You can sign your ballot right here- and you have a moral obligation to reject every instance of sexism. Always put ethics first. Without a system of ethics, it threatens the very existence of humanity.Bromberg 2009 (Sarah, Feminist Author, Scholar, and Activist, “The Evolution of Ethics: An Introduction to Cybernetic Ethics”, http://www.evolutionaryethics.com/chapter1.html, 12/25/09, LV)

The evolution of ethical systems is built upon centuries of reasoned insight and personal experiences that reveal which actions are better than others, which are productive, and which are disruptive and should be avoided. As efficient human actions reveal themselves to an evolving society, its people develop the means to make productive choices between one type of action and another. Some choices are decidedly better than others. This prioritizing of human actions into efficient hierarchies establishes the foundations of a variety of rule systems which later refine themselves into more sophisticated systems of morals, customs, statutory laws, and professional codes. All these systems have a tendency to address the fundamental need of the human species to survive and avoid the common fate of extinction by conserving energy and directing social attention towards more productive

kinds of behavior. It could be said that as civilization approaches the ideal of efficiency, the harmony that follows from efficient and thoughtful actions inspires a state of peace that exponentially increases the chances of human civilization surviving over long periods of time. Social change has more or less followed the more reasoned logic and experiences of people. Change is not always perfect. However, as people experience more and learn more about their world through formal education, they have more resources by which they can make judgments about the behavior of their fellow humans. Knowledge of the past lends to enlightened minds a knowledge of the future. Common education and experiences inspire the emergence of informal belief systems, clarifying what appears to be acceptable behavior and what is not. Observations that endure centuries of reasoned scrutiny integrate ultimately into the cultural ethic. As a rule of thumb, an action that contributes to the disorganization of society is often considered "wrong" and that which contributes to the organization of society "right." Behaviors that corrupt the peace, prosperity, and productivity of a society are generally discouraged as "wrong," in favor of behaviors which contribute to the well-being of the society and are generally considered "right." In any event, the evolution of rules in complex societies addresses the fundamental impulse of the human species to survive in a world of competing biological systems. Ethical systems and formal laws together serve to bring order to a world that tends to become disorganized and sometimes violent if ethical views and rules of conduct are not established. Ethical systems that emerge for any given period of historical development may not represent the finest of rules ever conceived, but they are sufficient to hold the growth of humanity in the balance. Along with the emergence of good rules have evolved many others that were bad. These bad rules evolved from errors, delusions, and self-interest. But over time the good rules that incorporated a keen insight into human relationships have likely endured and have slowly grown into a reasonably consistent set of rules. These rules today are expressed formally and informally in systems of laws, morals, manners, and customs. Rules spontaneously evolve in every social system, whether it is a group of small-time criminals or highly educated people in a multinational corporation. Rule systems evolve along the lines of an efficiency algorithm that effectively organizes the prevailing state of affairs in small increments of change over long periods of social time. In the beginning of the formation of social systems, rules may not have been as refined as they are today. But rules necessarily

existed from the beginning simply to keep volatile

Interpretation- you are an academic tasked with evaluating the best ethical orientation towards patriarchy.

Their framework is another link—it’s patriarchal censorship that silencing the feminist worldview—this independently warrants a negative ballot to fight against gendered censorshipMojab 02 (Shahrzad, director of the Women and Gender Studies Institute and an Associate Professor in the Department of Adult Education and Psychology at University of Toronto, Canada; “Information, Censorship, and Gender Relations in Global Capitalism” Information for Social Change 1)

It is important to know more about the ties that bind censorship to gende r. Even when one barrier is removed, others emerge to ensure the reproduction of the status quo. For instance, after decades of struggle, beginning in late nineteenth century, legal barriers to women's access to parliament and political office were removed in the West and, later, in many non-Western states. This was achieved, not simply through access to information, but rather due to women's determination to create knowledge and consciousness, and engage in mobilizing and organizing (sit-ins, demonstrations, picketing, leafleting, singing, etc.) in

schools, homes, streets, churches, and university campuses. However, state s and state-centred politics continue to be male-centred. Even when women have a proportionate participation in the parliament, there is no guarantee that they would all advocate feminist alternatives to an androcentric agenda; and this is the case for the simple reason that women can be as patriarchal in their politics as some men are.A more adequate approach to the understanding of censorship is, I believe, to see it not as an irrational practice, as a mischievous attitude, or a technical

problem of obstructing channels of communication. Censorship is an integral part of the exercise of gender power, class power, and the powers of the nation, ethnicity, religion and governance . Not only does it deny women access to information, but also limits their participation in the creation of knowledge, and denies them the power to utilize knowledge . If in pre-modern times the church was the major player in creating knowledge, today the market produces, disseminates, and utilizes much of the knowledge, which has achieved the status of a commodity. Knowledge is "intellectual property." Even the knowledge created in public and semi-public institutions such as universities is increasingly geared to the agenda of the market, and serves the promotion of market interests. Moreover, Western states primarily entertain the market as the lifeline of economy, culture and society. They increasingly aim at giving all the power to the market. In dictatorial regimes, however, the state still plays a prominent role in

censoring the creation and dissemination of knowledge. From Peru to Turkey, to Iran and to China, states suppress activists, journalists, libraries, bookstores, print and broadcast media, satellite dishes and the Internet. They often do so by committing violence against the citizens and the

communication systems they use.Although we may find much gender-based subtlety in the techniques of limiting women's access to information , I believe that the subtlest censorship is denying feminist knowledge a visible role in the exercise of power. The state , Western and non-Western, rules through privileging androcentric

knowledge as the basis for governance. The conduct of national censuses, for instance, continues to be

based on androcentric worldviews in spite of devastating feminist critique. To give another example, women are now recruited into Western armies in combat functions, but states continue to ignore feminist and pacifist knowledge that challenges the very phenomenon of war and violence (Cynthia Enloe, 2000). Women themselves can be and, often, are part of the problem. In the absence of feminist consciousness, they generally act as participants in the reproduction of patriarchal gender relations. In Islamic societies, when men engage in the "honour" killing of their wives, daughters or sisters, sometimes mothers participate in or tolerate the horrendous crime (Mojab, 2002). The democratisation of gender relations is a conscious intervention in a power structure that is closely interlocked with the powers of the state, class, race, ethnicity, religion and tradition. For both women and men, challenging patriarchy means defying one's own values, worldviews, emotions, and traditions. At the same time, it involves risk taking including, in some situations, loss of life. Women's full access to androcentric knowledge will not disturb the status quo. I argue that, in the absence of feminist consciousness, women may even act as ministers of propaganda and censorship. They will not be in a position to exercise the democratic right to revolt against oppressive rule. In the West, feminist knowledge cannot be suppressed through book-burning, jailing, torture, and assassination. Censorship is conducted, much more effectively, by stigmatizing and marginalising feminist knowledge as "special interest," while androcentrism is promoted as the norm, the canon, and "human nature." That is why, I contend, that if we fill all the media institutions with female managers and staff, if we give all educational institutions to women, or hand over all high-rank military positions to women, the androcentric world order with its violence, war, poverty, and degenerating environment will continue to function. Globalization, as it is

understood in mainstream media and in state discourses, is nothing new; it emerged with the rise of capitalism; the main engine of globalization is the capitalist market, and it is promoted and planned by capitalist states through various organs such as the G8, World Bank, European Union, World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, etc. The impact of this globalization on women has been largely negative, especially in the developing world. Millions of girls aged 5 to 15 are recruited into the global prostitution market. Millions more leave their families and countries to raise some income as maids. However, other forms of globalization or, rather, internationalization have been in the making. For instance, feminism has evolved as an international movement in spite of the opposition of conservatives in many parts of the world. It has been able to put women's demands on the agenda of states and international organs such as the United Nations. Media are also important actors in globalisation. Women have had more presence in the media both as producers and as targets or sources of entertainment and information programming. There is considerable progress, for instance, in the production of women and feminist press in many developing countries. The Internet and desktop publishing present new opportunities for more media activism. Egypt has a women's television channel. Focusing on the question of censorship, the crucial issue is freedom of speech not only for women but also more significantly, for feminists and feminist knowledge. Feminist knowledge and consciousness is the primary target of censorship. Do the globalizing media allow women of the developing countries to learn about the achievements of Western women in fighting patriarchy? Do women of the West learn from the struggles of women in India, Jamaica or Saudi Arabia? Do the global media allow women everywhere to know about the Beijing Conference and its aftermath? Do they disseminate adequate and accurate information about the World March of Women? My answers are rather in the negative. The cyberspace is much like the realspace that creates it. The fact that many individual women or groups can set up their websites does not change power relations in the realspace. The negative stereotyping of women, for instance, cannot change without the dissemination of feminist consciousness among both men and women. Even if stereotyping is eliminated, gender

inequality will persist. " Gender-based censorship" cannot be overcome as long as gender relations remain unequal and oppressive. It can , however, be reduced or made less effective. While the concept "gender-based censorship" is useful, it should be broadened to include "censorship of feminist knowledge." The following are just a few ideas about what we may do:A) Creating theoretical and empirical knowledge about gender-based censorship, and especially the censorship of feminist knowledge and feminist movements. B) Disseminating this knowledge and awareness among citizens. Using this knowledge for the purpose of dismantling patriarchal power. Knowledge makes a difference when it is put into practice. C) Making this knowledge available to policy makers and integrating it into policy making in the institutions of the market, the state, and non-state

and non-market forces. These goals will not be achieved in the absence of feminist and women's movements . If censorship is not a mistake , but rather it is an organ for exercising gender and class power, resistance to it , too, should be a part of the struggle for a democratic regime.

The state ducks – we need a new starting point. Young, 1 (Iris Marion, “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy”, Political Theory, Vol. 29, No. 5 (Oct., 2001), pp. 670-690)The deliberative democrat finds such refusal and protest action uncooper- ative and counterproductive. Surely it is better to work out the most just form of implementation of legislation than to distract lawmakers and obstruct the routines of overworked case workers. The activist replies that it is wrong to cooperate with policies and processes that presume unjust institutional con- straints. The problem is not that policy makers and citizen deliberations fail to make arguments but that their starting premises are

unacceptable. It seems to me that advocates of deliberative democracy who believe that

deliberative processes are the best way to conduct policies even under the conditions of structural inequality that characterize democracies today have no satisfactory response to this criticism.

Many advocates of deliberative pro- cedures seem to find no problem with structures and institutional constraints that limit policy alternatives in actual democracies,

advocating reflective political reasoning within them to counter irrational tendencies to reduce issues to sound bites and decisions to aggregate preferences. In their detailed discussion of the terms of welfare reform in Democracy and Disagreement, for example, Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson appear to accept as given that policy action to respond to the needs of poor people must come in the form of poor support rather than changes in tax policy, the relation of private and public investment, public works employment, and other more structural ways of undermining deprivation and income inequality.8 James Fishkin's innovative citizens' forum deliberating national issues in connection with the 1996 political campaign, to take another example, seemed to presume as given all the fiscal, power, and

institutional constraints on policy alternatives that the U.S. Congress and mainstream press assumed. To the extent that such constraints assume existing patterns of class inequality , residential segrega- tion, and gender division of labor as given, the activist's claim is plausible that there is little difference among the alternatives debated, and he suggests that the responsible citizen should not consent to these assumptions but instead agitate

for deeper criticism and change. The ongoing business of legislation and policy implementation will assume existing institutions and their priorities as given unless massive con- certed action works to shift priorities and goals . Most of the time, then, poli- tics will operate under the constrained alternatives that are produced by and support

structural inequalities. If the deliberative democrat tries to insert practices of

deliberation into existing public policy discussions, she is forced to accept the range of alternatives that existing structural constraints allow. While two decades ago in the United States, there were few opportunities for theorists of deliberative democracy to try to influence the design and process of public discussion, today things have changed. Some public officials and private foundations have become persuaded that inclusive, reasoned exten- sive deliberation is good for democracy and wish to implement these ideals in the policy formation process. To the extent that such implementation must presuppose constrained alternatives that

cannot question existing institu- tional priorities and social structures, deliberation is as likely to reinforce

injustice as to undermine it. I think that the deliberative democrat has no adequate response to this challenge other than to accept the activist's suspicion of implementing delib- erative

processes within institutions that seriously constrain policy alterna- tives in ways that, for

example, make it nearly impossible for the structurally disadvantaged to propose solutions to

social problems that might alter the structural positions in which they stand. Only if the theory and practice of deliberative democracy are willing to withdraw from the immediacy of the already given

policy trajectory can they respond to this activist challenge . The deliberative democracy should help create inclusive deliberative settings in which basic social and

economic structures can be examined; such settings for the most part must be outside of and

opposed to ongoing settings of offi-cial policy discussion.

*Representations must be analyzed before policy consequences because they have profound effects on the results and perception of policymaking.Dauber 1 [Cori E., Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “The Shot Seen ‘Round the World: The Impact of the Images of Mogadishu on American Military Operations,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 4, Winter, pg. 678]The impact the Mogadishu images have had on American foreign policy is clear. But their impact is not inescapable or inevitable. It is based on the incorrect assumption that people can only read images unidirectionally. No matter how similar, no matter how powerfully one text evokes another, every image is unique. Each comes from a different historical situation, is placed within a different story, and offers an ambiguous text that can be exploited by astute commentators.

Images matter profoundly, but so do their contexts and the words that accompany them. The implications in this shift in interpretation are potentially profound. Mogadishu, or the

mention of a potential parallel with Mogadishu, need not be a straightjacket or a deterrent to the use of American power. Rhetoric, whether discursive or visual, has real power in the way events play out.

What this article makes clear is that rhetoric (and therefore rhetorical analysis) also has power in the way policy is shaped and defined. In a recent book on the conflict in Kosovo, the authors note that when the president spoke to the nation on the night before the air wars began, he immediately ruled out the use of ground forces. This was done, they argue, due to fears that leaving open ground force participation would sacrifice domestic public and

congressional (and allied) support for the air war. But “publicly ruling out their use only helped to reduce Milosevic’s uncertainty regarding the likely scope of NATO’s military actions,”109 and possibly to lengthen the air war as

a result. Yet, they report, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, “who authored the critical passage in the

president’s speech, maintains that ‘we would not have won the war without this sentence.’”110 It would be difficult to find more direct evidence for the profound impact and influence public policy rhetoric and debate have--and are understood to have--

on policy, policymaking, and policymakers at the highest level. That means that rhetorical analysis can

have a role to play and a voice at the table before policies are determined. Academic rhetoricians, through their choice of projects and the form in which they publish, can stake a claim to having an important voice at the table--and they should do so.

Prefer systemic impacts over short term scenariosBassiouni 03 [M. Cherif, Distinguished Research Professor of Law, President, International Human Rights Law Institute, DePaul University College of Law; President, International Institute for Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences (Siracusa, Italy); President, International Association of Penal Law (Paris, France), Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Spring]At the end of the Second World War, the world collectively pledged "never again." While the intention of this global promise may have been

sincere, its implementation has proved elusive. There have been over 250 conflicts in the twentieth century alone, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 170 million persons. Both State and non-state actors routinely commit extra-judicial execution, torture, rape and other violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In most cases, political considerations permit perpetrators of gross violations of human rights to operate with impunity.

Yet, alongside the sad truth of our consistently violent world stands the moral commitment of the post-war pledge and the related vision of peace, justice and truth. The

human rights arena is defined by a constant tension between the attraction of realpolitik and the demand for accountability. Realpolitik involves the pursuit of political settlements unencumbered by moral and ethical limitations. As such, this approach often runs directly counter to the interests of justice, particularly as understood from the perspective of victims of gross violations of human rights . Impunity, at both the international and national levels, is commonly the outcome of realpolitik which favors expedient political ends over the more complex task of confronting responsibility. Accountability, in contrast, embodies the goals of both retributive and restorative justice. This orientation views conflict resolution as premised upon responsibility and requires sanctions for those responsible, the

establishment of a clear record of truth and efforts made to provide redress to victims. The pursuit of realpolitik may settle the more immediate problems of a conflict, but, as history reveals, its achievements are frequently at the expense of long-term peace, stability, and

reconciliation. It is difficult to achieve genuine peace without addressing victims' needs and without [*192] providing a wounded society with a sense of closure. A more profound vision of peace requires accountability and often involves a series of interconnected activities including: establishing the truth of

what occurred, punishing those most directly responsible for human suffering, and offering redress to victims. Peace is not merely the absence of armed conflict; it is the restoration of justice, and the use of law to mediate and resolve inter-social and inter-personal discord. The pursuit of justice and accountability fulfills fundamental human needs and expresses key

values necessary for the prevention and deterrence of future conflicts. For this reason, sacrificing justice and accountability for the immediacy of realpolitik represents a short-term vision of expediency over more enduring human values.

And, ethics come first in the context of debate- failure to explicitly problematize ethics transforms debate into an epistemological void in which the exchange of floating signifiers is prioritized above authentic argumentation and self-examination.Duffy 83 /Bernard, Professor of Communication at Cal Poly, “The Ethics of Argumentation in Intercollegiate Debate: A Conservative Appraisal,” http://www.nationalforensics.org/journal/, vol1no1-6.pdf/

Sometimes only an outsider sees clearly the problems of the insiders. comment in a recent Time article about inter-

collegiate debate hit painfully close to the truth: "Success at on topic [debate] demands fetishistic research, note cards by the hundred gross and the rhetorical felicity of an armored truck."1 Organized debate is so far removed from reality that its very survival seems remarkable. While intercollegiate debate teaches less about many things than we

would like, least of all does it teach ethics. By one interpretation ethics in debate involves questions

such as whether or not case-scouting or introducing counterplans in the second negative constructive speech are conscionable acts.2 There is, however, an entirely different sense in which the ethics of debate can be discussed. To what extent does debate make students aware of the values which underlie their choices, and to what extent does it show them the ethical differences among arguments? Richard Weaver, whose works on rhetoric are guided by the assumption that the methods an arguer chooses reveal his ethics, provides an avenue for such inquiry.3 Weaver

claims that every rhetorical use of language , because it involves intention and choice, has an ethical dimension. He illustrates this dictum through an analysis of the essential argument forms: authority, analogy, principle, and consequence. Weaver expresses preferences among these forms of argument on the basis of their philosophical status. His is a reflection on argumentation from which debaters would

profit. The preferences he articulates are not those of most debaters. Intercollegiate debate seems almost to reverse his ideas of what ethical argumentation is. Debaters learn from

experience what kinds of arguments work within the highly formalized context of intercollegiate debate, but they do not learn what separates a merely effective argument from one that has enduring value. Debate habituates students to lines of argument which teach them less about their own beliefs and values than they do about those of other people. This, however, is only part of the problem. Debate coaches have accepted what passes as reasonable argumentation in the tournaments and have fostered a type of argumentation which philosophical conservatives like Weaver would reject as symptomatic of modern, fact-oriented culture. One need not be a conservative or a Platonist to appreciate Weaver's analysis, though it helps. He claims that arguments from definition or genus are philosophically preeminent to other forms since only they seek to establish principles and ideals. Thus, Lincoln, though a political liberal, argues like a philosophical conservative.4 In the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, for example, Lincoln's stand against the extension of slavery into the territories was based not on the material consequences of this act, but on a definition of the nature of humanity. At their best, arguments such as Lincoln's provide timeless a priori, which serve as the basis for future arguments and which illuminate some facet of the human condition.

Arguing from principle requires debaters to reflect upon what ought to be, rather than on what is . It makes them think in terms of ideals and essences and so puts them closer to their own beliefs and values. One might say, it makes them think ethically. But what is the reality of intercollegiate debate? Debaters rarely argue from their own principles. In fact, they quickly learn that debate is not a contest between the quality of ideas, but rather the volume and credibility of evidence. Debaters , even

if their coaches teach them otherwise, learn from experience to place the highest premium on hard fact, rather than on nebulous propositions . Even the most noble and enduring sentiments of the constitution's framers become items of data that can be used to win arguments, rather than ideas which they can incorporate into their own thinking. For example, the principle of states' rights is frequently reduced to a stock argument which can be made against any case calling for federal encroachment on powers traditionally granted the states. Although nominally this is an argument from principle, in practice it is more like a tactical move learned from experience. Such

arguments are seen as no more or less significant than other arguments. Educational debate tends to reduce all arguments to tactics. It does not ask students to assess the ethical superiority of any given argument, only its relative potency in the mind of the judge. Since debaters cannot always predict the basis on which a given judge will decide an issue or a debate, many debaters simply make as many arguments as possible hoping that one will work. No argument, then, is accorded a higher status than others. Some arguments work and some do not. This is all most debaters seem to care about. If debaters tend not to argue from principle, what types of arguments do they use? One that enters into virtually all debates is the argument from cause and its two subspecies, the arguments from consequence and circumstance. In debate, arguments from consequence are used to support or oppose a policy proposal because of its perceived advantages or disadvantages. Weaver would claim that although it is philosophically less important than the argument from principle, the argument from consequence certainly has its

place. He points out, however, that an aberrant version of it, the argument from circumstance, does not deserve the same approbation. The argument from circumstance proposes that existing conditions demand whatever action the speaker favors. So, for example, debaters might claim that runaway inflation leaves no choice but to pass a balanced budget amendment. Weaver dislikes this sort of argument because it is completely relative. It assumes that we should respond to whatever stimulus the present supplies. It short- circuits reason. Such arguments

ask the audience to act on the basis of what is rather than what ought to be. They are grounded in reality, rather than in principle. Since material reality changes constantly, the value of such arguments endures only as long as do the circumstances which gave them rise. Arguments from circumstance appeal to a fact oriented culture in the way that

sensationalistic journalism does. Intercollegiate debate manifests sensationalistic tendencies. Debaters consistently exaggerate the harms and disadvantages of the problems they discuss . Thus they might argue that the United States' lack of a civil defense program invites the spectre of nuclear war. Inevitably they do not leave it at this, but go on to describe in unnecessarily vivid detail the loss of

life and suffering which would result. Their litanies of destruction sound invariably like tabloid report which under ordinary circumstances we deplore . In debate, though, sensationalism is accepted as common course. Debaters also use arguments from analogy, although not as often as they might. Analogical arguments, like arguments from principle engage the creative faculties of debaters. They stem from percep- tions of the similarities among things. A liberally educated student with an imaginative mind might be expected to produce analogical arguments. Debate as an activity which should both use and enhance a liberal arts education ought to be rife with them. Yet, rarely do they emerge. Instead there are countless arguments from authority. Authority is fine as a source of argument as long as it is not overused and the authorities are properly selected. The excessive reliance of debaters on arguments from authority, however, makes them subservient to the opinions of others. In the ideal, debaters evaluate evidence for its credibility and its correspondence with their own beliefs. In practice, they often fail to read the context of their evidence, do not know the credentials of the sources, nor even at times understand the evidence they read with such lightening speed. An over- dependence on authority depersonalizes the process of debate. It makes it far less humane or humanizing.

Debaters, to use a phrase of Weaver's, become "logic machines," programmed to match evidence against their opponents' evidence.5 While the process of selection and organization this involves no doubt improves debaters' logical abilities and skills in gamesmanship , it does not necessarily make them aware of their own humanness (or lack thereof - og), that is, of their individual character and ethics. Ethics , after all, grow out of feeling and choice and not simply the complex operations of mind we refer to as logic . Even among the very best debaters who habitually inquire into the credibility of

their evidence, few look beyond the source's expertise in his or her area of specialty. The kind of authority preferred in debate further documents debate's removal from ethical concerns. Anonymous researchers whose objectivity is insured by the scientific method they use are perceived as more credible than great minds who have been tainted by having a point of view. On all counts testimony of fact is preferred to testimony of opinion . Yet facts are not ethical claims, and from scientists and social scientists one rarely learns how facts should be used in making ethical decisions . The model debater is a speedy processor of factual information and a master of debate commonplaces and form. The Chronicle of Higher Education recently

reported that the debate coach at Randolph Macon College has developed a computer program to train debaters. One program teaches them cross-examination. Asked the right questions the computer will make damaging admissions to its case.6 Presumably, perceptive debaters intuit the computer's program to defeat it. This

suggests the extreme formalism of debate. Effective debaters are not contemplative scholars willing to engage in soul searching speculative discussions. They are highly trained , conditioned agents who respond to arguments with speed and prolificity. Only by internalizing the structure of debate and its commonplaces can they react quickly enough to win a debate. The more second nature their responses become, the better they will fare. For the sake of quick

response, knowing the form is all important. Like debate's emphasis on fact, its overwhelming concern with structure puts students no closer to ethics. Nor does one detect in the language of debate any reason to rejoice at what we are teaching debaters, or at what they learn at tournaments. Though debaters are prolific in the number of points they make, they express each laconically. They speak in shorthand with truncated phrases and anograms which would try the patience of a government bureaucrat. Their vocabulary could well comprise a computer language. It cannot be understood by those outside the inner circle. What eloquence there is in debate is ordinarily reserved for the first affirmative speech and an occasional peroration. Otherwise debate discourse comes to the audience as spurts of noise which a judge impassively transfers to a legal pad. The disembodied language of debate may be ideal for presenting fact and logic, but not for proferring the results of ethical choice. The subjectivity of the debater is suppressed. The exigencies of debate make it impossible for him to express the ideas and feelings which make him an individual. His language strains to represent facts rather than conviction or emotion. In debate one is more likely to hear language used referentially rather than evocatively. It reveals neither feeling nor ethical choice. No wonder that it fails to move us and that contemporary debate as a whole has been criticized as being unpersuasive.7 Debaters' lack of subjectivity is also revealed in their delivery. Good delivery addresses the audience as emotional as well as rational beings. The nature of debate makes participants unconcerned about genuinely influencing the judge. Though they want to win, they care little about changing the judge's mind. Their recitation of colorless fact and logic sounds like the frenzied whir of the computer. Often no one fact or argument is vocally emphasized over another since all arguments seem to be valued equally. Rather we hear the well practiced but artificial cadence by which a torrent of words is released in a steady and uninterrupted stream. The natural rhythms of the human voice as it expresses the thoughts and individual personality of the speaker are replaced by a monotonous intonation which allows speed at the expense of reflection. If Time reporter Kurt Anderson was right when he called intercollegiate debate "secular self mortification," the style of debate delivery is one evidence of it.8 Debate at its worst is an activity which promotes self abnegation rather than self discovery.

Intercollegiate debate ought to educate students in more than structure, credibility, and logical reasoning. It should teach them the effective use of arguments from definition as well as arguments from consequence,

circumstance and author- ity. Definitional arguments, better than others, orient students toward their

own beliefs and principles. Logic, fact, and authority wither without ethics, and debate without ethical judgments sounds hollow and contrived. I am not proposing that debaters only make arguments they believe in. Students also learn from articulating the principles which underlie positions they oppose. To ignore principle as a line of argument and focus instead on mere fact and authority makes debate less effective as a method of exploring one's own preferences and values. It might be argued that debate is not dialectic, and that my criticisms require debate to be something we cannot make it. After all the sophists, not Plato, gave birth to debate. Protagoras saw it as a lesson in sophistic relativism. If one believes in the relativism of the sophists, it would be absurd for debaters to search after principles upon which to base their arguments. Of what use, one might ask, are the eloquently expressed propositions of a bygone era to a scientific age which bases decisions on calculable fact? For today's neosophists it would be foolish indeed to think of debate as a philosophical or ethical enterprise. But in this case, why talk about the ethics of debate at all? If the term only means observing the rules of the game, it is not particularly

significant. Debate should be a thoroughly ethical enterprise. It should educate students in ethics, as well as requiring them to follow the rules. Ultimately, it comes down to a matter of choice. Should we as coaches and judges permit the steady dismantling of debate as a means of educating students? Ought we to praise students for making sensationalistic arguments, and for relying on appeals to authority, while ignoring arguments from principle? Should we give ballots to speakers who are the most adept at parroting back the commonplaces they have learned and to those who can read evidence with the greatest speed and the least visible understanding? Should we encourage debate as a contest of evidence rather than as a meeting

of minds? No matter how much lip service is given to the educational values of intercollegiate debate, it cannot now be claimed as an activity which forces students to reflect upon or use their ethical beliefs in the formulation of arguments.

The perm is only an attempt to appropriate and co-opt our performance. Here’s another Alice passage:LISTEN TO THEM ALL TALKING ABOUT ALICE… YOU’VE HEARD THEM DIVIDING ME UP, IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS. SO EITHER I DON’T HAVE ANY SELF, OR ELSE I HAVE A MULTITUDE OF SELVES APPROPRIATED BY THEM, ACCORDING TO THEIR NEEDS OR DESIRES… I’M COMPLETELY LOST. IN FACT, I’VE ALWAYS BEEN LOST, I JUST DIDN’T FEEL IT BEFORE. I WAS BUSY CONFORMING TO THEIR WISHES. I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE.¶

The perm either links or it severs- we have isolated (_) specific links to the kritik, spiking out of them makes the af a moving target that can moot all negative offense by severing the links to the 1AC, destroying negative ground which is a pre-requisite to having a debate.

Our narrative fiction of feminine discourse is key- they don’t get a perm because they can’t perm our performance. In the status quo, women are forced to obey masculine discourse- the only way to solve for female subjectivity is to reimagine a female language usage which is our 1NC performance. This means there is a massive perm solvency defecit. Lieberman, 12 (Alison, philosophy senior thesis at Haverford College, “Accessing Women through Masculine Discourse: Irigaray’s Embodies Syntax). EMS¶

Irigaray attempts to position the male subject in a historical and psychoanalytical contexts. She starts by examining how the Copernicus revolution had a profound effect on the male psyche. Man and the Earth were no longer at the center of the universe and this displacement removed the central nature of the male subject, and placed him as a potential other. Before, the other was conceived as the bodies (planets) circulating and defining themselves against the focal man (Earth). The other becomes entombed with the male psyche in a way disrupts his primacy as subject. But, “when the Other falls out of the starry sky into the chasms of the psyche, the ‘subject’ is obviously obliged to stake out new boundaries for his field of implantation and to re- ensure- otherwise, elsewhere- his dominance. Where once he was on the heights he is now entreated to go down into the depths.” Prior to the Copernicus revolution the male had a Gestalt like connection to the heavenly bodies, and was psychologically secure in their empirical validity, but once that external grounding was debunked, he had to search for a new Other that was affixed outside of himself. Then, “by wishing to reverse the anguish of being imprisoned within the other, of being placed inside the other, by making the very place and space of behind his own, he becomes a prisoner of effects of symmetry that know no limits . Reaffirmation of the male subject takes place in the larger discourse of otherness. The other is created, situated, and imagined to benefit the security of the internal male subject. The role of the woman in this development is muted. She is positioned as the boundless Other that’s role is to absorb the excess of the male subject . This absorption acts more like an entire replacement of the woman’s subjective experience. One of the main faculties that is inserted into the woman is masculine discourse. Irigaray argues strongly that female speech is destroyed and replaced in the development of the female as the Other. In the limited space of discourse, accessible to “reasonable” words… are powerless to translate all that pulses, clamors, and hangs hazily in the cryptic passages of hysterical suffering-latency” that is the unmoored feminine. The tools of reason are linguistic, and therefore are a function of the masculine discourse. Not only is the woman lost without her own voice, but Irigaray sees the only option of freeing and creating the female subject with the

not so simple task of reimagining language usage. ¶

The perm is another link to the kritik - reducing all perspectives to one neatly packaged advocacy is the foundation of sexual indifferenceLuce Irigaray and Carolyn Burke, When Our Lips Speak Together, Signs, Vol. 6, No. 1, Women: Sex and Sexuality, Part 2 (Autumn, 1980), pp. 69-79

If we continue to speak the same language to each other, we will re produce the same story. Begin the same stories all over again. Don't you feel it? Listen: men and women around us all sound the same. Same arguments, same quarrels, same scenes. Same attractions and separa tions. Same difficulties, the impossibility of reaching each other. Same . . . same. . . . Always the same. If we continue to speak this sameness,1 if we speak to each other as men have spoken for centuries, as they taught us to speak, we will fail each other. Again . . . . Words will pass through our bodies, above our heads, disappear, make us disappear. Far. Above. Absent from our selves, we become machines that are spoken, machines that speak. Clean skins2 envelop us, but they are not our own. We have fled into proper names, we have been violated by them.3 Not yours, not mine. We

don't have names. We change them as men exchange us, as they use us. It's frivolous to be so changeable so long as we are a medium of exchange. How can I touch you if you're not there? Your blood is translated into their senses.4 They can speak to each other and about us. But "us"? Get out of their language. Go back through all the names they gave you. I'm waiting for you, I'm waiting for myself. Come back. It's not so hard. Stay right here, and you won't be absorbed into the old scenarios , the re - dundant phrases, the familiar gestures , bodies already encoded in a system. Try to be attentive to yourself. To me. Don't be distracted by norms or habits .

The alt solves- stepping through the mirror is the only way to affirm women’s subjectivity and begin to thwart the patriarchy. The alternative is not restricted to discourse but can be manifested in action. It allows women to no longer be silenced to rediscover a possible space for the feminine imaginary- star this card.Barrie 90(Lita, Barrie is an art critic, teacher, and poet with post-graduate degrees in philosophy and journalism, she wrote a art column for The New Zealand National Business Review, contributed to The Listener, Art New Zealand, Antic, Artweek, and Artspace. She taught at Claremont Graduate University, Art Center, Otis School of Art and Design, Scripps University, and California State University LA, she writes essays for Artweek LA and is a contributor to Huffington Post. Beyond the Looking Glass: Your Truths are Illusions, MSU Ed, Now See Hear! Art, Language, and Translation, https://www.msu.edu/course/ha/452/litabarrie.html). EMS

Perhaps because the 'seen' is privileged over the 'unseen' in a masculine order, femininity has traditionally been identified as masquerade. Irigaray proposes the use of calculated duplicity in a strategy of 'mimicry' (mimesis). As she writes, "One must assume the feminine role deliberately ... to convene a form of subordination into an affirmation, and thus to begin to thwart it. Through this tactical complicity with the assigned feminine role, women might deconstruct the position assigned to them, in order to re-inscribe it in some way. Irigaray writes, "To play with mimesis is thus, for a woman, to try to recover the place of her exploitation by discourse, without allowing herself to be simply reduced to it. 11 6 27 Irigaray uses her speculum(7) to stage a mime within theoretical discourse, travelling "back through a masculine imaginary, to interpret the way it has reduced us to silence, to muteness or mimicry ... attempting, from that starting-point and at the same time, to (re)discover a possible space for the feminine imaginary. - 11 Barbara Kruger uses the spectacle to stage a mime within media stereotypes, stepping behind the masculine lens to expose the way woman has been glamourized, eroticised and fetishized for the masculine gaze - attempting to re-create a space for the female viewer. Kruger writes: "We loiter outside of trade and speech and are obliged to steal language. We are very good mimics. We replicate certain words and

pictures and watch them stray from or coincide with your notions of fact or fiction. " 9 Both Irigaray's speculum and Kruger's spectacle reflect the 'other side' of masculine fictions , and might be read as feminist allegories for the adult Alice.

Patriarchy causes extinction- multiple causes: prolif, war, environmental destruction, and violence towards womenWarren and Cady 96 (Karen Warren and Duane Cady, Professors at Macalester and Hamline, Bringing peace home: feminism, violence, and nature, 1996, p. 12-13)Operationalized, the evidence of patriarchy as a dysfunctional system is found in the behaviors to which it gives rise, (c) the unmanageability, (d) which results. For example, in the United States, current estimates are that one out of every three or four women will be raped by someone she

knows; globally, rape, sexual harassment, spouse-beating, and sado-massochistic pornography are examples of behaviors practiced, sanctioned, or tolerated within patriarchy. In the realm of

environmentally destructive behaviors, strip-mining, factory farming, and pollution of the air, water, and soil are instances of behaviors maintained and sanctioned within patriarchy. They, too, rest on the faulty beliefs that it is okay to “rape the earth,” that it is “man’s God-given right” to have dominion (that is domination) over the earth, that nature has only instrumental value that environmental destruction is the

acceptable price we pay for “progress.” And the presumption of warism, that war is a natural, righteous, and ordinary way to impose dominion on a people or nation, goes hand in hand with patriarchy and leads to dysfunctional behaviors of nations and ultimately to international

unmanageability. Much of the current “unmanageability” of contemporary life in patriarchal societies, (d) is then viewed as a consequence of a patriarchal preoccupation with activities, events, and experiences that reflect historically male-gender-identified beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions. Included among these real-life consequences are precisely those concerns with nuclear proliferation, war, and environmental destruction, and violence towards women, which many feminists see as the logical outgrowth of patriarchal thinking. In fact, it is often only through observing these dysfunctional behaviors—the symptoms of

dysfunctionality—that one can truly see that and how patriarchy serves to maintain and perpetuate them. When patriarchy is understood as a dysfunctional system, this “unmanageability” can be seen for what it is—as a predictable and thus logical consequence of patriarchy. The theme that global environmental crises, war, and violence generally are predictable and logical consequences of sexism and patriarchal culture is pervasive in ecofeminist literature. Ecofeminist Charlene Spretnak, for instance, argues that “a militarism and warfare are continual features of a patriarchal society because they reflect and instill patriarchal values and fulfill needs of such a system. Acknowledging the context of patriarchal conceptualizations that feed militarism is a first step toward reducing their impact and preserving life on Earth.” Stated in

terms of the foregoing model of patriarchy as a dysfunctional social system, the claims by Spretnak and other feminists take on a clearer meaning: Patriarchal conceptual frameworks legitimate impaired thinking (about women,

national and regional conflict, the environment) which is manifested in behaviors which, if continued, will make life on earth difficult, if not impossible. It is a stark message, but it is plausible. Its plausibility lies in understanding the conceptual roots of various woman-nature-peace connections in regional, national, and global contexts.

The kritik is a prerequisite—patriarchy is the root cause of war—that means no aff solvency until unequal gender hierarchies are eliminated Tickner, professor at the School of International Relations at USC, 1 [. Ann, Gendering World Politics: Issues and Approaches in the Post–Cold War Era, p. 6,]

Chapter 2 deals with war, peace, and security—issues that continue to be central to the discipline.. While realists see the contemporary system as only a temporary lull in great-power conflict, others see a change in the character of war, with the predominance of conflicts of state building and state disintegration driven by

ethnic and national identities as well as by material interests. Since feminists use gender as a category of analysis, issues of identity are central to their approach; chapter 2 explores

the ways in which the gendering of nationalist and ethnic identities can exacerbate conflict. Feminists are also drawing our attention to the increasing impact of these types of military conflicts on civilian populations. Civilians now account for about 90 percent of war casualties, the majority of whom are

women and children. Questioning traditional IR boundaries between anarchy and danger on the outside and order and security on the inside, as well as the realist focus on states and their interactions, feminists have pointed to insecurities at all levels of analysis; for example, Katharine Moon has demonstrated how the “unofficial” support of

military prostitution served U.S. alliance goals in Korea, thus demonstrating links between interpersonal relations and state policies at the highest level.15 Feminist analysis of wartime rape has shown how militaries can be a threat even to

their own populations;16 again, feminist scholarship cuts across the conventional focus on interstate politics or the domestic determinants of foreign policy. Feminists

have claimed that the likelihood of conflict will not diminish until unequal gender hierarchies

are reduced or eliminated; the privileging of characteristics associated with a

stereotypical masculinity in states’ foreign policies contributes to the legitimization not only of war but of militarization more generally. Wary of what they see as gendered dichotomies that have pitted realists against idealists and led to overly simplistic assumptions about warlike men and peaceful women,17 certain feminists are cautioning against the association of women with peace, a position that, they believe, disempowers both women and peace. The growing numbers of women in the military also challenges and complicates these essentialist

stereotypes. To this end, and as part of their effort to rethink concepts central to the field, feminists define peace and security , not in idealized ways often associated with women, but in broad, multidimensional terms that include the elimination of social hierarchies such as gender that lead to political and economic injustice.