Arms sales fuel violence against women particularly in Iraq/ the affirmative reduces that  

Le Ray ’18 [Laura, 02-26-2018, "Selling Arms is a Feminist Issue," CLANDESTINE, https://women-

politics.com/2018/02/26/selling-arms-is-a-feminist-issue/]//ARW  
Because “women’s rights have been hijacked for the purposes of liberal interventionists,”[1] Because
selling arms is not a trade action like another, Because selling arms should not be justified as an
economic matter, a growth driver, a promotion for defence industries, a diplomatic
necessity, or a source of employment, Because selling arms values business over human
rights, because selling arms is ultimately a political gesture, and because gender matters in
politics, then selling arms is a feminist issue which needs to be acknowledged. At first sight,
the link between arms trade and feminism may not be obvious. But thanks to recent legal developments
there is a growing awareness of the gendered impact of arms trade. Indeed, arms transfer can be
directly implicated in gender-based violence. For example when arms can be used to impose
rape as a weapon of war or to commit domestic violence or femicide. Arms trade can also have
an indirect negative impact on women’s equality and bargaining power within the household, and on their
participation in public and political life by hindering their mobility, their access to resources and to
employment opportunities. However, as denounced in 2012 by the Committees on Arms Export Controls,
Western powers continue to prioritise investment, trapped in an “inherent conflict between
strongly promoting arms exports to authoritarian regimes whilst strongly criticising their lack of human
rights at the same time.”[2] This indecisive behaviour fuels a counterproductive process, moving one
step forward and two steps back, and this needs to change. In 2014, the Arms Trade Treaty came into
force, ratified by 94 countries. Under the action of organisations such as the International Action
Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a gender dimension was included. Article 7(4) of the treaty makes it
mandatory for arms exporting countries to assess the risk that their weapons will be used in the
commission of gender-based violence and deny authorization of any sales that present an overriding risk.
However, there are no clear guidelines on the mechanism to assess whether any transferred arms will
contribute to gender-based violence. Consequently, many signatories of the treaty like Germany
are still selling arms to countries like India where violence against women is rooted in gendered
social structures, to Iraq where ISIS specifically targets women for sexual slavery and forced
prostitution, or to Mexico which ranked 10th in cases of femicide perpetrated with firearms in 2015.
Another example is the British government which allowed £4.6bn arms sales with Saudi Arabia since
2015 while Saudi Arabia plays a leading role in the coalition intervention in Yemen where women suffer
disproportionately due to forced displacement, trafficking, lack of access to health and destruction of
houses, markets, etc.[3] Furthermore, in September 2017, the US government signed a $593m arms deal
with the Nigerian military, including the supply of A-29 Super Tucano warplanes manufactured by Pratt
and Whitney in Canada, which will be part of the Nigerian Air Force, used in the past to bomb refugee
camps. Thus, Canada’s Trudeau-led ‘feminist’ government is arming one of the world’s most repressive
and anti-feminist governments. This inconsistency reveals a “compartmentalised version
of feminism,”[4] conveniently empowering local women but without any true concern for the world’s
women. Hence, in conflicts, crimes against women are overlooked and ignored by Western leaders who
stress the importance of human rights and women’s rights but fall silent on these issues as soon as
economic and political interests are at stake. As observed by the IANSA’s women network,
“the massive international exports of guns sustain gender-based violence as a pillar of
international and national patriarchy.”[5] Yet, women’s security is directly related to both national and
international security. According to Valerie M. Hudson, “the very best predictor of a state’s peacefulness is how
well its women are treated.”[6] Thus, in 2014, Sweden launched its feminist foreign policy. Margot Wallström, the
Swedish Foreign Minister, promoted the idea that all of Sweden’s decision-making would be informed by its vision
for women’s empowerment, and that striving towards gender equality should be a precondition to achieve wider
security-policy objectives. Indeed, as mentioned by Ann Bernes, Sweden’s Ambassador for Gender Equality at the
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, “you can’t be successful unless you apply a perspective where you look at whole
populations and whole societies. If you don’t do that, you’re partially blind.”[7] In 2015, Margot Wallström refused
the cooperation on arms deal with Saudi Arabia and denounced the Saudi authorities’ attitude to human
rights ast incompatible with a feminist foreign policy. However, this decision led to a diplomatic
crisis. Wallström’s decision was condemned by the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Saudi Arabia cut ties with
Sweden. This type of backlash against progress is intolerable, governments should not have to choose between
feminism and their foreign policy. A feminist perspective is not an idealistic agenda interfering in the realpolitik
power struggles between nations. It is rather a method of analysis challenging the “Western dominant, realism-
focused approach to foreign policy” as explained by the Centre for Feminist Foreign Policy.[8] It is time to focus on
what can be done to bridge the gap between the rhetoric and practice on the issue of arms trade and more broadly in
the field of foreign policy. First of all, to improve transparency around arms transfer and ensure the application of
the ATT, specific criteria need to be developed to assess whether arms transfers will contribute to gender based
violence. Furthermore, the political narrative legitimizing arms trade must be deconstructed. Indeed, as observed by
the Campaign Against Arms Trade, the “most pervasive” justification is that of jobs. However, research shows that a
move towards offshore wind and marine energy could produce more employment than the arms industry.[9] Then a
key element to achieve feminist foreign policy is to promote women’s political participation and leadership. Only
feminist foreign policy will allow us to fully understand the consequences of states’ decisions on human experience,
such as arms trade, and to create better and viable policies in theory and in practice.  
 
 
Isis is using us weapons obtained from Iraq to commit atrocities.   
Amnesty international  ’15--- “Arming ‘Islamic State’- Facts and Figures” 12/08
Amnesty, https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/12/arming-islamic-state-facts-and-figures/  
 
 
Amnesty International has catalogued more than 100 different types of arms and ammunition originally
sourced from at least 25 countries being used in Iraq and Syria by the armed group calling itself Islamic
State (IS). IS has used its arsenal to commit a horrific catalogue of human rights abuses and
violations of international humanitarian law. IS fighters have abducted civilians, including peaceful
activists and media workers, and have committed acts of torture and ill-treatment including rape
and other sexual and gender-based violence. They have summarily killed captured government
soldiers and members of other armed groups, and have also used child soldiers. IS gained most of its
arms by seizing stocks from the Iraqi military. Its arms were also acquired through battlefield
capture, illicit trade and defections of fighters in Iraq and Syria. After taking control of Mosul, Iraq’s
second-largest city, in June 2014, IS fighters acquired a windfall of internationally manufactured
arms from Iraqi stockpiles, including US-manufactured weapons and military vehicles which they
paraded on social media. A large proportion of IS’s arms were originally sourced by the Iraqi military
from the USA, Russia and former Soviet bloc states, in the 1970s to 1990s. Most of Syria’s arms have
come from Russia, the Soviet bloc and Iran. The Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) was a seminal moment in the
development of the modern global arms market, when at least 34 different countries supplied Iraq with
weapons – 28 of those same states were also simultaneously supplying arms to Iran. After a lull in arms
transfers to Iraq due to a UN arms embargo in 1990, there was a massive rise in arms imports to Iraq
following the US-led military intervention in 2003. More than 30 countries – including all permanent
members of the UN Security Council – have supplied the Iraqi army with military equipment over the
past decade – a period in which substantial amounts of military equipment has ended up in the hands
of insurgent groups, including IS and its precursors. Between 2011 and 2013, the USA signed
billions of dollars' worth of arms contracts with the Iraqi government. By 2014 it had delivered
more than US$500 million worth of small arms and ammunition. Deliveries continue as a part of
the fulfilment of the US Department of Defense’s US$1.6 billion Iraq Train and Equip Fund which
includes 43,200 M4 rifles. On 15 August 2014, UN Security Council Resolution 2170 reaffirmed an
existing arms embargo on IS and the armed group Al-Nusra Front, an al-Qa’ida affiliate.  
  
  
  ISIS causes massive violence in Iraq  
Amnesty international  17 --Violence in Iraq caused by
Isis  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/01/iraq-is-bombings-in-baghdad-demonstrate-an-
appalling-disregard-for-civilian-life/  
The armed group calling itself the Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for
Monday’s bombings, that targeted civilians in the predominantly Shi’a neighborhood
of Sadr city, Baghdad. In response, Samah Hadid, Deputy Director for Campaigns at
Amnesty International’s Beirut regional office.said: “The systematic targeting of
civilians in busy neighborhoods during day time, shows the Islamic State’s appalling
disregard for human life and an intent to harm and terrorize a civilian population.
By claiming responsibility for these horrific attacks, the Islamic State is boasting of
committing war crimes. “Such deliberate attacks on civilians can never be
justified and constitute a clear violation of international humanitarian law. They
must be stopped immediately and those behind the attacks must be brought to
justice.” According to media reports, the multiple bombings left at least 35 people dead
and more than sixty injured, with one targeting a busy market in the heart of Sadr city,
another targeting the nearby car park of Al-Kindi hospital and the third exploding near
the Jawader hospital. The IS also claimed the 31 December twin bombings in Baghdad
that have claimed at least 28 lives and led to a further 50 injuries, according to media
reports.  
US arms sales to Iraq go into the hands of people committing atrocities
Hartung ’17 [https://www.huffpost.com/entry/from-iraq-to-egypt-to-yem_b_11723370, From Iraq to Egypt to Yemen, Growing
Dangers of Runaway U.S. Arms Trafficking , Aug 27, 2017, William D. Hartung, Contributor, Writer and Foreign Policy Expert, William D.
Hartung is the director of the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy (CIP). His books on foreign policy subjects include
And Weapons For All (HarperCollins); Lessons from Iraq: Avoiding the Next War (Paradigm Press, co-edited with Miriam Pemberton); and
Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex (Nation Books). Prior to working at CIP, Hartung was the
director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation; the director of the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy
Institute, where he remains a senior fellow]

Chivers estimates that the Pentagon has lost track of hundreds of thousands of guns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As noted above, many of these weapons have ended up with U.S. adversaries like ISIS and the Taliban. One GAO
report found that the Pentagon could not say where 110,000 AK-47 rifles and 80,000 pistols it had
supplied to Iraqi security forces had ended up. And the GAO report was issued in 2007, years before Iraqi forces
abandoned untold quantities of arms, ammunition and military vehicles in their fight against ISIS. Chivers has pointed out the
stunning fact that the potential diversions documented by the GAO alone added up to “more than one firearm
for every member of the entire American military force in Iraq at any time during the war.”

The other, and perhaps more intractable reason for the weapons losses is that the U.S. has supplied these guns to
allies who are too often corrupt and unreliable. Members of U.S.-supplied Syrian opposition groups and soldiers in the
Iraqi and Afghan security forces have either sold their U.S.-supplied weapons or, in the case of Syria in particular,
switched sides, to the benefit of ISIS and the Taliban. And poor morale driven in part by the sectarianism and
corruption that have characterized Iraqi security forces has led to the abandonment of U.S.-purchased
weapons on the field of battle.
The fear of mutually assured destruction solves for all CBRN scenarios EXCEPT
with ISIS. ISIS does not fear death.
Eweiss ’16 [https://www.basicint.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NonStateActors_WMD_Mar2016.pdf, Non-state
actors & WMD: Does ISIS have a pathway to a nuclear weapon?, Nada Eweiss, March 2016, Nada Eweiss holds an MA in
International Peace and Security from King's College London and a BA in International Affairs and Economics from Northeastern
University in Boston. Her areas of research and interest include: nuclear weapons disarmament, counterterrorism,
cyberterrorism, international human rights law and the Middle East and North Africa.]

Their demonstrated extremism serves as an indication of the extent to which they will go in order to
enforce their goals. Though the claim by a British Jihadist that ISIS had acquired the materials for a dirty bomb8 is questionable,
their intentions and pathways to other weapons of mass destruction, even nuclear, remains unclear. Given the
motivation, were nuclear weapons within the reach of ISIS, they would be likely to use or threaten use of
them. Moreover, the group would be unsusceptible to traditional deterrence via threat of second strike
as they “lack the minimum degree of risk-adversity to be capable of being deterred; religious
fanaticism has made them immune from fear of death.”9

85.8% of US arms sales go though “pure FMS”, even if there are other programs, the
infrastructure is only in place for FMS
Aaron Mehta October 9, 2018 Aaron Mehta is Deputy Editor and Senior Pentagon Correspondent for
Defense News, covering policy, strategy and acquisition at the highest levels of the Department of
Defense and its international partners (“America sold $55.6 billion in weapons abroad in FY18 — a 33
percent jump”; https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/09/america-sold-
556-billion-in-weapons-abroad-in-fy18/; Date Accessed: 7/24/19)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. inked $55.6 billion in foreign military sales during fiscal year 2018, easily smashing past the previous year’s total — and the
Pentagon’s point man for security cooperation expects more in the future. “This is a 33 percent increase over last year and I’m very optimistic that this positive trajectory will continue,” said Lt.

Included
Gen. Charles Hooper, the head of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, during a speech at the AUSA conference. “Our partners know a good thing when they see one.”

in that total are $3.52 billion for cases funded by the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing
program; $4.42 billion for cases funded under Defense Department authorities; and $47.71 billion
funded through pure FMS cases, per the State Department. In FY17, the U.S. sold $41.93 billion in FMS deals, and the Pentagon has not been shy about hyping the
final dollar total for this year. In July, Hooper said the department had already inked $46.9 billion in deals, and a Pentagon report released last year said that the U.S. had inked $54.45 billion
through the end of August. Sales totals are volatile year over year, depending on what partner nations seek to buy. In FY16, sales totaled $33.6 billion, while FY15 totaled just more than $47
billion and FY14 totaled $34.2 billion. While this year’s total still falls short of FY12’s all-time record, there is reason for Hooper to be optimistic this is not a one-time boost. In FY18 the State
Department cleared roughly $70 billion in potential FMS deals, spread over 70 individual requests. Those are not hard dollars, but rather a listing of the potential agreements that the State
Department has ok’d; if Congress does not object, those potential deals then go into negotiations. Among those requests are a Saudi request for THAAD ($15 billion) and a Polish request for
Patriot PAC-3 batteries ($10.5 billion), either one of which would give a massive boost for a potential FY19 total if completed on time.
anti-politics in action has resulted in greater repression and corruption means the only
way to solve for the things that the U.S. created in Iraq is by using the state
McSherry ‘98
(J. Patrice, Journal of Third World Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 302-305)
The editors employ their concept of "antipolitics" to frame the collection. They posit that the militaries have long despised the
chaos and instability, corruption and division, class conflict and disorder, spawned by "politics" (demagogic
politicians, party squabbling). As they note, "In much of Latin America, professional military officers concluded that only an end to 'politics' and
the establishment of long-term military rule could provide the basis for modernization, economic development, and political stability" (p. 3).
Military officers who viewed themselves as the repository of the highest values of the nation acted to impose order and progress. They
rejected politics as "the source of underdevelopment, corruption, and evil" (p. 13). The concept
of antipolitics is an interesting one, if somewhat Orwellian, as the editors show. For despite their claims to stand
above politics, the armed forces were not politically neutral actors. One important point made by Loveman and
Davies is that, contrary to some analyses, professionalization did not achieve depoliticization of the militaries; in fact, the contrary was often
true (p. 29), an irony given the concept of "antipolitics." Juan Perón, for example, had "highly political antipolitical appeal" (p. 58). Later, as the
Cold War deepened, the armed forces in the region became increasingly politicized. Encouraged by French and U.S. couterinsurgency doctrines
and training, they began to envision themselves as the front line of defense against international communism and internal subversion in a new
worldwide crusade that greatly expanded traditional concepts of the military mission. Liberal
democracies were overthrown
because they were insufficiently anticommunist or excessively pluralist (that is, they tolerated voices
demanding social change). A key aim of military repression was to depoliticize and demobilize
politically-active populations, particularly leftists, peasant and labor movements, and intellectuals,
usually supported by conservative political and economic elites whose interests and privileges were
well-served. In short, these were hardly apolitical acts. To paraphrase Loveman, the armed forces
claimed the right to "protect democracy from itself"

 
 ISIS poses a big nuclear terrorism threat--
Rudischhauser ’15--- Wolfgang Rudischhauser is a is currently Director of the WMD Non-
proliferation Centre at NATO, “Could ISL go Nuclear?” 5/26,
NATO https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2015/05/26/could-isil-go-
nuclear/index.html  
 
 
This year has shown that terrorism is again coming closer to Europe. After Madrid in 2003
and London in 2005, this year it has already visited Paris, Brussels and Verviers. Tomorrow it could be
Frankfurt, Berlin or Rome.  
Muslim countries in Asia are also at risk. The US has had its own terrorist experiences
with New York, Boston and other attacks. While public attention is currently very much
focused on military security in Europe, and in particular in Europe’s Eastern neighbourhood,
much less attention is given to developments on the southern borders of NATO. Terrorist
groups operating there, as inhumane as they are, are still considered primarily as a
“conventional threat”. But a further particular risk could become a major threat to Western
societies. There is a very real - but not yet fully identified risk - of foreign fighters in ISIL’s
ranks using chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) materials as
“weapons of terror” against the West. One can easily imagine the number of victims
created by panic as well as the economic disruption if the ’Charlie Hebdo’ attacks
had centred on “Chatelet les Halles”, the biggest Paris metro station, with an improvised
explosive device containing radioactive sources or chemical material instead of using
Kalashnikovs. The deadly Tokyo attacks in 1995 using toxic chemical material, (the so called
“Sarin attack”), could have killed many more people. Had Aum Shinrikyo used all the Sarin
they had actually produced, a large part of Tokyo’s population would have died. Thus the
attacks led at the time to a complete rethinking of the threat perception, well before 9/11. 
Until now, the Tokyo attacks have fortunately remained an exception and most terrorist
groups have used “conventional” explosives or weapons, simply because they lacked access
to know-how and material.  This may soon change. And there is a reason.A lot has been
written recently regarding the rising power of an organisation that calls itself the “Islamic
State in the Levant” (ISIL) or “Daesh”. ISIL has attracted at least hundreds if not thousands of
foreign fighters from Western countries to join its ranks. What makes ISIL different is exactly
that. Hundreds of foreign fighters, some with solid academic and educational
backgrounds and intellectual knowledge, have joined the cause and continue to do so
every day. Furthermore ISIL’s success is based on an effective media strategy of
looking at the utmost possible “news effect” of their attacks. Together with their access to
high levels of funding, these three elements bear the real risk of the group turning into
practice what up to now has been largely a theoretical possibility: to actually
employ weapons of mass destruction or CBRN material in terrorist attacks. We might thus
soon enter a stage of CBRN terrorism, never before imaginable. Worrying reports
confirm that ISIL has gained (at least temporarily) access to former chemical
weapons storage sites in Iraq. They might soon do so in Libya. They allegedly used toxic
chemicals in the fighting around Kobane. Even more worrying, there are press reports
about nuclear material from Iraqi scientific institutes having been seized by ISIL.
This demonstrates that while no full scale plots have been unveiled so far, our
governments need to be on alert. Generating improved military and civil
prevention and response capabilities should be a high priority and should not fall
victim to limited budgets in times of economic crisis 
Interpretation: Neg must disprove the ENTIRE desirability of the 1ac being a better
option than the status quo
Prefer it:
- Fairness: K links are generated off of one sentence phrases that attempt to
characterize the 1ac as bad---empty threats shouldn’t be evaluated because
discourse doesn’t shape reality AND if this were allowed affs would lose every
time
- Education: Our form of anti-state action is key to learn about institutions and
how we as citizens can change the scriptures of law---that’s the framing page.
- Manipulation: attempts to demonize the 1ac off of generic links prevent any
meaningful discussion from ever happening which effectively turns all of their
discussion claims on the alternative---they end up polarizing people which
means that no one actually unites behind the alternative.

Non-Unique—commodification’s inevitable—refusing to exercise dissent within

classrooms naturalizes violence through submission. Conclusion of your article.
OUCB 9. Occupied UC Berkeley, The Necrosocial: Civic Life, Social Death, and the UC;
http://anticapitalprojects.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/the-necrosocial/, 11/19

In this graveyard our actions will never touch, will never become the conduits of a movement, if
we remain permanently barricaded within
prescribed identity categories—our force will be dependent on the limited spaces of recognition built between us. Here we are at odds
with one another socially, each of us: students, faculty, staff, homebums, activists, police, chancellors, administrators, bureaucrats, investors, politicians, faculty/
staff/ homebums/ activists/ police/ chancellors/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ investors/ politicians-to-be. That is, we are students, or students of color, or queer
students of color, or faculty, or Philosophy Faculty, or Gender and Women Studies faculty, or we are custodians, or we are shift leaders—each with our own office,
place, time, and given meaning. We form teams, clubs, fraternities, majors, departments, schools, unions, ideologies, identities, and subcultures—and thankfully
each group gets its own designated burial plot. Who doesn’t participate in this graveyard? In the university we prostrate ourselves before a value of separation,
which in reality translates to a value of domination. We spend money and energy trying to convince ourselves we’re brighter than everyone else. Somehow, we
think, we possess some trait that means we deserve more than everyone else. We have measured ourselves and we have measured others. It should never feel
terrible ordering others around, right? It should never feel terrible to diagnose people as an expert, manage them as a bureaucrat, test them as a professor, extract
value from their capital as a businessman. It should feel good, gratifying, completing. It is our private wet dream for the future; everywhere, in everyone this same
dream of domination. After all, we are intelligent, studious, young. We worked hard to be here, we deserve this. We are convinced, owned, broken. We know their
values better than they do: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. This triumvirate of sacred values are ours of course, and in this moment of practiced theater—the
fight between the university and its own students—we have used their words on their stages: Save public education! When those values are violated by the very
institutions which are created to protect them, the veneer fades, the tired set collapses: and we call it injustice, we get indignant. We demand justice from them, for
them to adhere to their values. What many have learned again and again is that these institutions don’t care for those values, not at all, not for all. And we are only
beginning to understand that those values are not even our own. The values create popular images and ideals (healthcare, democracy, equality, happiness,
individuality, pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, public education) while they mean in practice the selling of commodified identities, the state’s monopoly on
violence, the expansion of markets and capital accumulation, the rule of property, the rule of exclusions based on race, gender, class, and domination and
humiliation in general. They sell the practice through the image. We’re taught we’ll live the images once we accept the practice. In this crisis the Chancellors and
Presidents, the Regents and the British Petroleums, the politicians and the managers, they all intend to be true to their values and capitalize on the university
economically and socially—which is to say, nothing has changed, it is only an escalation, a provocation. Their most recent attempt to reorganize wealth and capital
is called a crisis so that we are more willing to accept their new terms as well as what was always dead in the university, to see just how dead we are willing to play,
how non-existent, how compliant, how desirous. Every institution has of course our best interest in mind, so much so that we’re willing to pay, to enter debt
contracts, to strike a submissive pose in the classroom, in the lab, in the seminar, in the dorm, and eventually or simultaneously in the
workplace to pay back those debts. Each bulging institutional value longing to become more than its sentiment through us, each of our empty gestures of feigned-
anxiety to appear under pressure, or of cool-ambivalence to appear accustomed to horror, every moment of student life, is
the management of our
consent to social death. Social death is our banal acceptance of an institution’s meaning for our own lack of
meaning. It’s the positions we thoughtlessly enact. It’s the particular nature of being owned. Social rupture is the initial divorce
between the owners and the owned. A social movement is a function of war. War contains the ability to create a new frame, to build a new
tension for the agents at play, new dynamics in the battles both for the meaning and the material. When we move without a return to their tired meaning, to their
tired configurations of the material, we are engaging in war. It is November 2009. For an end to the values of social death we need ruptures and self-propelled,
We are an antagonistic dead. Talk to your friends, take
unmanaged movements of wild bodies. We need, we desire occupations.

over rooms, take over as many of these dead buildings. We will find one another.
The game which initiated me into being an activist is policy debate. The rules of policy debate are so complex that I still didn't master them
after 4 years of hard work, so I'll get down to the details. In CEDA-NDT policy
debate, teams of two debaters compete against one another
using a variety of arguments. Judges arbitrate the winner, but debates are won by a largely strategic calculus. Debaters need
to answer all arguments. Arguments that go unanswered count as a loss. The best thing about the current state of
debate is that debaters are allowed to use a wide range of arguments. As a new debater, I started by supporting
foreign policies toward Japan in some rounds and then finally moved on to using arguments based on the work of philosophers and critical
theorists. The first philosopher I used heavily was Nietzsche, I then moved on to using Foucault and finally used queer and disability theory
based argumentation in debate rounds. Debate is a unique situation particularly because the game is usable for overtly activist purposes. Not
all games translate into politics so easily. I
did become a disability activist after doing research in the area of disability
theory in order to win the game of debate, but other revolutionaries throughout history have differing connections to gaming. Guy
Debord, famous leader of the neo-marxist/anarchist revolutionary and art group known as The Situationists designed his own war game called
"A Game of War" that took place on a board with squares and consisted of elaborate war strategy with lines of communication, soldiers and
artillery. Debord was fascinated with war and war gaming and hoped to use his board game as a way that "revolutionary activists could
learn how to fight and win against the oppressors of spectacular society"
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/27323/le-jeu-de-la-guerre Elsewhere, some versions of the tabletop pen and paper role playing game
Dungeons and Dragons have been innovated so that they could place players in historical situations. In Generic Universal Role Playing System's
World War 2 game, one can play as the french resistance, for example. Elsewhere, some activists have used online games in order to
communicate dire messages about genocide and other political events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_is_Dying What is becoming
elaborately clear is that gaming does function as training for activism and revolution, both through a content focus which
communicates important political messages and through strategy which forces research or critical thinking in the player.
Games have, since they have existed, been used by dominant state and capitalist interests to naturalize
competition and to distract players from politics, but it doesn't always have to be like this. Debord, master
game designer and revolutionary, advocates detournement or the combination of various media items with an activist message to confront
assumptions.
Tuck and Yang votes aff—Affirming refusal doesn’t prohibit all study—it makes
transparent regimes of power by employing research against its metanarrative of
knowledge production. Genealogy isn’t the tired proliferation of pain narratives but
portrays violations without victimization to make way for desire-centered research
against telos
Tuck & Yang 14 (E. & K., prof of nat am studies @ suny & prof of ethnic studies @ cal, R-words: Refusing research, p 241-243//shree)
Considering Erased Lynchings dialogically with On Ethnographic Refusal, we can see how refusal is not a prohibition but a
generative form. First, refusal turns the gaze back upon power, specifically the colonial modalities of knowing persons as
bodies to be differentially counted, violated, saved, and put to work. It makes transparent the metanarrative of knowledge
production—its spectatorship for pain and its preoccupation for documenting and ruling over racial difference. Thus, refusal to be made
meaningful first and foremost is grounded in a critique of settler colonialism, its construction of Whiteness, and its regimes
of representation. Second, refusal generates, expands, champions representational territories that colonial
knowledge endeavors to settle, enclose, domesticate. Simpson complicates the portrayals of Iroquois, without resorting to
reportrayals of anthropological Indians. Gonzales-Day portrays the violations without reportraying the victimizations.
Third, refusal is a critical intervention into research and its circular self-defining ethics. The ethical justification for research is defensive and
self-encircling—its apparent self-criticism serves to expand its own rights to know, and to defend its violations in the name of “good science.”
Refusal challenges the individualizing discourse of IRB consent and “good science” by highlighting the problems of
collective harm, of representational harm, and of knowledge colonization. Fourth, refusal itself could be developed into both method and
theory. Simpson presents refusal on the part of the researcher as a type of calculus ethnography. Gonzales-Day
deploys refusal as a
mode of representation. Simpson theorizes refusal by the Kahnawake Nation as anticolonial, and rooted in the
desire for possibilities outside of colonial logics, not as a reactive stance. This final point about refusal connects our
conversation back to desire as a counterlogic to settler colonial knowledge. Desire is compellingly depicted in Simpson’s description of a
moment in an interview, in which the alternative logics about a “feeling citizenship” are referenced. The interviewee states, Citizenship is, as I
said, you live there, you grew up there, that is the life that you know—that is who you are. Membership is more of a legislative enactment
designed to keep people from obtaining the various benefits that Aboriginals can receive. (p. 76) Simpson describes this counterlogic as “the
logic of the present,” one that is witnessed, lived, suffered through, and enjoyed (p. 76). Out of the predicaments, it
innovates “tolerance and exceptions and affections” (p. 76). Simpson writes (regarding the Indian Act, or blood quantum), “‘Feeling
citizenships’ . . . are structured in the present space of intra-community recognition, affection and care, outside of the logics of
colonial and imperial rule” (p. 76). Simpson’s logic of the present dovetails with our discussion on the logics of desire. Collectively,
Kahnawake refusals decenter damage narratives; they unsettle the settler colonial logics of blood and rights; they center
desire. By theorizing through desire, Simpson thus theorizes with and as Kahnawake Mohawk. It is important to point out that Simpson does
not deploy her tribal identity as a badge of authentic voice, but rather highlights the ethical predicaments that result from speaking as oneself,
as simultaneously part of a collective with internal disputes, vis-à-vis negotiations of various settler colonial logics. Simpson thoughtfully
differentiates between the Native researcher philosophically as a kind of privileged position of authenticity, and the Native researcher
realistically as one who is beholden to multiple ethical considerations. What is tricky about this position is not only theorizing with, rather than
theorizing about, but also theorizing as. To theorize with and as at the same time is a difficult yet fecund positionality—one that rubs against
the ethnographic limit at the outset. Theorizing with (and in some of our cases, as) repositions Indigenous people and
otherwise researched Others as intellectual subjects rather than anthropological subjects. Thus desire is an
“epistemological shift,” not just a methodological shift (Tuck, 2009, p. 419). Culmination. At this juncture, we don’t intend to offer a
general framework for refusal, because all refusal is particular, meaning refusal is always grounded in
historical analysis and present conditions. Any discussion of Simpson’s article would need to attend to the significance of real and
representational sovereignty in her analysis and theorizing of refusal. The particularities of Kahnawake sovereignty throb at the center of each
of the three dimensions of refusal described above. We caution readers against expropriating Indigenous notions of sovereignty into other
contexts, or metaphorizing sovereignty in a way that permits one to forget that struggles to have sovereignty recognized are very real and very
lived. Yet from Simpson’s example, we are able to see ways in which a researcher might make transparent the
coloniality of academic knowledge in order to find its ethical limits, expand the limits of sovereign
knowledge, and expand decolonial representational territories. This is in addition to questions her work helpfully raises
about who the researcher is, who the researched are, and how the historical/ representational context for research matters. One way to think
about refusal is how desire can be a framework, mode, and space for refusal. As a framework, desire
is a counterlogic to the logics of settler
colonialism. Rooted
in possibilities gone but not foreclosed, “the not yet, and at times, the not anymore” (Tuck, 2010, p. 417),
desire refuses the master narrative that colonization was inevitable and has a monopoly on the future.
By refusing the telos of colonial future, desire expands possible futures. As a mode of refusal, desire is a “no” and a
“yes.” Another way to think about refusal is to consider using strategies of social science research to
further expose the complicity of social science disciplines and research in the project of settler
colonialism. There is much need to employ social science to turn back upon itself as settler colonial
knowledge, as opposed to universal, liberal, or neutral knowledge without horizon. This form of refusal might include
bringing attention to the mechanisms of knowledge legitimation, like the Good Labkeeping Seal of Approval (discussed under Axiom III);
contesting appropriation, like the collection of pain narratives; and publicly renouncing the diminishing of Indigenous or local narratives with
blood narratives in the name of science, such as in the Havasupai case discussed under Axiom II.
Their understanding of commodification is fundamentally flawed – their assumption
that all language is always already commodified is unable to grapple with the ways
that black performance, particularly that of mourning, reconstructs language.
Moten 03. Fred, Professor of English at the University of California, Riverside, “Black Mo’nin,” In the
Break: The Aesthetics of the Black Radical Tradition, University of Minnesota Press, 2003.

This aural aesthetic is not the simple reemergence of the voice of presence, the visible and graphic
word. The logos that voice implies and requires has been complicated by the echo of transgressive
whistle, abortive seduction, stuttered leave-taking, and by reconstructive overtones of mo’nin’.
Something is remembered and repeated in such complications. Transferred. To move or work through
that something, to improvise, requires thinking about morning and how mourning sounds, how moaning
sounds. What’s made and destroyed. We’ll have to do this while keeping in mind all that remains urgent
and needful and open in the critique of phonologocentrism, which Jacques Derrida initiates. Nevertheless, we’ve got
to cut the ongoing “reduction of the phonic substance,” whose origin is untraceable but is at least as old
as philosophy, at least as old as its paradoxically interinanimate other, phonocentrism, and predates any
call for its being set into motion, either in Descartes or Saussure or in Derrida’s critical echo of them.11 The refusal to
neutralize the phonic substance of the photograph rewrites the time of the photograph, the time of the
photograph of the dead. The time of the sound of the photograph of the dead is no longer irreversible,
no longer vulgar, and, moreover, is indexed not only to rhythmic complication but to the extreme and
subtle harmonics of various shrieks, hums, hollers, shouts, and moans. What these sounds and their
times indicate is the way into another question concerning universality, a reopening of the issue of a
universal language by way of this new music so that now it’s possible to accommodate a differentiation
of the universal, of its ongoing reconstruction in sound as the differential mark, divided and abundant,
dividing and abounding. But how many people have really listened to this photograph? Hieroglyphics, phonetic writing,
phonography— where is the photograph placed in all this? Black mo’nin’ is the phonographic content of this
photograph. And the whistle is just as crucial as the moan; train whistle, maybe; his whistle carrying the echo of the train that took his
particular origins north, the train that brought him home and took him home and brought him home. There’s a massive itinerancy
here, a fugitivity that breaking only left more broke, broken and unbroken circle of escape and return.12
And the gap between them, between their modes of audibility vis-à-vis the photograph, is the difference
within invagination between what cuts and what surrounds, invagination being that principle of
impurity, which, for Derrida, marks the law of the law of genre where the set or ensemble or totality is
constantly improvised by the rupturing and augmentative power of an always already multiply and
disruptively present singularity.13 So that speech is broken and expanded by writing; so that
hieroglyphics is affected by phonetic script; so that a photograph exerts itself on the alphabet; so that
phonographic content infuses the photo. And this movement doesn’t mark some orbital decay in which
signification inevitably returns to some simple vocal presence; rather, it’s the itinerary of the force and
movement of signification’s outside. The implications of this aural aesthetic—this phonographic rewriting of/in the
photograph—are crucial and powerful, then, because they mark something general about the nature of a
photograph and a performance—the ongoing universality of their absolute singularity— that is itself, at least for me,
most clearly and generously given in black photography and black performance. (This is, for instance, what
Mackey always brings, always knows.)
Marginal Language DA – their totalizing claims that language is commodified miss the
point. It is not a question of the existence of a commodified system of language, but rather
how we position ourselves to that structure and how we use our language. Even in the face
of commodification one should perform black vitality or face losing that which gives value
to existence.
Morrison 93. (Toni Morrison is an American novelist, editor, teacher, and Professor Emeritus at
Princeton University. Morrison won the Puliter Prize and the American Book Award in 1988 for Beloved.
The novel was adapted into a film of the same name in 1998. “Toni Morrison –Nobel Lecture”
https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1993/morrison-lecture.html) NAE

"You trivialize us and trivialize the bird that is not in our hands. Is there no context for our lives? No song,
no literature, no poem full of vitamins, no history connected to experience that you can pass along to
help us start strong? You are an adult. The old one, the wise one. Stop thinking about saving your face. Think of
our lives and tell us your particularized world. Make up a story. Narrative is radical, creating us at the very
moment it is being created. We will not blame you if your reach exceeds your grasp; if love so ignites your
words they go down in flames and nothing is left but their scald. Or if, with the reticence of a surgeon's
hands, your words suture only the places where blood might flow. We know you can never do it properly
- once and for all. Passion is never enough; neither is skill. But try. For our sake and yours forget your
name in the street; tell us what the world has been to you in the dark places and in the light. Don't tell us
what to believe, what to fear. Show us belief s wide skirt and the stitch that unravels fear's caul. You, old
woman, blessed with blindness, can speak the language that tells us what only language can: how to see
without pictures. Language alone protects us from the scariness of things with no names. Language alone
is meditation. "Tell us what it is to be a woman so that we may know what it is to be a man. What moves
at the margin. What it is to have no home in this place. To be set adrift from the one you knew. What it is
to live at the edge of towns that cannot bear your company. "Tell us about ships turned away from shorelines at Easter,
placenta in a field. Tell us about a wagonload of slaves, how they sang so softly their breath was
indistinguishable from the falling snow. How they knew from the hunch of the nearest shoulder that the next stop would be their
last. How, with hands prayered in their sex, they thought of heat, then sun. Lifting their faces as though it was there for the taking. Turning as
though there for the taking. They stop at an inn. The driver and his mate go in with the lamp leaving them humming in the dark. The horse's void
steams into the snow beneath its hooves and its hiss and melt are the envy of the freezing slaves. "The inn door opens: a girl and a boy step away
from its light. They climb into the wagon bed. The boy will have a gun in three years, but now he carries a lamp and a jug of warm cider. They
pass it from mouth to mouth. The girl offers bread, pieces of meat and something more: a glance into the eyes of the one she serves.
One helping for each man, two for each woman. And a look. They look back. The next stop will be their last. But not this one. This one is
warmed." It's quiet again when the children finish speaking, until the woman breaks into the silence. "Finally", she says, "I
trust you now. I
trust you with the bird that is not in your hands because you have truly caught it. Look. How lovely it is,
this thing we have done - together."

We straight turn their claims of state redeployment - The affirmative is a recognition of

the archival violence of the state through the use of that uses the ante-sovereign
potential of militant preservation as a way to communicate a violence that exceeds the
possibility of interpretation or redress – this results is an act of haunting that disrupts
civil society's monopoly over the archive
Reed '14. Adam Metcalfe Reed, A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for
the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS with an emphasis in FEMINIST
STUDIES at University of California Santa Cruz, "Mental Death: Slavery, Madness and State Violence in
the United States") ipartman
In this text, Derrida asks how to inherit the Marxian revolutionary or messianic promise, or how to be haunted by
something that is yet to come, but he has elsewhere remarked that the very “structure of the archive is spectral.” The archive in
Archive Fever is less a system that governs all possible statements than it is a site of violence guarded by
those with hermeneutical authority, the archons. Derrida remarks that the Greek word arkhe “names at once the
commencement and the commandment.” The former refers to the historical or ontological origin, while the latter signifies a “nomological
principle” by which order is established and laws are enforced. The
specter appears in this model to trouble the notion of
an archival ontology, as the archive is “spectral a priori: neither present nor absent ‘in the flesh,’ neither
visible nor invisible, a trace always referring to another whose eyes can never be met.” While haunting seems
to be a symptom of “archive fever,” Derrida’s diagnosis of the desire to enter into its space to unearth its secrets, even to the point of death,
the ghost does not appear to be a result of the archival violence that Derrida describes during the imposition of law. Yet Achille Mbembe has
expanded upon Derrida’s notions of archival violence and haunting by linking them to the power of the state.
The archive for
Mbembe is likewise a space, but primarily a religious one that incorporates the features of a temple or
cemetery. The archive is predicated on death, both on the death of the authors of its documents and its
control over “dead time (the past).” Through its consecration and internment of the dead, the archive keeps their traces
at bay, ensuring that they are “prohibited from stirring up disorder in the present.” Thus the ability to control and destroy the
past ensures the state’s force: “there is no state without archives—without its archives...more than on
its ability to recall, the power of the state rests upon its ability to consume time.”69 Yet the archive also
represents a threat to the state, and it is here that Mbembe invokes the specter, the possibility of the dead to be
brought back to life. I have already mentioned above one of the ways that specters are silenced: commemoration, or the production of
the past as an event that cannot be repeated by its dissemination in commodity form. The historian, who brings the dead back to life only to
speak in their name, is the other: It may be that historiography, and the very possibility of a political community (polis), are only conceivable on
condition that the spectre, which has been brought back to life in this way, should remain silent, should accept that from now on he may only
speak through another, or be represented by some sign, some object which, not belonging to any one in particular, now belongs to all.
Mbembe ends with this vision of the historian in service of the state, yet Avery Gordon helps to shift the focus away
from the haunted to the haunter to articulate a kind of agency and relationality outside of strict disciplinary frameworks. Gordon is
adamant that the ghost does not represent a negated or silent individual but “a social figure...[it] is one
form by which something lost, or barely visible, or seemingly not there to our supposedly well-trained
eyes, makes itself known or apparent to us, in its own way, of course.” The operative phrase in the above is the “well-
trained eyes,” as Gordon uses haunting to open up possibilities of interdisciplinary analysis to accommodate what falls outside
disciplinary frameworks, such as the complexity of social life beyond sociological taxonomies, psychoanalysis’s
inability to theorize the social, and the continuing experience of the legacy of slavery in America. Gordon
develops this last analysis in a reading of what is perhaps the originary meditation on race, haunting and history, Toni Morrison’s Beloved,
where she articulates “two counterintuitive features of haunting.” The first is that, like Beloved, the ghost is not the result of an individual
trauma or death that remains in the past, but a collective experience of what is being repressed in the present. As such, “the ghost... (like
Beloved) is pregnant with possibility.” The
question of how to access that possibility, the second feature, remains
outside of “modern retrieval” methods from the disciplines of sociology and history, but in a recognition
that “history, as Morrison suggests, is that ghostly totality that articulates and disarticulates itself and
the subjects who inhabit it...it is always a site of struggle and contradiction between the living and the
ghostly.”75 Gordon here troubles any easy separation not only between the past, present and the future, but between the haunted and the
haunter, as both exist in a shifting network that both forms and deforms them. While Gordon’s passionate critique of disciplinary methodology
suffers slightly by taking one, literature, for granted, Gayatri Spivak has persistently brought history and literature in a productive crisis and in
one instance encapsulates this dissonance in the figure of the ghost. Spivak
speaks of haunting in her critique of Derrida’s
Specters of Marx by contrasting his European selectivity (the “magisterial texts” of Marx and Shakespeare) with the
Ghost-Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890.76 Like Derrida’s encounter with Marx, Spivak analyzes the ghost
dance as an effort “to be haunted by the ancestors rather than treat them as objects of ritual worship,” yet
she is more explicit how this represents an “ethical relation with history as such” and necessarily ends
with a failure to make the past into the future.77Spivak rearticulates both of these features of haunting in her critique of
another theorist engaged with divisions between the past and the present, Dominick LaCapra. Like Hayden White, LaCapra has done much to
counter the view of the archive as a depository of facts that the historian uses to reconstruct the past (or what LaCapra terms the
“documentary model”) by highlighting the tropological and rhetorical, in a word literary, underpinnings of the historical discipline.Spivak,
however, is wary of such a reversal between history and literature and calls attention to the specific subject-position LaCapra constructs for the
historian as literary theorist.LaCapra is particularly interested in how “a dialogical relation to the past
encounters the problem of coming to terms with ‘transference’ in the psychoanalytic sense of a
repetition/displacement of the ‘object’ of study in one’s own discourse about it.”79 This “transferential”
approach has been commended as a more dynamic relationship than the standard and static conception
of historical experience.80 Yet Spivak cautions that it may represent “a radical version of the academic intellectual’s desire for power,”
in that the historian alternately assumes the position of the analysand and analyst in the process of making the past present.81 What
legitimates this alternating possession is the “arrogance of the cure,” which Spivak believes produces
past subjects as self-consolidating others and a history that represents the reflection of the historian.82
Instead, Spivak invokes haunting as a way to lay to rest the hope of fully incorporating or restoring the past while refusing to abandon a
motivated, if incomplete and discontinuous, relation to its fragile subjects (in this specific instance, the Rani of Samur). I hope this brief and
selective overview of haunting discourse has demonstrated my desire to see ghosts in the archive. All of the above theorists have conjured
ghosts to problematize orthodox historical methods, narratives and subjects, and to open up other possible epistemologies and ethics. Even
before I entered the archives, I was overcome with a need for such alternatives; as I mentioned above, the black psychiatric inmate does not
exist in American psychiatric historiography. For David Rothman, whose The Discovery of the Asylum and Conscience and Convenience are
perhaps the most canonical texts of American psychiatric historiography, all mental patients are white. Gerald Grob, like the dissertations I read
in North Carolina, occasionally mentions racial stereotypes and unequal treatment, but leaves them behind in his primarily Whiggish
orientation. Even historians of social control like Thomas Szasz—the mirror image of Grob’s perspective—seem content merely to cite Samuel
A. Cartwright’s infamous diagnoses of drapetomania and dysaethesia aethiopica, which refer to the compulsion of slaves to run away from the
masters and the lack of work ethic or obedience, as proof of psychiatry’s biased and non-scientific status, but neglects those interned under
these and similar labels. I was hoping to use the ghosts of the inmates of the asylums I researched to fracture these narratives rather than
simply adding race to their content; I was hoping to expose the struggle that constitutes the domain of history and memory by bringing these
inmates back into the forefront of American psychiatry, and back to life. I was also depending on haunting to avoid what has become the
hegemonic political-hermeneutic strategy for countering psychiatric authority: to read the inmates’ speech not as a word-salad or a symptom
of an underlying biological disorder, but as a product of/comment on social oppression. This strategy arose primarily during anti-institutional or
anti-psychiatric struggles in the 1960s, as exemplified in Erving Goffman’s interpretations of psychotic symptoms such as withdrawal as a
response to the degradations of institutional life and R.D. Laing’s rereading of a patient’s speech presented at a lecture by Emil Kraepelin as a
parody of the doctor’s own discourse. Yet this hermeneutics of madness found its fullest expression in feminist works of the 1970s, specifically
in Phyllis Chelser’s description of madness as gender nonconformativity, Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s view of madness as an expression
of anger and protest against patriarchy, and the numerous revisionist accounts of hysteria, especially Freud’s Dora case. The resignification of
mad discourse as a critique or transcendence of patriarchy has produced some exciting reading, but has not necessarily challenged the
psychiatric power that remains its condition of possibility. I am drawing here from the work of survivor activist Judi Chamberlin who articulated
this in regards to Laing, yet I believe it reverberates within the larger tradition: Although [the inmates] are sympathetically described, and their
symbolism defined (by Laing, not by themselves), it is clear that Laing found them--and left them--inside the mental hospitals where he was
trained as a psychiatrist. Laing grants what these ‘schizophrenics’ say has meaning, but only through his translations.88 Chamberlin is
articulating here a call for a “political subjectivity and agency that antagonizes its condition of possibility rather
than reifying it,” as prison abolitionist scholar Dylan Rodriguez has phrased it.89 Again, I believed I had found such a strategy in the ghost:
he would subvert the transparency and visibility required for such an easy reading of madness as the result of a single determination. The
ghost would provide a guarantee against the seductions of the state, psychiatric or Derridian archives as such
by forcing me to consider an ethical relation to the past as both a radical alterity and as a subject
existing in a divided presence. Even though his the body would be untouched and his the eyes unmet,
the ghost would provide a way of approaching difference outside of periodization, state power and
narcissistic projection. Yet standing in front of the cage, then and now, I did/do not feel the breakdown
of temporality, identity or disciplinarity; instead, it seemed that my relation to the inmates was as
motivated and structured as it had been in the state archives. At first, this seemed to be a problem of data: how could I
be haunted by what I could not even begin to imagine? Haunting was supposed to guard against an arrogant possession of the past by pointing
to a trace of what was effaced in disclosure, but what if practically nothing was disclosed in the first place? I had found so little about the
inmates’ lives that to imagine that I was haunted by them seemed identical with a transferential relation with the object, constructing them as
a self-consolidating other or as my own reflection. Could I be haunted by the cage, instead of who was once inside of it? And in doing so, would
I be haunted instead by those who built the cage, its original or reproduction?