Race War Extension

Theyre making the safe for minority debaters cause I cant find a coalition to be
with. This comes prior to anything in round cause if minorities don’t feel safe in
round they wont do debate which comes before education and is extremely
unfair. Vote neg on their violation and oppression on minority safety. This
means you vote neg to protect minorities safety.

Underview

Contest aff: They conceded the 2nd point in the underview saying they couldn’t
contest the aff meaning that if they did which they have that they should be
dropped on this for structural, and strat skews which are key to fairness in
debate. This means you DTD on the issue and give me the ballot.
The also conceded evaluate the debate after the 1AC because debate is
fundamentally flawed and the revolution of the K is key to solving it so make it
auto win to change debate.
Finnally from the underview they conceded Evaluate the thoeey debate after
the 1ar so even if you don’t buy my 1AC arg you have to buy this one due to the
7;3 time skew making it impossible for the aff to win if the neg spends 7 and 6
minutes of frivouuls theories.

All of this means I have won the round and is a reason to DTD. Don’t allow new
2nr arguments.

T
RVI’s
1. It is key to turn ground on theory- no way for me to win the debate on the theory shell- this
creates a structural disadvantage that is impossible for me to overcome.
2. RVIs are key to education because they deter frivolous theory- this solves because we don’t
have to lose any time on the theory debate if there’s no actual abuse
3. the ballot says vote for the better debater so if I’m debating better on the highest layer of
the flow I should win the debate
Cross apply the 1AC faun evidence, you are an enforcement of biopolitics, which leads
to slavery. Voting on this would simply be an enforce of the biopolitical mind cop.
Cross apply baudrilard evidence, we break free from freedom to gain freedom, cross
apply petro ev you have to vote on this first because it’s a decision rule. This is our
argument. We get pre-fiat solvency via the performance act. They reverify the
resolution and rules of debate through the use of T making the revolution impossible.
Don’t evaluate T.

Also you can cross-aply the 8 independent reason that theory is incoherent because it becomes
impossible to resolve the round, set bad norms, frivolous theory is abusive. You not evaluate it.

Also they conceded the interp must have my name so cross-aply that to all shells which is a reason to
drop the arg cause they just gernalize by using generic terms. Also I meet my name is Tanish, not
debater.

Reject disclosure interps – there will always be disclosure shells in debate – its

gone from full text to open source highlighting to round reports – what is this?

Reject out of round violations – I shouldn’t be dropped because I did something

outside of round – justifies debates about ad hominums instead of actual

substance of the topic

Presume Aff
The 3 justification were conceded so extend that if you are confused vote aff on presumption because of
time and strat skew.

K
Anarchy key to the elimination of ableism and capitalism
Moche et al 09 (Liat Ben Moche, Ph.D. student in sociology, disability studies, and women’s studies at Syracuse University); Dave Hill ,Professor of
Education Policy, University of Northampton, England; Anthony J. Nocella II ,professor at Le Moyne College; and Bill Templar, Faculty of Education at the University
of Malaya in Kuala Lumpur and is a staff member in the Simon Dubnow Institute for Jewish History and Culture at the University of Leipzig. "Dis-abling capitalism
and an anarchism of 'radical equality' in resistance to ideologies of normalcy". Published in the journal of Contemporary Anarchist Studies in 2009.
https://libcom.org/files/Contemporary_Anarchist_Studies.pdf )

Disability Studies is a relatively new academic field. It springs in part from the disability rights movement
and social change activism spurred largely by people labeled and marginalized as “disabled” in
numerous societies (Barnes et al. 2002; Kafka 2003; Malhotra 2001). Like Feminist and Queer Studies,
Disability Studies provides a conceptual framework for a critique of law, culture, and society. Disability
Studies deconstructs and reconstructs the meaning of disability through investigating the social
construction of disability, the power structures that support and enhance ableism, and the idea of
normalcy. The basic approach that all disability studies scholars share is that disability is not an inherent
trait located in the disabled person’s body and mind, but a result of socio-cultural dynamics that occur in
interactions between society and people defined as disabled. An important point to address at the
outset is that all people are different and have unique needs. Therefore, “normal,” “average,” or “able”
are all socially constructed terms. Disability, from this premise, is seen as a spectrum, not a binary
(dis/ability). The construction of dis/ability as a binary and the placement of particular individuals on
either side is a result of power relations and hegemonic beliefs about ideal productive bodies and about
notions of usefulness, independence, and social and economic contributions. Writing on the notion of
anarchy as the antipode of fascism and the fascist conception that “in unity there is strength – in
uniformity there is strength,” Alan Moore (2007) stresses that anarchy is almost starting from the
principle that “in diversity, there is strength.” Everybody is recognized as having their own abilities,
agendas, and their own need to work cooperatively with other people in mutual and collaborative
approaches. This is in direct contrast to the current neoliberal, capitalist, and modernist narrative that
individuals are independent, without the need of community or group support. Anarchist theory
foregrounds diversity as the great social reservoir of human particularity, with people, all different,
working together in common toward mutual goals. Capitalism contributes to the marginalization of
those constructed as “dis/abled” by positioning the individual as consumer and producer. Capitalism,
especially in its post-war hyper-consumerist form, works to reduce our humanity and citizenship to
these two roles, both of which support capitalism. For example, consumption supports the engines of
production because people have to sell their labor-power in order to purchase, and capitalism (through
the ideological and repressive apparatuses of the state (Althusser 1971; Hill 2004), engages in
permanent culture wars to capture and/or inflame people’s consumerist materialistic desires and
ideological support (Gramsci 1989; Marcuse 1969). But until everyone is respected as being different
and not measured according to an imaginary notion of a “normal person,” there will be those that are
marginalized, disabled, and challenged in a culture that constructs bodies along a binary typology as
either “normal” or “

Case