with an
authentic source and in a comedic and memorable fashion. He caught viewers’ attention and
demonstrated that experts are not always correct. Taken together with traditional news sources,
political humor at least molds a more informed public and at best increases political
involvement and excitement. The humor provides the tools; viewers must decide whether to use
them.

Satire is key to political action – empirics

Freedman, 10 – UCLA Professor of Political Science, specializing in American and British
politics, and as Dean of UCLA Extension. Since his retirement he has taught a seminar on
political satire in UCLA’s undergraduate Honors Collegium. His political satire presentations for
university and community audiences extend an avocation begun in a common setting for
political satire in Britain – the university musical review. Len’s publications include: The
Offensive Art: Political Satire and its Censorship Around the World From Beerbohm to Borat
(2009); Power and Policy in America, 7th edition (2000)(“Why Political Satire Matters,”
http://www.strictlysatire.com/mysites/WhySatireMatters.aspx)//IS
And yet, if satire alone is unlikely to change the course of history, it often accompanies and
reinforces political action. And though its impact can never be measured precisely, it seems
likely that, together with other forces of dissent, political satire can make a difference. The
cartoons and lascivious jokes leveled at the royal family helped to create the atmosphere of
derision and fury that culminated in the French Revolution. The satirists’ rage against the
Vietnam war played its part in the shift of public sentiment that at last forced its end. Colbert
and Stewart make politics amusing and interesting to youthful audiences who otherwise tend to
be politically uninvolved. Moreover, if some authoritarian regimes have contemptuously
tolerated a limited amount of satire, most have not. And here we come to the most important
argument for why political satire matters – its role as a bulwark against political oppression.
Political satire, after all, is by definition aggressive, hostile, offensive. Political leaders generally
don’t like being offended, and especially they don’t enjoy being made to look ridiculous.