The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/22/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 757 times Debate No: 84205
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)




The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

Remember, you make constructive arguments in this round.

Thanks for accepting.


[Note: I'm going to cut down the debate to my analytics, the default limit set by doesn't help. Finding isn't easy, but I tried to paste the highlighted parts]

The line between the government and corporations is vanishing " Numerous surveillance policies create further ties between corporations and the government through surveillance independently cause a chilling effect on political participation and dissent. Our primary political task is to open up the doors by which citizen political participation outside of corporate controlled frame is even possible. The status quo guarantees oligarchical policymaking resulting in tyranny, racial violence and makes solving all other problems impossible because corporations influence the flow of data and policymaking.
Lehn "15 "Responding to oligarchic corporatism and government surveillance in the 21st Century"
There are numerous threats that face us... We can"t forget about the institutionalized racism and violence While all of the above pervasive threats , the [crown*]tiara should rightfully go to the threat the encompasses them all: the confluence of wealth, power and information between corporate and government interests. Our private and public sectors have aligned to undermine this concentration of power, information, and wealth in the hands of the privileged few " politicians, government agencies and corporationsImmediately following 9/11, the Bush administration used the emotionally charged political environment to drag us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and to push the PATRIOT Act through Congress, granting the US government near unilateral surveillance and wiretapping abilities, while suspending numerous civil liberties. In so doing, Bush set the stage for increased government and corporate cooperation and information sharing
. The 2010 Citizens United ruling and the 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling further increased the power and influence of corporations by granting them privileges and protections typically reserved for individual citizens. These two rulings combine to turn corporations into "super-people", Google can instantly change who has access to what information. One study even showed that, if it so desired, Google could influence the outcome of elections by tweaking its search engine algorithm corporations who collect information on consumers (name, credit/debit card information, etc.) can be made to "voluntarily" give that information to the government at any time for any reason and, again, without warrant. the committee results make it seem like only a matter of time. And it isn"t limited to your information; now, a host of benign online choices can be used against you if the government doesn"t like themIt"s already been established that We the People are becoming increasingly powerless against corporate influence, government intrusion or even the local police

Surveillance is a key nodal point of corporate and state ties " historical development of the relationships and technologies prove that modern state surveillance is not even possible without the aid of corporate presence and unjustifiable without corporate agenda. This specific tie fuels billions into the military-industrial complex, guaranteeing warfare no matter how unreliable the threat.
Ball and Snider 13-*Professor of Organization @ the Open University Business School, director of the Surveillance Studies Network **Professor Sociology @ Queens University [Kirstie, Laureen, The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: A political economy of surveillance, "Introduction: The surveillance-industrial complex: towards a political economy of surveillance?" 2013, pg. 1-5, DKP]
The origins of the surveillance- industrial complex [... ] emerged from [...] corporate priorities [...]. Two massive configurations of power " state and corporate " have become the dominant players. Their evolution and growth was dialectical rather than linear; each conglomeration of networks and actors was and is mutually constituted from, by and through the other. This synergy was made possible by the "complementarities" of government and corporate "needs", and their mutual and complementary dependence on " and faith in " the limitless capabilities of "science" " which in turn depended on state and corporate funding, surveillance does not merely react to "crime", it creates "truth regimes and constructs target populations" Surveillance, therefore, is the sociotechnical means through which the logic of juridical concepts articulate with social relations of commodity production, finding its expression in systems of public and private law. In a myriad of ways, what Hardt and Negri term "the republic of property" (2009: 4"21) is facilitated through the institutional goals and biopolitical dimensions of modernity involving surveillance mechanisms. In addition to state"military roots, the surveillance- industrial complex has also been shaped by commerce, the life- blood of the free enterprise capitalist state. Corporations [...] were the go- to players in the military machine,

Surveillance ensures a culture of compliance to law and norms. Basic psychology proves that the feeling of being watched influences social and political behavior"the aff is critical for any possible resistance to the dominant order to happen.
Zuboff "15 [Shoshana Zuboff Charles Edward Wilson Professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School PhD in social psychology from Harvard "Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization"]

Err pro" the threat is treated as "small" by those in power. Ensures the political trajectory of corporatism is intensified.
Haggerty, 2015
Kevin D. Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Alberta, "What"s Wrong with Privacy Protections?" in A World Without Privacy: What Law Can and Should Do? Edited by Austin Sarat p. 230

As part of an agenda against corporatismI think that it"s imperative that

The United States Federal Government substantially curtail its domestic surveillance by revising the terms of the 3rd Party Doctrine, including a warrant requirement for both corporations and government for purposes of collecting, using, and editing data.

Supreme Court has consistently held the third party doctrine to defend surveillance proven by various examples over time
Brown 14, Kimberly N. Brown, University of Baltimore - School of Law, "Anonymity, Faceprints, and the Constitution," University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-14,

Changing the 3PD is key to prevent total corporate surveillance and spur public opinion against corporate-government ties writ large.
Sylvain 14, Olivier Sylvain, Fordham University School of Law, "Failing Expectations: Fourth Amendment Doctrine in the Era of Total Surveillance", 49 Wake Forest Law Review 48, Fordham Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2473101 , July 28, 2014,

Our advocacy is neither a stale roleplaying exercise nor abstract idealism but a "concrete utopian" demand. The gap pried open by ending corporate surveillance " the material steps against structural violence " enables and is surrounded by a larger yearning for freedom. This demand is both a goal and a bridge; we keep one foot in the possible and one reaching far beyond.
Weeks 2011 [Kathi, prof in women studies at Duke, The Problem with Work, pp. 218-224]

Prioritize structural violence above one-shot extinction scenarios, corporate ruling-class protected media minimizes the violence which outweighs all warfare.
Abu-Jamal, 98 ( Mumia is an American activist and journalist, 9-19-1998, "Writings by Mumia Abu-Jamal," No Publication,

Our impacts outweigh on probability and magnitude " risk assessment is epistemologically biased towards white male elites who discount the severity of everyday localized violence in destroying marginalized populations.
Verchick 96 [Robert, Assistant Professor, University of Missouri -- Kansas City School of Law. J.D., Harvard Law School, 1989, "IN A GREENER VOICE: FEMINIST THEORY AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE" 19 Harv. Women's L.J. 23]
Debate Round No. 1


Burdens - because the affirmative holds the change in the status quo in their hands, they have the burden of proof to show why we need to affirm. If they do not fulfill this burden, vote neg on presumption.

Capitalism Kritik

First, I concede all of their inherency. Yes, the lines between government and corporations are vanishing - I concede. I concede that the current corporate presence is the only way to have modern state surveilance. I concede that surveillance ensures a culture of compliance.

Now, onto the plan. The affirmative's plan is using the courts to absolve the amount of corporate interest within the surveillance state as we see today, but this is something that is fundamentally flawed. As Howard Zinn (“It’s not up to the Court,” The Progressive, November, writes, the focus on the court is myopic – the court and constitution are infinitely flexible, and always used to further interests of capital. Capital is the main influence of the courts, so the affirmative's plantext furthers the inherent use of capital and its influence on the modern status quo and the future - they are continuing the capitalist totality that we see today.

Further, Istvan Meszaros (“Structural Crisis of Politics,” Monthly Review, September, Proquest) writes that the court is blatantly and openly disregarded with no consequence when the interests of capital dictate it – tinkering with the law can’t solve the structural causes of the aff harms. So we can see from these two authors that the affirmative's plantext refers to the use of the court to absolve corporatism, but corporatism is actually enforced in the future!

Joel Kovel (“The Enemy of Nature,” p140-141, 2002) writes that capitalist influence on nature and the current court system negates the entire value to human life - everything becomes a market abstraction [though the use of courts] and makes extinction inevitable.

David Harvey (The Limits to Capital, p. 442-443, 2006) writes that capital’s thirst for geographical expansion culminates in horrifyingly destructive inter-imperialist global wars and the violent eradication and domination of ‘primitive’ populations. The use of these courts to futher corporatism, under the affirmative's plan, will lead to the courts being decided by the corporate interests and resource wars and attacking primitive populations to continue.

Daniel Quinn in My Ishmael writes that capitalism as it stands today is the complete and total erosion of the Other, leading to only what we want to continue to exist. Native populations did and will continue to die off if we continue the idea of corporate or 'fundamental' capitalism.

David Harvey continues from above that the contradictory spatial dynamics of capitalist accumulation culminate in imperialist war and the violent exploitation and impoverishment of subordinate populations. Poverty will increase as corporatism does, the affirmative's plantext is continuing the exploitation and impoverishment of the natural person - vote aff and continue poverty and all of the harms that exist from it (drugs, gambling, structural collapse, etc.)

The alternative is to reject the affirmative's plan as it exists to further the use of the court. The act of rejection creates a the fissures necessary to resist global capitalism (John Holloway 05 John, 8-16, “Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?”). As an intellectual your rejection of capitalism has emancipatory results relentless criticism allows capitalism to be challenged (Joel Kovel from above). Today, you need to reject capitalism - it creates the fissures needed to actually prevent this capitalist totality that we see today taking over the world!

Afropessimism Kritik

If you don't buy what I said above, now you can really listen! Again, with the inherency, I drop all of it as I outlined above.

The affirmative's plantext is guided through the world of heavenly and utopian reform. They reform the surveillance state as it exists, and they claim that it is a net benefit. However, as Haritaworn et al (Queer Necropolitics, 2014) writes that reform is just reactionary conservatism – their unwillingness to accept that systemic antagonisms cannot be fixed means their project is permeated with whiteness. That's right - the reform of the affirmative's worldview is riddled with the unwillingness to actually do something to the surveillance state - they do not attack the systemic antagonisms, and thus, they are continuing only whiteness and are oppressing the black.

Further, they are continuing the use of the court, meaning that they are using the state as a means to solve for all of their harms. What they fail to realise, as Martinot and Sexton (“The Avant-Garde of White Supremacy”, Social Identities, Volume 9, Number 2, 2003) write, state involvement and court-ordered equality perpetuates white supremacy, shifts attention away from gratuitous violence. The use of the court continues the love of the white over the black and continues the oppression that the black faces.

It comes to no surprise that this anti-blackness of the affirmative's worldview has some real world realised impacts that are tangible. The black becomes synonymous with worthlessness, and the value to black life ceases to exist ... we no longer care for black flesh because we can find meaning only in white flesh (Peter, “Utilitarianism Is Unjust” 2007). They continue to rectify these inherently bad power structures that come into play, because whites are the only people that they believe are worth caring for (Thomas Powell, "The Persistence of Race in America").

So, instead of accepting the affirmative's plan as the gospel and oppressing the black, we need to burn down the systems that the affirmative is working within - only though burning down these systems can we finally know peace. We need to bring down the court, not give them the ability to give warrants, to see real change in the world, as Anthony Paul Farley ("Perfecting Slavery," 2005) writes. We need to burn down the affirmative's plantext to see freedom.

Queer Theory

Again, inherency and all that, just see above.

The affirmative uses the idea of political debate here today, they use the systems as they are in place to talk about what we ought to do. But as Lee Edelman ("No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive" 2004) writes, political debate is necessarily framed in terms of the Child, which ideologically constrains our thinking in terms of heteronormativity. Any possible political reform will remain within this heterosexist mindset, making real change impossible. Queerness refuses political reaffirmation of the future Child, resisting the social structures that authenticate reproductive futurism.

What this means is that the affirmative's use of the political debate as we have today is framed in the future - something only affirming of heteronormative stances on the world.

The impact is disastorous and cannot be imagined ... heteronormativity has so much power that the people it ends up destroying the identity of those it affects in what is called 'Soul Murder', as Gust Yep, Karen Lovaas, John Elia write ("Journal of Homosexual Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2/3/4", 2003).

Further, as Moshe Rozdzial ("Anti-Semitism and Heterosexism: Common Constructs of Oppression" Winter 2000) writes, heterosexism justifies dehumanization and violence as Anti-Semitism did with the Jews in Nazi Germany. The affirmative's discourse ensures that we dehumanise the queer and to make the queer Othered, making violence as bad as the Holocaust become a stark reality.

Alternative - do not continue the idea of the state as we know it or the political discourses of the affirmative's plan.


Burdens - The affirmative is a speech act in which changes the status quo. The reason to vote AFF are the impacts of the 1AC.

1.Chilling Effect DA " extend Zuboff 15. This is a straight turn to the K. Any movement is doomed to fail, due to the Big Other. Surveillance specifically normalizes compliance with a chilling effect on dissent. They especially conceded this - meaning there's no alternative solvency. Queers become less queer, and all of their movements get shut down by the State.
2."We the People" DA - Throughout history, the story belongs not to whom, but who the person is deemed "under" the law. "We the People" are only a sub-human species compared to the super-human power furthermore known as corporations, meaning we control the root cause debate and is an independent turn to the K.
Edwards & Morgan 4 (Molly Morgan, Jan Edwards, 5-20-2004, //RH)

3.PERM DO THE AFF AND THE Ks - The AFF hollows out any chance of actual change " the only chance of solvency is allowing for material change through inter-rim strategies. An independent turn on the K, because the K doesn"t actually do anything
Connolly 13-Professor of Political Theory at Johns Hopkins University [William, The Fragility of Things, pp. 36-42]

4.AFF solves the K. C/A Weeks 11 here " the affirmative is a project in which uses a political text and an analytic perspective. When the doors of corporate abuse are finally opened, the gap will lead to the streamline of the end of structural violence. Without the AFF, the K will fall into an abyss restructuring capitalism, native violence, antiblackness, and heteronormativity. They conceded a specific solvency mechanism of the 1AC. They view the AFF through the links as an act of the state only and disregard it as a grassroots movement to ending corporate and state abuse. Once the 1AC passes, it allows for specific actions such as "rejecting the state" to actually take place. Net benefit to voting AFF.

FW - Interp - Aff gets to weigh our kritik of specific policies while the neg gets to critique the aff. Key to edu about their K because we can't know whether or not the K is desirable without comparing it to opportunity costs. Even if they win we don't get the AFF we should be able to weigh corporatism vs. the K.

I'll impact turn the surveillance reform and state links here:
Reform is a necessary tactic and alternatives that preclude it fail
a. Symbolic"reforms give critical legitimacy to the demand of activists and helps inspire new movements"reform work is the work of movement building by providing a victories to rally and mobilize a struggle for others in the future"That"s Weeks. Same author leads us into b.
b. Tangible focus points key"Surveillance policy specifically provides an issue to rally around and critique corporatism"s effects"demands for resistance in abstract terms do not mobilize coalitions, but focusing on specific reforms needed is necessary to develop local practical strategies to ultimately upset the corporate state.
c. Training ground"supporting tactical reformism provide a training ground for a generation of leadership in galvanizing a collaboration at the grassroots"learning how to change public consciousness on specific issues enables activists to eventually construct more effective radical strategies"even if it fails, that failure would serve as an informative exercise which is a reason we should have the plan as a net-benefit to voting aff.
d. Material value that is a pre-requisite to the successful implementation of the K"Zuboff, a PhD in psychology cites that surveillance specifically creates a chilling effect on dissent that normalizes compliance, making any rejection of the dominant order futile since those movements can"t generate momentum due to the fear of being shut down. This is a psychological element that is critical to take into account when considering alternative solvency.
. It won"t get coopted" The affirmative is a project of infiltration"which is critical distinction from what their links are talking about. It"s a reason policy education is good and proves the K can"t solve.
Williams 69 [Summer 1969, Robert F. Williams was a civil rights leader and author, The Deprived: Rebellion in the Streets", The Crusader, Volume 10, Number 02,]

Cap K-
We already were the K - we radically reject corporate powers which are the war horse of capitalism

No link " the K doesn"t even specify anything about corporations, make them prove something other than the courts and reform.

Kovel doesn't say anything about the courts.

Also the AFF ends corporatism - not furthers it. They conceded the AFF.

Perm do both- legal strategies around third party doctrine necessary to revitalize government check on corporate capitalism
Chong 13 (Jane, "When Data Is Currency: Thoughts in Response to Jack and Evgeny Morozov", Dec 29, Lawfare,

Corporate surveillance is key to the existence of capitalism and functions to securitize, control, and exploit both state and consumer.
Campbell & Carlson 02 " Campbell is a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania and Carlson is a research associate with the Project for Excellence in Journalism (John Edward, Matt, " Online Surveillance and the Commodification of Privacy," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, December, 2002,, accessed 7/15/15)//TN

Policy involvement is inevitable- we need to proactively engage in the language of policy making for movements to be effective
Themba-Nixon, Makani. Executive Director of The Praxis Project, Former California Staffer, Colorlines. Oakland: Jul 31, 2000.Vol.3, Iss. 2; pg. 12

Their depiction of capitalism as a unified whole makes it impossible to subvert.
Katherine Gibson (Phd and Head of the Department of the Human Geography at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the Australian National University). And Julie Graham (PhD Economic Geography and Associate Department Head For Geography In the Department of Geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst). The End of Capitalism As We Knew It. 2006. p.255-7.

They exclude discussions of any other forms of violence against people " becomes independent offense against the K " as long as we still provide a place for a capitalist revolution, there"s no reason the K alone is better

Anti - Blackness
Perm do both:
The "Carnegie Corporation" promoted anti-black violence, fostering an oligarchical status and the social antagonisms that exist " the K and the AFF aren"t mutually exclusive.
Willoughby-Herard 15 ( "Waste of White Skin: The Carnegie Corporation and the Racial Logic of White Vulnerability", Google Books pg 18 and 19, //RH)

Minimizing the state before you minimize corporations lead to the maximization of private power " unaccountable and only proves that the perm solves best.
Chomsky 98 (Noam, The Common Good: Noam Chomsky Interviewed by David Barsamian, p. 84-85)

Anti-blackness is not the master-key"the focus on it as such skews discussions of racial justice and promotes nationalistic and xenophobic forms of racism
Sunstrom, University of San Francisco philosophy professor, 2008
[Ronald, "The Browning of America and the Evasion of Social Justice", pp. 65-6]

Absolute pessimism results in hopelessness and fatalism, optimism is a better strategy of resistance.
hooks 96 (bell, Killing Rage: Ending Racism,1996, Google Books, 269-272)

While present racial movements have not been as successful as possible, there is still the possibility for systematic change we must consider first
Michael Omi & Howard Winant 13, "Resistance is futile?: a response to Feagin and Elias", Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2013 Vol. 36, No. 6,

Their Narrative of Suffering Leads to a Permanent Identification of Suffering " turns the K
Brown 96 (Wendy is Professor of Women's Studies and Legal Studies, and is Co-Director of the Center for Cultural Studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The University of Chicago Law School Roundtable)

Sexton over-determines blackness and ignores the varying racialization of bodies.
Spickard 9(Paul, , Amalgamation Schemes: Antiblackness and the Critique of Multiracialism (review) American Studies - Volume 50, Number 1/2, Spring/Summer 2009, pp. 125-127

Queer Theory
Edelman"s claim that sexual reproduction is the core of politics is just wrong. He treats reactionary movement as the norm and would reverse decades of cultural change
Brenkman 2

Alt fails to solve - focus on decentering identity traits and individual queer liberation promotes the goals of global corporatism and destroys hope for political action.
Kirsch 06 [Max Kirsch, PhD Florida Atlantic University, "Queer Theory, Late Capitalism and Internalized Homophobia," Journal of Homosexuality, Harrington Park Press, Vol. 52, No. ", 2006, pp. 19-45]//JIH

This is game over for the negative. By using "queer" as a facet of their identity, they destroy any possibility of solvency. They make the dichotomy of hetero vs. queer even more binaristic by lumping together all non-heteros into one group.

The White Epistemology intrinsic to much of Queer Theory makes the AFF methodology inaccessible to some Queer PoC and props up White Supremacy through the deconstruction of community and fervent rejection of opposition
Johnson "10 (""Quare" studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother")
Debate Round No. 2


Burdens - the affirmative says that the only reason to vote aff is the speech act of the 1AC. Therefore, any permutations that they offer to us aren't defensible, since they say that you can only vote based off of what was already said.

So, aff says that their 'chilling effect' DA and their 'we the people' DA necessarily have to outweigh the impacts of all of my kritiks. The chilling effect has the threat of racism, and we the people has the impact of us becoming more weak in the eyes of the law. But my kritiks all have much stronger impacts and much more focused impacts than just becoming weak: extinction, market abstractions are what we become (no value to any life), war, exploitation of natives, poverty, black flesh becoming worthless, rectifying bad power structures, freedom lost for black people, soul murder, a new holocaust ... these are far outweighing of what he claims to be important impacts.

The aff says that they can permutate and take in all of my kritiks. How can you take 'burn down' the courts while defending the court's existence? How can you not continue the idea of the state, while all at the same time rely on its existence? How can we reject the use of the court, while depending on it? I'll go kritik by kritik and explain why permutation is not logical.

Capitalism- You may say that you are taking power from the corporations and that you are solving for my kritik within your own case. However, as Rakesh Bhandhari points out ( “Poverty and Capitalism by Barbara Harriss-White”, 4/11/06), all reform must exist from outside the system - this means that reform can only happen outside of the courts! Deconstructing capitalism must occur outside the system—reform within capitalism results in a fill-in of state institutions undermining the alternative. So, you can't just say "permutate" and get out of it - you logically just cannot permutate my kritik.

Afropessimism- Terrell Anderson Taylor 2013 (“OPTIMISM AND PESSIMISM IN TWENTIETH CENTURY AFRICAN AMERICAN LITERATURE") points out to us that you can't just say that you are going to solve for any of the impacts of this kritik. He would back me up in saying that their leftist discourse utilizes blackness as means for carrying out their own agenda -- serves to further white domination and black suffering. So trying to have this political discourse further attacks the black flesh that you are further oppressing!

Queer Theory- They continue to use political discourse when approaching the topic. They say they permutate my alternative, but they completely drop that they can't use this kind of discourse in the debate, making them concede Queer Theory in the end.

Affirmative solves the Kritik
We need to solve all of these issues right now. We can't just sit back and oppress black flesh or create power to the courts to go to war if the corporate interests deem it to be necessary and to continue the soul murder of millions. Once the 1AC passes, the courts have the power over the people - there is no longer a grassroots movement. The courts continue all of these bad things, that you conceded with my kritik, answering only my alternative but not my link nor my impacts.

All you gave was an interperetation of what should go on in today's round. But you forget why we should care about education or all of these things ... surely you have education if you are learning that giving power to the courts results in mass murder and war and soul desecration!

And I guess I don't know where to put this other stuff, but since you put it under a framework, I'll continue in theory. So you say that we only need symbollic reforms because they lead us to all of these good things ... extend my author that says that liberal reform is inherently bad (not liberal as in left-wing, liberal as in philosophical). While policy may provide an issue to rally around, it gives insurmountable power to corporations as they exist, which leads us to the ability to not continue to critique their actions! Soon we will be silenced if we pass the 1AC. "Fear of getting shut down" doesn't mean that we can't lead a coop against the government or lead to a change in the power structures as they exist today ... look to my alternatives.

Specific kritik answers
Capitalism- They say that we have to look further than just the court or reform ... but that's a major link that a huge amount of authors have touched upon. They say we need to disregard my arguments because they don't like courts or reform, but policy debate doesn't exist to fulfill what you like, it is to have a change and talk about the change ... when the change is inherently bad, we can't do it.
Then they say that Kovel doesn't talk about the courts ... he does. Like, I don't know the point of just saying that he doesn't when he clearly does.
I conceded part of the affirmative, just the inherency since I don't want to fight that for time. The affirmative furthers corporatism because it gives power to the corporations, because it gives more power to the courts! Read my capitalism kritik again. You can cite as many more authors as you want, that doesn't change the fact that you inherently give more power to the courts. You cannot permutate. You cannot do anything but impact analysis from here.

Antiblackness- I already answered the permutation. Chomsky is irrelevant - he says that the state is always bad so we need to get rid of it (further, he is actually an anarchist! Read more on your authors before you cite them). While it may be true there is more corporate power as we see it, there is power hidden in the courts if we affirm.

Queer Theory- The dichotomy isn't the hetero vs. the non-hetero - it is what society affirms and doesn't affirm. For example, the celibate become queer, as they cannot give into this future-oriented child politics. Then they say that my kritik affirms white supremacy because it doesn't mention queer POC, but what does that even mean? Look to afropessimism, I talked a lot about black flesh, it follows that I affirm both black and nonblack queer flesh. Them pointing out that I need to consider the queer POC means that they concede that just focusing on the queer is correct, but needs to be corrected more (although, I have acheived perfection!).

Basically, their entire response doesn't attack anything of my kritiks - they drop my impacts, links, etc ... they try to permutate but fail to see that their plan is incompatible with my alternatives that they are necessarily permutating. They can't see any of the 1AC because it is just so inherently flawed ... we can't coop destruction and unification - we need to deny their access to the 1AC and vote neg. Thank you.


Burdens - Part of the speech act is the plan, i.e in the 1AC when I said "I think it's imperative that:' - it also accesses the solvency mechanism under Sylvain 14. Whenever we end these corporate ties spun so largely - people are able to spin movements such as all three of the Ks. The AFF is a pre-requisite to each of the alternatives.

Mini O/V -
Corporations will co-opt all of these, specifically:
Queer Theory: Remember the gay marriage decision, and how straight cis males and straight cis females put the rainbow flag on their profile pictures? And all of the shirts made in response to this? Corporations will enact themselves to be like "Oh hey, the people want this! Lets decide to exploit this!"

Antiblackness - They conceded the Willoughby Herard ev, talking about the Carnegie Corporation - a corporation who had an interest to franchise in governing, and in specific indirect ways (also answers back to cap) when people advocated for black education, Carnegie used a bully pulpit of philanthropy to legitimate racial capitalism. It also fostered a devotion to an oligarchic class, culture, social relations, and interests - all without claiming the antagonisms / aspirations of the WORKING classes / those who labored without the status of worker.

Capitalism - Surveillance is the key mechanism of control of consumers - that the capitalist state DEPENDS upon the greatest extraction of a surplus value from production, of course when the objective is to assess undesirable behavior such as the alternative. That's my Campbell / Carlson 2 card.

Extinction impacts link back to Queer Theory- Edelman says a little about the state, but he says : when using X to propagandize the Nuclear Family (hetero-normative family) through enactments of fearing death or extinction that creates some hope that oppresses the queer.

They don't answer Zuboff correctly - Zuboff talks about how when we act against the State using theoretical attacks, the State will manipulate each of the persons, coercing them (also a part of Lehn with corporations) and forcing them to comply with the law. This means that the AFF has to come first, otherwise the impacts of the K will be repressed.

The We the People DA more specifically answers A/B and the colonial impact of the 1NC. Corporations are used as tools to exploit black people and natives. Specifically, in 1787 you had to be a WHITE MALE with PROPERTY (slave, more specifically) JUST to be able to vote. Companies were also used as charters to exploit the Native people perpetrating the social death and life that they lack today. Any of this are caused specifically by corporations being 'people'.
My framework actually impact turns the Ks, lets start off on:
Symbolic - So they conceded the main point of the Weeks arg, a solvency mechanism inherent to the AFF. It mobilizes the struggle for others in the future - that includes all of their people specified in their Ks, and many Other out there.

Tangible Focus Points - They conceded this part of the framework - you should view this a lot more. Education is simply blackmail by the State - whenever we actually take time to explain the discourse of why you should view the speech act as something much less benign than all of the affirmatives you actually have grassroots reforms - also we access fiat: their cards that they talk about link level [Meszaros and Zinn] that we're actually able to go through the courts? Also, Sylvain talks about when either corporate or state acts the people are able to recognize this. That went conceded from the last speech.

Answer to education- they say they'll be silenced if you pass the 1AC, no. Corporations are currently SILENCING these bodies, because they control the flow of data. This means the AFF is an impact turn to education, and that's Lehn. C/A any other education based impacts from the other flows.

Connolly -
Connolly avoids any of the links because corporate neoliberalism exacerbates hidden vulnerabilities within several lines of flight to reverb in case of rejecting the state or burning the courts. Instead you should identify multiple sites of potential action because a revision in political ideology will reshape the status quo. The impact of the permutation is a new leftist fascism that cedes hegemonic disasters such as: "extinction, market abstractions are what we become (no value to any life), war, exploitation of natives, poverty, black flesh becoming worthless, rectifying bad power structures, freedom lost for black people, soul murder, a new holocaust ...." and the impacts of the 1AC (last speech) .. i,e the impact of the K alone is simply it's own repression because the followers become cynical and act as if they are the new state. Them saying that this doesn't avoid their links just simply skews out alternative solvency - their theorization does nothing, as Connolly specifically indicts this theorization, and says that CONCRETE inter-rim strategies are the only way to solve.
Capitalism -
Chong: Chong specifically talks about how corporate interests are put into the desirability of data and accessibility. Otherwise, we have to change this cramped legal understanding.

Campbell / Carlson - Look above.
Willoughby-Herard (w/ combination of Chomsky) look above for the Willoughby-Herard explanation:
They indict Chomsky saying he's an anarchist but that doesn't answer ANY OF THE CARD. The card specifically says: "So you have to make use of the state, all the time recognizing that you ultimately want to eliminate it" -- although he's an ANARCHIST he recognizes the State - although terrible; MUST BE USED.
Case works as the permutation, and again: make them prove more than just a state link. Otherwise, it's all blackmail that serves the purpose of the State and not their movements.

Cap -
So tell me, how does getting rid of corporate surveillance specifically reentrench cap? What if I used a different solvency mechanism?

Actually no, I took the time to research Kovel: Kovel doesn't answer much about the courts or the state at all.

Go ahead an c/a Chomsky on this: private powers are much worse.

THEY CONCEDE THEMBA NIXON AND PUT THIS ON ALL OF THEIR FLOWS: WE HAVE TO GIVE POLICY MOVEMENTS BEFORE ANY OF THESE: THE K WON'T GO PAST THIS DEBATE SPACE UNLESS : "Making policy work an integral part of organizing will require a certain amount of retrofitting. We will need to develop the capacity to translate our information, data, and experience into stories that are designed to affect the public conversation. Perhaps most important, we will need to move beyond fighting problems and on to framing solutions that bring us closer to our vision of how things should be"


They also concede that they exclude other violence - the AFF with the K is a lot better.
A/B -

They conceded my Sunstrom 8 card: this is a turn on the K specifically: the focus on A/B skews the interests only to the white elite who already control this scheme of information. That the future will not be solely determined by BLACK AND WHITE politics that the alternative creates.

They concede Hooks 96: the ultimate pessimism of the alternative leads to the fatalist and hopeless of those who put themselves in the movement. It props up white supremacy and makes every one of us complicit in spreading the antiblack notions. We have to collectively renew our commitment to a vision of racial equality, which leads me to my Omi & Winant card:

The present prospects of racial justice are demoralizing - conditions have changed, yes, but these formations happened under the guise of political mobilizations such as the AFF. Further victories are only allowed through the permutation.

Also, they drop the specific indict of their Sexton card: their alternative is VAGUE, and only writes ad hominem attacks - also ignores the HISTORY of racialized development.
QT -
He didn't read my Johnson card. It doesn't say that omitting POC props WhiSup - in QT many LGBTQ+ theorize in the politics of identity, but get grounded in essentialism and dissolves the identity of queers. Just because you say you go for A/B solves for this card really just worsens it for the black body and the queers together.

They conceded Kirsch - the decentering of identity provides an overwhelming narrative emphasizing individual resistance that reinforces the same narrative.

Queer politics aren"t a root cause " focus on reproductive futurism can"t explain gay oppression in family life, consumerism, mass culture or religion. Accepting the multiple intersections underscores the necessity of working through political institutions to achieve change.

Yes, people in the squo use multiple binaries, but specifically the hetero v non-hetero binary oppresses the non-hetero reinforcing queer violence because it easily allows the HETERO to see the non-hetero and oppress them.

None of the affirmative provides for the Nuclear Child's life or reproductivity, so no link.
They just say the problems have to be stopped now, but what does rejecting the state in the face of the affirmative do? You should view the AFF as an impossible demand that concrete utopian demands necessitate.

They concede most of my stuff and ignore all of the clash I provide. I hope the explanation and further reading of these cards help, Chomsky overrides the State bad links. I apologize for the wait, and thank you.

Note: Anti-blackness isn't meant to be read with other things typically but I can see how the Farley ev works lol
Debate Round No. 3


Anything past this is just going to be beating a dead horse. The aff in policy gets the first and last speech so we might as well just cut it off here. Thanks


She and I concurred on what she last said - check the comment section.
Debate Round No. 4


Thanks for the debate, I really appreciated it, pro. You're great <3


TY, u2 :D
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 9 months ago
>Reported vote: Midnight1131// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote out of the Voter's Union. RFD IN COMMENTS - Feel free to message me if you have a problem with the vote.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The vote sufficiently analyzes the debate as a whole and clearly analyzes it. While the reporter is correct that many would intepret the debate as policy, that doesn't require the voter to assess it through a particular lens, since there was no clear and obvius criterion set in the debate.
Posted by Midnight1131 9 months ago
RFD 1/2

In round one Pro explores the connection between state and corporation, and how this all ties in with surveillance. He shows that in the past, the private and public sectors have aligned to concentrate power and wealth in the hands of a few people. He gives examples of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the patriot act, showing how this set the stage for increased gov't and corporate ties relating to surveillance. He then cites a study which showed that corporations who collect consumer info can be forced to give that info the gov't without a warrant. He also shows that surveillance bolters the tie between government and the military industry, and claims that over the top surveillance guarantees warfare, no matter how unreliable the information is. Another point made by Pro is that surveillance is used to ensure a culture of compliance, and cites studies which show that the feeling of being watched influences behaviour. To end the round Pro gives some changes that they would implement. However this isn't relevant to the resolution in my view, because the debate is concerning "should" instead of "how". In their opening round [Round 2,] Con concedes almost all of Pro's arguments, the ties between state and gov't, and that surveillance ensures a culture of compliance.
Posted by Midnight1131 9 months ago
RFD 2/2

After this Con has a go at Pro's plan, but this has nothing to do with the resolution, as I said earlier. The resolution states "should," not "how," so anything concerning Pro's plan, including the plan itself, has no inherent impact on the debate. This is concerning for Con, since quite a bit of their opening arguments are in response to Pro's plan alone, and they concede all of Pro's real arguments. In their 2nd round, Pro makes the case that their conceded arguments all outweigh the kritiks made by Con. He shows that the "compliant civilians" argument he made was furthered along when Con said that the state can shut down any movements. He also notes that the common people are losing power in favour of corporations, again, an important point conceded by Con. After this Con tries to make their case again, trying to defend their kritiks. However Con again, gives no cases of their own as to why surveillance "SHOULDN'T" be curtailed, instead focusing on whether or not it "CAN'T." This is why I will give the win to Pro. Because Pro throughout the entire debate was the only one who's case focused on why the USFG "SHOULD" curtail surveillance, and this entire part of Pro's case was conceded by Con in the beginning rounds. After that, everything was focused on Pro's plan, which was more about 'CAN" or "CAN'T" which has nothing to do with the resolution.
Posted by Hayd 10 months ago
Posted by Hayd 10 months ago
I'll be voting on this soon.
Posted by dripht 10 months ago
Go for it.
Posted by Lexus 10 months ago
I think we're just going to beat a dead horse from here on out, do you just want to cut the debate short so we can get votes?
Posted by Lexus 10 months ago
You're totally fine. She is ight, no problems if you call me he, it is the internet
Posted by dripht 10 months ago
Also, I tried my best to censor out any heteronormative he/she's, mind if I could have a pronoun to call you by?
Posted by dripht 10 months ago
Fun and educating debate for sure - thanks for the help on what I need to look for.

It also helps me on what I should say in debates because in this it's not like you're just in a time rush of (in my state it's 10 minutes preptime) prep and speech.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 9 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This is a vote out of the Voter's Union. RFD IN COMMENTS - Feel free to message me if you have a problem with the vote.