Kennedy K

The AWR 1NCOverview This is a specially made shell which was designed by me using the same evidence but cutting new cards. The AR version of the Kennedy k

The basis of this is actually very simple when we remove the jargon. Don’t treat the ocean as a thing to be used but as a living breathing organism which changes and grows. An entity, identity. The alt is to reject the aff to allow for “inclusive debates.” This is just to treat the ocean as an entity in politics.

The metaphor of a kid with a toy: the Kennedy k is like a kid with a toy, a kid mistreats a toy because he sees it as a thing to be used for his/her enjoyment. This causes the kid to abuse, exhaust, and destroy the ocean. Three things the ocean cannot handle. If perhaps that toy is special to him. The toy gains an identity and the kid and cares for it. The Luke k

We see the truth as that which is made from language. This causes us to only view the world through that which is human or for humans— this is false as the ocean is not human and has an identity outside of human constructionKennedy 07 ((Deborah, Ph. D in Sustainability and Technology Policy from Murdoch University, research associate of Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, “Ocean Views: An investigation into human-ocean relations”, 2007, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ocean%20views%20murdoch%20kennedy&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchrepository.murdoch.edu.au%2F123%2F2%2F02Whole.pdf&ei=B6Z7U-

PCJpGSyAS8g4LYDA&usg=AFQjCNHBwVb05r37V1tXeKCerr77whFsCg&sig2=G4wUMYuZ37O8pw2gz5Fthw, ACC 9/27/14) AR

All of our understandings about oceans—all our scientific facts, religious beliefs, myths, laws, and feelings—are the composition of a highly complex interaction between human minds, bodies and oceans. Yet the ideas we form about the oceans are different from the ocean itself and in this language plays a pivotal role. Rorty, for example, writes:

We need to make a distinction between the claim that the world is out there and the claim that truth is out there. To say that the world is out there that is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states. To say that truth is not out there is simply to say that where there are no sentences there is no truth, that sentences are elements of human languages, and that human languages are human creations. (1989, 4-5)

That is to say, there is certainly a nature that exists independently of humans, yet any accounts we make of nature cannot be separated from their human origins (Proctor 2001). When we speak of nature we rely on “human modes of perception, invoking human cultural apparatus, involving human needs and desires—in short,

when we speak of nature we speak of culture as well” (Proctor 2001, 229). We never speak of the ocean itself

Effective ocean policy requires us to acknowledge the identity of the oceanKennedy 07 ((Deborah, Ph. D in Sustainability and Technology Policy from Murdoch University, research associate of Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, “Ocean Views: An investigation into human-ocean relations”, 2007, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ocean%20views%20murdoch%20kennedy&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchrepository.murdoch.edu.au%2F123%2F2%2F02Whole.pdf&ei=B6Z7U-PCJpGSyAS8g4LYDA&usg=AFQjCNHBwVb05r37V1tXeKCerr77whFsCg&sig2=G4wUMYuZ37O8pw2gz5Fthw, ACC 9/27/14) AR

Acknowledging that oceans do exist apart from human constructions of them is crucial to the possibility of ocean politics. If nothing exists outside of language, ocean politics becomes merely a process of deciding what kind of oceans should be formed to satisfy human policies of safe guarding or exploiting oceans:

oceans can only ever be spoken for by humans in accordance with their passive identity. I argue that in

working towards just ocean existences, oceans must be considered active participants in marine environmental disputes and policy-making that shape selves, culture and the values of humans. This needs to occur through pluralistic, democratic processes.

(insert link, (commodification, stewardship, and ocean science is good))

Without the plan we would see the death of ocean policy and. This links into any and every impact the affirmative purportedly “solves.”The alternative is to reject the affirmative to allow for inclusive debates which factor in all agentsKennedy 07 ((Deborah, Ph. D in Sustainability and Technology Policy from Murdoch University, research associate of Curtin University Sustainability Policy Institute, “Ocean Views: An investigation into human-ocean relations”, 2007, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ocean%20views%20murdoch%20kennedy&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchrepository.murdoch.edu.au%2F123%2F2%2F02Whole.pdf&ei=B6Z7U-PCJpGSyAS8g4LYDA&usg=AFQjCNHBwVb05r37V1tXeKCerr77whFsCg&sig2=G4wUMYuZ37O8pw2gz5Fthw, ACC 9/27/14) AR

In going beyond critique I have advocated for the structuring of policy debates and

outcomes with a form of political epistemology that de-centres the experts. I

have highlighted, in particular, the problem of defining oceans scientifically ahead of inclusive debate and constitutive discussion about what comprises oceans and marine environmental concerns. I have argued for a form of political epistemology that is inclusive of a diversity of perspectives—human and non-human—and takes seriously the possibilities of a democratic process as a basis for greater knowledge and imagining of human-ocean relations.