nuclear terrorism impacts - Amazon AWS

**The Oregon FV Playbook**
Omaha! Omaha! Hurry Hurry!
--------------------------------------------------------
**IMPACT BLOCKS**
Value to life first 1.VALUE OF DEATH: we can't understand what death means unless there is a
conception of value to life. Death means nothing in a world where value to
life is nonexistent. 2. MAGNITUDE: Genocide and structural violence not only destroy value to
life for the people they oppress, but they create entire cultures and
ethnic groups that are perpetually oppressed. This causes transgenerational
cultural murder that infinitely reproduces itself. Death and conflict may
end some lives, but life can be recreated whereas value and ontology
cannot. 3. PROBABILITY: structural violence occurs on a daily basis in every region
around the globe. There is a 100% probability that these structures kill
people, compared to a 1% chance that a nuclear conflict or extinction will
happen. Structural violence kills more people every year than would die in
a nuclear exchange. Probability should be the main mechanism you look at to
weigh impacts because it is the only way to generate responsible policy
making. Furthermore individual insecurity is the root cause of nation state
instability. This is the root cause of terrorism, of resource wars, and of
nation state wars. a. CRISIS POLITICS: focusing on 1% nuke war scenarios locks us in a
cycle of crisis policy making. We are always looking for the next
threat to our state security; we believe these things to be so real
that we take preventative action to stop them. This preventative
action ends up creating more conflicts than it stops. It also ensures
that policy makers find new threats in order to justify their control
over the population. This makes the impacts of their disads inevitable
in a world in which you don't prioritize our impacts first to solve
the root cause - means we control the IL to 100% of their scenarios.
And, extinction is far more probable in a world in which death is the
aim of politics and not simply the result of a particular combination
of circumstances, as it is in their disads.
Extinction first
Extinction outweighs, three reasons: 1. IRREVERSIBILITY: Their impact calculus on magnitude is empirically
denied. People can survive atrocities and go on live successful lives,
which means that the magnitude of their impact is near impossible to
determine at best and minimal in comparison to ours. Extinction, or even
the risk of death, outweighs because of its finality. Additionally, life
is a pre-requisite to making determinations as to the value of that life,
which means that we are a prior question to their evaluation of the value
of certain lives, since you can't be 'dehumanized' or 'rehumanized, or even
make those value claims, if you're dead. 2. MAGNITUDE: You should evaluate magnitude first. It's the least
arbitrary way of evaluating the implications of plan, because probability
and time frame are impossible to objectively determine with any degree of
certainty. We don't know how fast or how certainly people may be
dehumanized, but we do know that extinction results when (we blow up a
nuclear bomb or whatever).
[If their analysis about MAD is true, that's just a reason that
extinction being a probable result of global nuclear warfare is true.
Means if we win MAD does not apply in this instance, their own
analysis serves to increase the probability of our scenario]
3. TIME FRAME: Even if you look to time frame, extinction still outweighs.
The nuclear blast kills people instantly, whereas you have no idea how
quickly dehumanization happens or when someone has been dehumanized enough
to say their life is of no value. Next, go to the line by line: 1. TURN: ACCEPTING THE IDEA THAT LIFE CAN HAVE NO VALUE IS THE ONLY WAY
IT'S POSSIBLE - they accept the idea that life can reach an ontological
zero-point, this means their impact is only possible in a world of the
opposition (or aff) because categorically stating that a life has no value
is the only world in which genocide and eugenics could be justified.
Additionally, value to life is self-determined. No objective criterion or
measure exists to guage the value someone derives from their lived
experience. Should relegate that to the individual, otherwise it's
inaccurate and their impact prioritization paves the road to tyranny. 2. VALUE TO LIFE IS INEVITABLE: The desire for self-preservation is an
observed fact. Individuals choose to persevere even in the most
dehumanizing conditions, examples such as slavery; people did not lay down
and accept death as an alternative even in the most hopeless circumstances,
which means there's no real impact to their argument. They'll say suicide
proves this isn't true, but we've already answered this. It's impossible
to determine the motives of each individual who commits suicide and only in
a world in which we accept that life can reach an ontological zero point
and label people who kill themselves as having determined their life is of
no value can their argument be true. Systemic/High Probability Impacts First Evaluate systemic impacts over terminalized claims: 1. High magnitude impacts are unpredictable-the Arab Spring was triggered
by a guy lighting himself on fire, and the Fukushima meltdown was caused by
random weather patterns. No one in 2010 thought Osama bin Laden would be
dead or that Newt Gingrich would be leading GOP polls. We should reject
the idea that debate can accurately forecast large-scale political or
social shifts that deal with complex systems made up of millions of unique
social actors-our predictions are about as good as monkeys throwing darts 2. Intervening actors-long timeframe exponentially decreases probability
because of unknown externalities that mitigate impacts-other actors or
events may step in to resolve terminalization 3. Multiplier effect-every ten-word link claim they make is probably not
unique or not causal enough-stacking link chains multiplies these
inaccuracies to produce conclusions that aren't reasonable or realistic
even if each step sort of is-this bias is worsened by the competitive
incentive to exaggerate claims to win a ballot. You should prioritize
probability. 4. Existential risk bad-doomsday claims take advantage of cognitive biases
to produce bad policy decisions based on implausible scenarios. Magnitude
debates shift to irrelevant contest of descriptive yellow journalism
instead of being based in responsible evaluation of accuracy. 5. The world hasn't ended yet-their impacts are all empirically denied. Structural Violence First Prefer structural violence over war claims: 1. Positive peace-the idea that wars have definite beginning and endpoints
and break out of otherwise peaceful society obscures the ongoing war on
marginalized persons committed through exclusive institutions and
distribution of wealth. This ensures no action is taken to overturn and
equalize this violence. 2. Crisis based politics-discussing war as a futuristic flashpoint permits
ongoing militarism under the name of 'police action' or 'kinetic assault.'
Also produces a mindset of paranoia that drives military decision-makers to
miscalculation or accidental conflict. 3. Structural violence is far more significant than actual war-18 million
people die yearly from structural factors, compared to only 100,000 from
armed conflict- and every five years, as many people die from relative
poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war. You should err on the side of
chipping away at violence that is ongoing rather than deterring some
supposed future conflict.
Reps First Framework (Debate Space) Representations first/fiat bad
- All debate is representational, fiat is illusory is more than just a
tagline, it is a way of understanding our relationship to the topic
and to the community. Because our representations are all that we can
actually take with us outside of this debate round should work to
create safe spaces; all we are doing at the end of the day is sharing
stories. These are the most important debates of the year, the
strategies and videos that we allow to win at this tournament will
shape debate in the immediate future, because those models of debate
are emulated.
o The idea of fiat always preferences those who have the
technological resources and the resources to get ideas passed.
Fiat makes us pretend that we are privileged senators using our
privilege to create change. It preferences teams with the
resources to cut the latest politics uniqueness rather than the
team that is working to create actual change. This denies
personal orientation to the topic.
- Normative debate re-entrenches the worst aspects of capitalist,
neoliberalist world systems. Why do the same teams keep on winning? Do
we really believe that only explanation is a talent gap between the
Oregon's of the world and the rest of the pool? Parliamentary debate
doesn't allow us to read evidence; the only appeal to authority we can
make is the authority of the name of the school in front of our
initials. This is asking judges to default to the resource rich, not
the resource poor. This problem cannot be solved by simply changing
the NPTE formula, it requires a new ethic.
o Normative debate supports that politics is a game of the rich.
Rich to participate, rich to be successful. Over 50% of congress
are millionaires for the first time, in the status quo politics,
the rich continue to get richer.
- Normative debate precludes the possibilities of rhizomatic knowledge
because debate has already self regulated itself into hierarchical
structures of arboresic knowledge.
o Certain method