Tournament: TOC | Round: 3 | Opponent: XXX | Judge: XXX
At the Summit of the Americas the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez hands president Obama a book, The Open Veins of Latin America by the Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano. Chavez pats Obama on the shoulder and insists on shaking his hand. Obama turns towards the camera and smiles for a photograph but the look of confusion on his face is evident. This is not the broad foreign policy smile from earlier in the video. Later Obama told a reporter “I thought it was one of Chavez’s books. I was going to give him one of mine.”
Of all the insinuations of Chavez’s cult of personality, it turns out that Obama is the real narcissist. All of this talk of leaders and figureheads obscures the history that passes between the hands of the two presidents. Chavez gives Obama a gift that he cannot return – not my book for your book, quid pro quo, tit for tat –the gift can only be returned when the historical structures of economic violence that the book describes are dismantled. 

Lets read from Galeano: 

Eduardo Galeano, 1973
Edited*
Uruguayan journalist, writer and novelist.

The human murder by poverty in Latin America is secret; every year, without making a sound, three  nuclear Hiroshima bombs explode over communities that have become accustomed to suffering with clenched teeth. This systematic violence is not apparent but is real and constantly increasing: its holocausts are not made known in the sensational press but in Food and Agricultural Organization statistics. Ball says that it is still possible to act with impunity because the poor cannot set off a world war, but the Imperium is worried: unable to multiply the dinner, it does what it can to suppress the diners. "Fight poverty, kill a beggar!" some genius of black humor scrawled on a wall in La Paz. What do the heirs to Malthus propose bur to kill all the beggars-to-be before they are born? Robert McNamara, the World Bank president who was chairman of Ford and then secretary of defense, has called the population explosion the greatest obstacle to progress in Latin America; the World Bank, he says, will give priority in its loans to countries that implement birth control plans. McNamara notes with regret that the brains of the poor do 25 percent less thinking, and the World Bank technocrats (who have already been born) set computers humming to produce labyrinthine abracadabras on the advantages of not being born: "If," one of the Bank's documents assures us, "a developing country with an average per capita income of $150 to $200 a year succeeds in reducing its fertility by 50 percent in a period of twenty-five years, at the end of thirty years its per capita income will be higher by at least 40 percent than the level it would otherwise have achieved, and twice as high after sixty years." Lyndon B. Johnson's remark has become famous: "Let us act on the fact that less than $5 invested in population control is worth $100 invested in economic growth." Dwight D. Elsenhower prophesied that if the world’s inhabitants continued multiplying at the same rate, not only would the danger of revolution be increased, but there would also be a lowering of living standards for all peoples, including his own.
The United States is more concerned than any other country with spreading and imposing family planning in the farthest outposts. Not only the government, but the Rockefeller and the Ford foundations as well, have nightmares about millions of children advancing like locusts over the horizon from the third world. Plato and Aristotle considered the question before Malthus and McNamara; in our day this global offensive plays a well-defined role. Its aim is to justify the very unequal income distribution between countries and social elates, to convince the poor that poverty is the result of the children they don't avoid having, and to dam the rebellious advance of the masses. While intrauterine devices compete with bombs and machine-gun salvos to arrest the growth of the Vietnamese population, in Latin America it is more hygienic and effective to kill guerrilleros in the womb than in the mountains or the streets. Various U.S. missions have sterilized thousands of women in Amazonia, although this is the least populated habitable zone on our planet. Most Latin American countries have no real surplus of people; on the contrary, they have too few. Brazil has thirty-eight times fewer inhabitants per square mile than Belgium, Paraguay has forty-nine times fewer than England, Peru has thirty-two times fewer than Japan. Haiti and El Salvador, the human antheaps of Latin America, have lower population densities than Italy. The pretexts invoked are an insult to the intelligence; the real intentions anger us. No less than half the territory of Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, and Venezuela has no inhabitants at all. No Latin American population grows less than Uruguay's— a country of old folk— yet no nation has taken such a bearing in recent years, with a crisis that would seem to drag it into the last circle of hell. Uruguay is empty, and its fertile lands could provide food for infinitely more people than those who now suffer in such penury.
Over a century ago a Guatemalan foreign minister said prophetically: "It would be strange if the remedy should come from the United Stares, the same place which brings us the disease." Now that the Alliance for Progress is dead and buried the Imperium proposes, more in panic than in generosity, to solve Latin America's problems by eliminating Latin Americans; Washington has reason to suspect that the poor peoples don't prefer to be poor. But it is impossible to desire the end without desiring the means. Those who deny liberation to Latin America also deny our only possible rebirth, and incidentally absolve the existing structures from blame. Our youth multiplies, rises, listens: what does the voice of the system offer? The system speaks a surrealist language. In lands that are empty it proposes to avoid births; in countries where capital is plentiful but wasted it suggests that capital is lacking; it describes as "aid" the deforming orthopedics of loans and the draining of wealth that results from foreign investment; it calls upon big land-owners to carry out agrarian reforms and upon the oligarchy to practice social justice. The class struggle only exists, we are told, because foreign agents stir it up; but social classes do exist and the oppression of one by the other is known as the Western way of life. The Marines undertake their criminal expeditions only to restore order and social peace; the dictatorships linked to Washington lay foundations in their jails for the law-abiding state, and ban strikes and smash trade unions to protect the freedom to work.
Is everything forbidden us except to fold our arms? Poverty is not written in the stars; under development is not one of God's mysterious designs. Redemptive years of revolution pass; the ruling classes wait and meanwhile pronounce hellfire anathema on everybody. In a sense the right wing is correct in identifying itself with tranquillity and order: it is an order of daily humiliation for the majority, but an order nonetheless; it is a tranquillity in which injustice continues to be unjust and hunger to be hungry. If the future turns out to be a Pandora's box, the conservative has reason to shout, "I have been betrayed." And the ideologists of impotence, the slaves who look at themselves with the master's eyes, are not slow to join in the outcry. The bronze eagle of the Maine, thrown down on the day the Cuban Revolution triumphed, now is abandoned. Its wings broken, in a doorway in the old town in Havana. Since that day in Cuba, other countries have set off on different roads on the experiment of change; perpetuation of the existing order of things is perpetuation of the crime. Recovery of the resources that have always been usurped is recovery of our destiny.
The ghosts of all the revolutions that have been strangled or betrayed through Latin America's tortured history emerge in the new experiments, as if the present had been foreseen and begotten by the contradictions of the past. History is a prophet who looks back: because of what was, and against what was, it announces what will be. And so this book, which seeks to chronicle our despoliation and at the same time explain how the current mechanisms of plunder operate, will present in close proximity the caravelled conquistadors and the jet-propelled technocrats; Hernan Cortes and the Marines; the agents of the Spanish Crown and the International Monetary Fund missions; the dividends from the slave trade and the profits of General Motors. And, too, the defeated heroes and revolutions of our time, the infamies and the dead and resurrected hopes: the fertile sacrifices. When Alexander von Humboldt investigated the customs of the ancient inhabitants of the Bogota plateau, he found that the Indians called the victims of ritual ceremonies quihica. Quihica meant "door"; the death of each chosen victim opened the door to a new cycle of 185 moons.

So it is our turn to give back the gift
The gift of poverty misery and ecological destruction
We shall wage war on the resolution
Just as the United states has waged war on the latin American countries
It is time for the U.S. to be drowned in oil that has been extracted from the heart of those countries
The line shall no longer exist

We have several parts of our argument. We believe that as good as it is to talk about Latin American economic engagement, a prerequisite to doing so is asking ourselves how our complicity perpetuates inequalities. As two white middle class males, we believe that the introduction of our discussion of privilege needs to be a prereq to advocating any form of governmental policies. Understanding what is means to be privileged is necessary to begin to understand oppression
Cooper 2013, Dr. Brittney Cooper is Assistant Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies and Africana Studies at Rutgers University., Emory University with a Ph.D. in American Studies, Howard University, with a bachelor's degrees in English and Political Science. The first rule of blackface: It’s not hard to understand, everyone http://www.salon.com/2013/10/29/the_first_rule_of_blackface_its_not_hard_to_understand_everyone/
Notice that I said myth. I understand that white folks without access to good anti-racist education might attempt to understand this group of people who are continually subject to the machinations of white supremacy by trying their damnedest to understand what it feels like to be black. My suggestion to those people: Just stop. The whole point of white supremacy beyond having a global monopoly on power and domination is that white people are never supposed to feel their race. In fact, that is my question: How does it feel to be white? How does it feel to move through the world without being accused, for instance, of “shopping while black”?  How does it feel to know police officers are there to help you rather than surveil you? How does it feel to have the full range of your experiences represented on the big and small screen? How does it feel to be the dominant race in the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, almost all 50 governorships, every state legislature in the country and most cities and local governments too? I imagine that that feels good. Safe. I’m not asking for a perverse descent into white guilt here. I am asking white people to recognize that that goodness and innate comfort that you feel in your own skin, that uncompromised sense of your own humanity is exactly how you are supposed to feel. I am asking you to recognize that black people and brown and native people are supposed to feel any way other than that. When you grapple with how it feels to be white, you will be much closer to understanding how it feels to be black. There may be no redemption for these foolish racists who clearly have no moral compass. Caitlin Cimeno is no innocent bystander herself. On her Facebook page, she mocked a picture of a little black girl in a T-shirt that said, “Black Girls Rock.” Caitlin intimated that if she “told the truth” using the converse logic that “white girls rock” she’d be called racist. I won’t spend time explaining that any more than I spend time explaining why we don’t have white entertainment television and white history month. White people are not that obtuse. And the ones who are willfully ignorant. Ain’t nobody got time for that. Instead, for those folks who consider themselves enlightened, I will simply say that one of the easiest ways to not be racist this Halloween season is to say no to blackface and tell your less enlightened friends to say no, too.Black America and the diasporic black world thank you.

scholarship decoupled from raced subject positions and an explicit analysis of actively produces a system where knowledge production acts to maintain colonial structures because neutrality is inherently white
Grosfoguel, Professor Ethnic Studies at UC Berkeley, ‘7 (Ramon, “The Epistemic Decolonial Turn” Cultural Studies, Vol 21 Issue 2-3, p 211-223, TandF Online)
Epistemological Critique The first point to discuss is the contribution of racial/ethnic and feminist subaltern perspectives to epistemological questions. The hegemonic Eurocentric paradigms that have informed western philosophy and sciences in the ‘modern/colonial capitalist/patriarchal world-system’ for the last 500 hundred years assume a universalistic, neutral, objective point of view. Chicana and black feminist scholars (Moraga and Anzaldua 1983, Collins 1990) as well as thirdworld scholars inside and outside the United States (Dussel 1977, Mignolo 2000) reminded us that we always speak from a particular location in the power structures. Nobody escapes the class, sexual, gender, spiritual, linguistic, geographical, and racial hierarchies of the ‘modern/colonial capitalist/patriarchal world-system’. As feminist scholar Donna Haraway (1988) states, our knowledges are always situated. Black feminist scholars called this perspective ‘afro-centric epistemology’ (Collins 1990) (which is not equivalent to the afrocentrist perspective) while Latin American Philosopher of Liberation Enrique Dussel called it ‘geopolitics of knowledge’ (Dussel 1977) and following Fanon (1967) and Anzaldúa (1987) I will use the term ‘body-politics of knowledge’. This is not only a question about social values in knowledge production or the fact that our knowledge is always partial. The main point here is the locus of enunciation, that is, the geo-political and body-political location of the subject that speaks. In Western philosophy and sciences the subject that speaks is always hidden, concealed, erased from the analysis. The ‘ego-politics of knowledge’ of Western philosophy has always privilege the myth of a non-situated ‘Ego’. Ethnic/racial/gender/sexual epistemic location and the subject that speaks are always decoupled. By delinking ethnic/racial/gender/sexual epistemic location from the subject that speaks, Western philosophy and sciences are able to produce a myth about a Truthful universal knowledge that covers up, that is, conceals who is speaking as well as the geo-political and body-political epistemic location in the structures of colonial power/knowledge from which the subject speaks. It is important here to distinguish the ‘epistemic location’ from the ‘social location’. The fact that one is socially located in the oppressed side of power relations, does not automatically mean that he/she is epistemically thinking from a subaltern epistemic location. Precisely, the success of the modern/colonial world-system consist in making subjects that are socially located in the oppressed side of the colonial difference, to think epistemicaly like the ones on the dominant positions. Subaltern epistemic perspectives are knowledge coming from below that produces a critical perspective of hegemonic knowledge in the power relations involved. I am not claiming an epistemic populism where knowledge produced from below is automatically an epistemic subaltern knowledge. What I am claiming is that all knowledges are epistemically located in the dominant or the subaltern side of the power relations and that this is related to the geo- and body-politics of knowledge. The disembodied and unlocated neutrality and objectivity of the ego-politics of knowledge is a Western myth. Rene Descartes, the founder of Modern Western Philosophy, inaugurates a new moment in the history of Western thought. He replaces God, as the foundation of knowledge in the Theo-politics of knowledge of the European Middle Ages, with (Western) Man as the foundation of knowledge in European Modern times. All the attributes of God are now extrapolated to (Western) Man. Universal Truth beyond time and space, privilege access to the laws of the Universe, and the capacity to produce scientific knowledge and theory is now placed in the mind of Western Man. The Cartesian ‘ego-cogito’ (‘I think, therefore I am’) is the foundation of modern Western sciences. By producing a dualism between mind and body and between mind and nature, Descartes was able to claim non-situated, universal, God-eyed view knowledge. This is what the Colombian philosopher Santiago Castro-Gomez called the ‘point zero’ perspective of Eurocentric philosophies (Castro-Gomez 2003). The ‘point zero’ is the point of view that hides and conceals itself as being beyond a particular point of view, that is, the point of view that represents itself as being without a point of view. It is this ‘god-eye view’ that always hides its local and particular perspective under an abstract universalism. Western philosophy privileges ‘ego politics of knowledge’ over the ‘geopolitics of knowledge’ and the ‘body-politics of knowledge’. Historically, this has allowed Western man (the gendered term is intentionally used here) to represent his knowledge as the only one capable of achieving a universal consciousness, and to dismiss non-Western knowledge as particularistic and, thus, unable to achieve universality. This epistemic strategy has been crucial for Western global designs. By hiding the location of the subject of enunciation, European/Euro-American colonial expansion and domination was able to construct a hierarchy of superior and inferior knowledge and, thus, of superior and inferior people around the world. We went from the sixteenth century characterization of ‘people without writing’ to the eighteenth and nineteenth century characterization of ‘people without history’, to the twentieth century characterization of ‘people without development’ and more recently, to the early twenty-first century of ‘people without democracy’. We went from the sixteenth century ‘rights of people’ (Sepulveda versus de las Casas debate in the school of Salamanca in the mid-sixteenth century), to the eighteenth century ‘rights of man’ (Enlightment philosophers), and to the late twentieth century ‘human rights’. All of these are part of global designs articulated to the simultaneous production and reproduction of an international division of labor of core/periphery that overlaps with the global racial/ethnic hierarchy of Europeans/non-Europeans. However, as Enrique Dussel (1994) has reminded us, the Cartesian ‘ego cogito’ (‘I think, therefore I am’) was preceded by 150 years (since the beginnings of the European colonial expansion in 1492) of the European ‘ego conquistus’ (‘I conquer, therefore I am’). The social, economic, political and historical conditions of possibility for a subject to assume the arrogance of becoming God-like and put himself as the foundation of all Truthful knowledge was the Imperial Being, that is, the subjectivity of those who are at the center of the world because they have already conquered it. What are the decolonial implications of this epistemological critique to our knowledge production and to our concept of world-system?

Policies that are formulated always leave the population that is most affected by their policies out of the discussion. The aff is an attempt to break down the hegemonic discourses which perpetuate inequality 

In the instance of the resolution, we have an obligation to reject the modes in which capitalism alters the way we relate to others
Zizek and Daly 4-(Slavoj, PhD in Philosophy @ the University of Ljubljana, Senior Research in Sociology @ the University of Ljubljana, Professor of Philosophy and Psychoanalysis @ the European Graduate School, has been a visiting professor @ University of Chicago, Columbia University, Princeton, University of London, and NYU, International Director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities, president of the Society for Theoretical Psychoanalysis, and Glyn, has been a Professor @ Essex University and Manchester University, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16) 

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol and recognize that our ethico-political responsibility is to confront the constitutive violence of today’s global capitalism and its obscene naturalization / anonymization of the millions who are subjugated by it throughout the world. Against the standardized positions of postmodern culture – with all its pieties concerning ‘multiculturalist’ etiquette – Zizek is arguing for a politics that might be called ‘radically incorrect’ in the sense that it break with these types of positions 7 and focuses instead on the very organizing principles of today’s social reality: the principles of global liberal capitalism. This requires some care and subtlety.  For far too long, Marxism has been bedeviled by an almost fetishistic economism that has tended towards political morbidity. With the likes of Hilferding and Gramsci, and more recently Laclau and Mouffee, crucial theoretical advances have been made that enable the transcendence of all forms of economism. In this new context, however, Zizek argues that the problem that now presents itself is almost that of the opposite fetish. That is to say, the prohibitive anxieties surrounding the taboo of economism can function as a way of not engaging with economic reality and as a way of implicitly accepting the latter as a basic horizon of existence. In an ironic Freudian-Lacanian twist, the fear of economism can end up reinforcing a de facto economic necessity in respect of contemporary capitalism (i.e. the initial prohibition conjures up the very thing it fears).  This is not to endorse any kind of retrograde return to economism. Zizek’s point is rather that in rejecting economism we should not lose sight of the systemic power of capital in shaping the lives and destinies of humanity and our very sense of the possible. In particular we should not overlook Marx’s central insight that in order to create a universal global system the forces of capitalism seek to conceal the politico-discursive violence of its construction through a kind of gentrification of that system. What is persistently denied by neo-liberals such as Rorty (1989) and Fukuyama (1992) is that the gentrification of global liberal capitalism is one whose ‘universalism’ fundamentally reproduces and depends upon a disavowed violence that excludes vast sectors of the world’s populations. In this way, neo-liberal ideology attempts to naturalize capitalism by  presenting its outcomes of winning and losing as if they were simply a matter of chance and sound judgment in a neutral market place. Capitalism does indeed create a space for a certain diversity, at least for the central capitalist regions, but it is neither neutral nor ideal and its price in terms of social exclusion is exorbitant. That is to say, the human cost in terms of inherent global poverty and degraded ‘life-chances’ cannot be calculated within the existing economic rationale and, in consequence, social exclusion remains mystified and nameless (viz. the patronizing reference to the ‘developing world’). And Zizek’s point is that this mystification is magnified through capitalism’s profound capacity to ingest its own excesses and negativity:  to redirect (or misdirect) social antagonisms and to absorb them within a culture of differential affirmation.  Instead of Bolshevism, the tendency today is towards a kind of political boutiquism that is readily sustained by postmodern forms of consumerism and lifestyle.  Against this Zizek argues for a new universalism whose primary ethical directive is to confront the fact that our forms of social existence are founded on exclusion on a global scale. While it is perfectly true that universalism can never become Universal (it will always require a hegemonic-particular embodiment in order to have any meaning), what is novel about Zizek’s universalism is that it would not attempt to conceal this fact or reduce the status of the abject Other to that of a ‘glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

The role of the ballot is to assess which team best creates new cites of pedagogies to expand how we formulate decisions about how to economically engage with Latin America
Giroux 6/19/12 Henry, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department, “Beyond the Politics of the Big Lie: The Education Deficit and the New Authoritarianism” June 6, 2012 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9865-beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie-the-education-deficit-and-the-new-authoritarianism

While a change in consciousness does not guarantee a change in either one's politics or society, it is a crucial precondition for connecting what it
means to think otherwise to conditions that make it possible to act otherwise. The education deficit must be seen as intertwined with a political deficit, serving to make many oppressed individuals complicit with oppressive ideologies. As the late Cornelius Castoriadis made clear, democracy requires "critical thinkers capable of putting existing institutions into question.... while simultaneously creating the conditions for individual and social autonomy."(41) Nothing will change politically or economically until new and emerging social movements take seriously the need to develop a language of radical reform and create new public spheres that support the knowledge, skills and critical thought that are necessary features of a democratic formative culture. Getting beyond the big lie as a precondition for critical thought, civic engagement and a more realized democracy will mean more than correcting distortions, misrepresentations and falsehoods produced by politicians, media talking heads and anti-public intellectuals. It will also require addressing how new sites of pedagogy have become central to any viable notion of agency, politics and democracy itself. This is not a matter of elevating cultural politics over material relations of power as much as it is a rethinking of how power deploys culture and how culture as a mode of education positions power. James Baldwin, the legendary African-American writer and civil rights activist, argued that the big lie points to a crisis of American identity and politics and is symptomatic of "a backward society" that has descended into madness, "especially when one is forced to lie about one's aspect of anybody's history, because you then must lie about it all."(42) He goes on to argue "that one of the paradoxes of education is that precisely at the point when you begin to develop a conscience, you must find yourself at war with your society. It is your responsibility to change society if you think of yourself as an educated person."(43) What Baldwin recognizes is that learning has the possibility to trigger a critical engagement with oneself, others and the larger society - education becomes in this instance more than a method or tool for domination but a politics, a fulcrum for democratic social change. Tragically, in our current climate "learning" merely contributes to a vast reserve of manipulation and self-inflicted ignorance. Our education deficit is neither reducible to the failure of particular types of teaching nor the decent into madness by the spokespersons for the new authoritarianism. Rather, it is about how matters of knowledge, values and ideology can be struggled over as issues of power and politics. Surviving the current education deficit will depend on progressives using history, memory and knowledge not only to reconnect intellectuals to the everyday needs of ordinary people, but also to jumpstart social movements by making education central to organized politics and the quest for a radical democracy.

The intersection of race and capitalism causes structural violence especially when there is willful ignorance by those who are not affected by it.
Abu-Jamal 98-Mumia, award winning Pennsylvania journalist, quotes James Gilligan, Professor at Harvard/NYU, “A quiet and deadly violence”, http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html

The deadliest form of violence is poverty.  --Ghandi    It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the thousands of cases of social and communal violence that occurs daily in the nation.    Every year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill themselves. Add to this the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other, and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence.    But, as remarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most violent features of living in the midst of the American empire.    We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes;    By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on. --(Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.)    This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is it--really? Gilligan notes:  Every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. Gilligan, p. 196    Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became internalized, turned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifested in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other.    This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un-understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -that we can recognize and must react to it.    This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.    It is found in every country, submerged beneath the sands of history, buried, yet ever present, as omnipotent as death. In the struggles over the commons in Europe, when the peasants struggled and lost their battles for their commonal lands (a precursor to similar struggles throughout Africa and the Americas), this violence was sanctified, by church and crown, as the 'Divine Right of Kings' to the spoils of class battle. Scholars Frances Fox-Piven and Richard A Cloward wrote, in The New Class War (Pantheon, 1982/1985):   They did not lose because landowners were immune to burning and preaching and rioting. They lost because the usurpations of owners were regularly defended by the legal authority and the armed force of the state. It was the state that imposed increased taxes or enforced the payment of increased rents, and evicted or jailed those who could not pay the resulting debts. It was the state that made lawful the appropriation by landowners of the forests, streams, and commons, and imposed terrifying penalties on those who persisted in claiming the old rights to these resources. It was the state that freed serfs or emancipated sharecroppers only to leave them landless. (52)    The "Law", then, was a tool of the powerful to protect their interests, then, as now. It was a weapon against the poor and impoverished, then, as now.    It punished retail violence, while turning a blind eye to the wholesale violence daily done by their class masters.    The law was, and is, a tool of state power, utilized to protect the status quo, no matter how oppressive that status was, or is.    Systems are essentially ways of doing things that have concretized into tradition, and custom, without regard to the rightness of those ways. No system that causes this kind of harm to people should be allowed to remain, based solely upon its time in existence. Systems must serve life, or be discarded as a threat and a danger to life. Such systems must pass away, so that their great and terrible violence passes away with them.

Our AFF is an attack on the existing order in the debate space.  We have to abandon all instances and institutions that prop up capitalism.  Only a totalizing rejection can solve the perpetual slavery and extinction caused by capitalism.  Thus, Ricky and I advocate that this debate space should become a new site of pedagogy to reject capitalist structures in response to the hail of the resolution as a way to analyze our privilege
Herod 4-Social Activist since 1968, owns an awesome website, Attended Columbia University and spent a year abroad at the University of Beirut (Lebanon) James, Getting Free, 2004, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely, a strategy for destroying capitalism. This strategy, at its most basic, calls for pulling time, energy, and resources out of capitalist civilization and putting them into building a new civilization. The image then is one of emptying out capitalist structures, hollowing them out, by draining wealth, power, and meaning out of them until there is nothing left but shells.    This is definitely an aggressive strategy. It requires great militancy, and constitutes an attack on the existing order. The strategy clearly recognizes that capitalism is the enemy and must be destroyed, but it is not a frontal attack aimed at overthrowing the system, but an inside attack aimed at gutting it, while simultaneously replacing it with something better, something we want.    Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as simply abandoned. Capitalist relations are not fought so much as they are simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance, condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new pattern while doing everything we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic, non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and force them out of existence.    This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To think that we could create a whole new world of decent social arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what we’re doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs.    But we must not think that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we can’t simply stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism must be explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War, but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly.    We must always keep in mind how we became slaves; then we can see more clearly how we can cease being slaves. We were forced into wage-slavery because the ruling class slowly, systematically, and brutally destroyed our ability to live autonomously. By driving us off the land, changing the property laws, destroying community rights, destroying our tools, imposing taxes, destroying our local markets, and so forth, we were forced onto the labor market in order to survive, our only remaining option being to sell, for a wage, our ability to work.    It’s quite clear then how we can overthrow slavery. We must reverse this process. We must begin to reacquire the ability to live without working for a wage or buying the products made by wage-slaves (that is, we must get free from the labor market and the way of living based on it), and embed ourselves instead in cooperative labor and cooperatively produced goods.    Another clarification is needed. This strategy does not call for reforming capitalism, for changing capitalism into something else. It calls for replacing capitalism, totally, with a new civilization. This is an important distinction, because capitalism has proved impervious to reforms, as a system. We can sometimes in some places win certain concessions from it (usually only temporary ones) and win some (usually short-lived) improvements in our lives as its victims, but we cannot reform it piecemeal, as a system.    Thus our strategy of gutting and eventually destroying capitalism requires at a minimum a totalizing image, an awareness that we are attacking an entire way of life and replacing it with another, and not merely reforming one way of life into something else. Many people may not be accustomed to thinking about entire systems and social orders, but everyone knows what a lifestyle is, or a way of life, and that is the way we should approach it.    The thing is this: in order for capitalism to be destroyed millions and millions of people must be dissatisfied with their way of life. They must want something else and see certain existing things as obstacles to getting what they want. It is not useful to think of this as a new ideology. It is not merely a belief-system that is needed, like a religion, or like Marxism, or Anarchism. Rather it is a new prevailing vision, a dominant desire, an overriding need. What must exist is a pressing desire to live a certain way, and not to live another way. If this pressing desire were a desire to live free, to be autonomous, to live in democratically controlled communities, to participate in the self-regulating activities of a mature people, then capitalism could be destroyed. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.  
Any revolution must take place in the form of insubordination and refusal to live according to the dictates of squo rule.  Demands on the state take the command structure of capital as their principal reference point, which will always result in betrayal and cooption.
Holloway 5 (John, teacher at the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Autonomous University of Puebla, “Can we change the world without taking power?” Znet, August 16, http://www.zcommunications.org/can-we-change-the-world-without-taking-power-by-john-holloway Accessed 7/13/11)

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps we can change the world without taking power. Perhaps we cannot. The starting point—for all of us, I think—is uncertainty, not knowing, a common search for a way forward. Because it becomes more and more clear that capitalism is a catastrophe for humanity. A radical change in the organisation of society, that is, revolution, is more urgent than ever. And this revolution can only be world revolution if it is to be effective. But it is unlikely that world revolution can be achieved in one single blow. This means that the only way in which we can conceive of revolution is as interstitial revolution, as a revolution that takes place in the interstices of capitalism, a revolution that occupies spaces in the world while capitalism still exists. The question is how we conceive of these interstices, whether we think of them as states or in other ways. In thinking about this, we have to start from where we are, from the many rebellions and insubordinations that have brought us to Porto Alegre. The world is full of such rebellions, of people saying NO to capitalism: NO, we shall not live our lives according to the dictates of capitalism, we shall do what we consider necessary or desirable and not what capital tells us to do. Sometimes we just see capitalism as an all-encompassing system of domination and forget that such rebellions exist everywhere. At times they are so small that even those involved do not perceive them as refusals, but often they are collective projects searching for an alternative way forward and sometimes they are as big as the Lacandon Jungle or the Argentinazo of three years ago or the revolt in Bolivia just over a year ago. All of these insubordinations are characterised by a drive towards self-determination, an impulse that says, ‘No, you will not tell us what to do, we shall decide for ourselves what we must do.’ These refusals can be seen as fissures, as cracks in the system of capitalist domination. Capitalism is not (in the first place) an economic system, but a system of command. Capitalists, through money, command us, telling us what to do. To refuse to obey is to break the command of capital. The question for us, then, is how do we multiply and expand these refusals, these cracks in the texture of domination? There are two ways of thinking about this. The first says that these movements, these many insubordinations, lack maturity and effectiveness unless they are focused, unless they are channelled towards a goal. For them to be effective, they must be channelled towards the conquest of state power—either through elections or through the overthrowing of the existing state and the establishment of a new, revolutionary state. The organisational form for channelling all these insubordinations towards that aim is the party. The question of taking state power is not so much a question of future intentions as of present organisation. How should we organise ourselves in the present? Should we join a party, an organisational form that focuses our discontent on the winning of state power? Or should we organise in some other way? The second way of thinking about the expansion and multiplication of insubordinations is to say, ‘No, they should not be all harnessed together in the form of a party, they should flourish freely, go whatever way the struggle takes them.’ This does not mean that there should be no coordination, but it should be a much looser coordination. Above all, the principal point of reference is not the state but the society that we want to create. The principal argument against the first conception is that it leads us in the wrong direction. The state is not a thing, it is not a neutral object: it is a form of social relations, a form of organisation, a way of doing things which has been developed over several centuries for the purpose of maintaining or developing the rule of capital. If we focus our struggles on the state, or if we take the state as our principal point of reference, we have to understand that the state pulls us in a certain direction. Above all, it seeks to impose upon us a separation of our struggles from society, to convert our struggle into a struggle on behalf of, in the name of. It separates leaders from the masses, the representatives from the represented; it draws us into a different way of talking, a different way of thinking. It pulls us into a process of reconciliation with reality, and that reality is the reality of capitalism, a form of social organisation that is based on exploitation and injustice, on killing and destruction. It also draws us into a spatial definition of how we do things, a spatial definition which makes a clear distinction between the state’s territory and the world outside, and a clear distinction between citizens and foreigners. It draws us into a spatial definition of struggle that has no hope of matching the global movement of capital. There is one key concept in the history of the state-centred left, and that concept is betrayal. Time and time again the leaders have betrayed the movement, and not necessarily because they are bad people, but just because the state as a form of organisation separates the leaders from the movement and draws them into a process of reconciliation with capital. Betrayal is already given in the state as an organisational form. Can we resist this? Yes, of course we can, and it is something that happens all the time. We can refuse to let the state identify leaders or permanent representatives of the movement, we can refuse to let delegates negotiate in secret with the representatives of the state. But this means understanding that our forms of organisation are isvery different from those of the state, that there is no symmetry between them. The state is an organisation on behalf of, what we want is the organisation of self-determination, a form of organisation that allows us to articulate what we want, what we decide, what we consider necessary or desirable. What we want, in other words, is a form of organisation that does not have the state as its principal point of reference. The argument against taking the state as the principal point of reference is clear, but what of the other concept? The state-oriented argument can be seen as a pivoted conception of the development of struggle. Struggle is conceived as having a central pivot, the taking of state power. First we concentrate all our efforts on winning the state, we organise for that, then, once we have achieved that, we can think of other forms of organisation, we can think of revolutionising society. First we move in one direction, in order to be able to move in another: the problem is that the dynamic acquired during the first phase is difficult or impossible to dismantle in the second phase. The other concept focuses directly on the sort of society we want to create, without passing through the state. There is no pivot: organisation is directly prefigurative, directly linked to the social relations we want to create. Where the first concept sees the radical transformation of society as taking place after the seizure of power, the second insists that it must begin now. Revolution not when the time is right but revolution here and now. 

As an intellectual your rejection of hegemonic discourses which prop of flawed capitalist ideologies emancipatory results- relentless criticism allows capitalism to be challenged.
Kovel 2  Professor of Social Studies at Bard
(Joel, The Enemy of Nature, p224)
Relentless criticism can delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle develops, victories that are no more than incremental by their own terms- stopping a meeting stopping the IMF, the hopes stirred forth by a campaign such as Ralph Nader’s in 2000 – can have a symbolic effect far greater than their external result, and constitute points of rupture with capital. This rupture is not a set of facts added to our knowledge of the world, but a change in our relation to the world. Its effects are dynamic, not incremental, and like all genuine insights it changes the balance of forces and can propagate very swiftly. Thus the release from inertia can trigger a rapid cascade of changes, so that it could be said that the forces pressing towards radical change need not be linear and incremental, but can be exponential in character. In this way, conscientious and radical criticism of the given, even in advance of having blueprints for an alternative, can be a material force, because it can seize the mind of the masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals

Ending white supremacy can only happen when we examine our complicities in the negative parts of capitalism
Katz-Fishman 14, W. Katz-Fishman -- Howard University, J. Scott -- Founder and Former Director, Project South K. Haltinner (ed.), Editor of Teaching Race and Anti-Racism in Contemporary America Adding Context to Colorblindness, Race, Class and Transformation: Confronting Our History to Move Forward, http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/934/chp253A10.1007252F978-94-007-7101-7_26.pdf?auth66=1390670850_4076387ffba6f17ddf3a828859827d80andext=.pdf
From inside today’s bottom-up movement for equality, justice, democracy and social transformation, we share experiences and lessons for understanding race and class in the context of historical and contemporary U.S. capitalism and social struggle. We cannot resolve a problem unless there is clarity about its root cause. America at its inception was a Southern nation grounded in genocide and slavery. The colonial occupation and stealth of the land and resources of the western hemisphere from Indigenous peoples combined with the super-exploitation of African slave labor in the plantation system was extraordinarily pro?table for capital. To continue to produce and reproduce this source of capital accumulation and wealth, white supremacy and institutional racism were embedded in U.S. law, ideology, and society. Though no longer de jure, the content of white supremacy and racism remains de facto in every aspect of social life, even in the so-called “post-racial era” of the late twentieth and twenty-?rst centuries. (Bonilla-Silva 2010; Feagin 2006; Heagerty and Peery 2000). The question of race in America – from Indigenous genocide and the slave system, to the attack on immigrant communities and the state execution of Troy Davis – inextricably links race and a racially exploitative and oppressive system to the very core of American class exploitation and super-exploitation, State power and repression, ideological hegemony, and social and environmental crises. Based on this history of U.S. capitalism and the deep interpenetration of race and class, we argue that it is not possible to resolve the fundamental problems of capitalism, especially white supremacy and institutional racism, without ending capitalism (Katz-Fishman and Scott 2004; Peery 2002). In the classroom of life – whether formal education settings, or the movement itself – theory, practice, and study around these questions is increasingly converging. We offer as a pedagogical tool the critical study of social history – the debunking of historical myth and the claiming of our real history of domination, oppression, exploitation, and of resistance and social struggle. This means gaining clarity around the victories of past movements, what has and has not been won, where we are today and why, and the path forward (Katz-Fishman et al. 2007).

Tournament: Wake Forest | Round: 1 | Opponent: Alpharetta NN | Judge:
The Zapatistas are back!
The Zapatistas welcome people to join them in solidarity – connecting ourselves with them is to connect ourselves with a nonviolent protest against oppressive domination
Maccani 8 (RJ Maccani, senior reporter in NYC, working both for news organizations and resistance groups, from the newsletter, “Solidarity: What does it mean now? May/June 2008,” “Be a Zapatista Wherever You Are,”
http://www.resistinc.org/newsletters/articles/be-zapatista-wherever-you-are,)

The Zapatista’s cry for equality and dignity is humanity’s only chance against extinction
Bellinghausen 12 (Hermann, collaborator on the Mexican weekly magazines En Solidaridad and Mundo Médico and as an editor for Ojarasca. He is an editorialist and a correspondent who covers the state of Chiapas, The EZLN, Origen of the Current Social Unrest All Over the Globe, January 7, http://compamanuel.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/seminar-on-anti-systemic-movements-re-ezln-influence/)

Dignity makes life worth living – fighting for it creates the place for democracy, liberty, and justice and is crucial to life itself
Marcos 95 (Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, insurgent leader for the EZLN, in charge of all public statements, “Dignity cannot be studied, you live it or it dies,” Marcos, in an email written to French journalist Eric Jauffret, ”http:flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/marcos_dignity_june95.html,)

Affirmation of dignity is an ethical obligation – it’s the only method to challenge hegemonic power – dignity serves as the foundation to attack oppressive structures
Fender 11 (Meredith Fender, Spring 2011, “How Subcomandante Marcos Employed Strategic Communication to Promote the Zapatista Revolution” http://www.american.edu/sis/jis/upload/8Fender.pdf) 

The status quo is a brutally violent towards Chiapan communities. Structural violence is the backdrop of every day life in the chiapas and the US is one cause of these attacks against human rights. 

Cunninghame and Corona ’98 – Patrick Cunninghame and Carolina Ballesteros Corona, writing for the Journal of Capital and Class Capital and Class, Autumn98, Vol. 21 Issue 66, p12-12. “A Rainbow at Midnight: Zapatistas and Autonomy.” Ebscohost Adoan

Structural violence outweighs – its relegation to the sidelines means debate is a crucial space to expose its horrors. 

Christie ’01 – Daniel J. Christie was a professor of psychology at Ohio State University, edited by RV Wagner and DA Winter. Englewood Cliffs, New¶ Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 2007. “Structural Violence”. 2007. http://academic.marion.ohio-state.edu/dchristie/Peace20Psychology20Book_files/Section20II20-20Structural20Violence20(Winter202620Leighton).pdf 

And – independently, preserving human rights is a decision-rule: when given an option to preserve human dignity, we must take it.
Mellion ’07 – Adam Mellion, Research Analyst at Forward Observer Inc, a public affairs research and strategy firm, and Project Consultant at the California Homeless Youth Project, citing Kant and others Mellion, Adam, "The Moral and Legal Aspects of Protecting Human Rights: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the¶ Intervention" (2007). Senior Honors Projects.Paper 53. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055andcontext=srhonorsprog
In terms of the 1994 genocide, while some countries are guilty only of inaction, the ¶ United States and France, in fact, took measures to specifically prevent countries from ¶ intervening if not downright aiding the genocidaires.¶ 15 Security Council meetings became efforts ¶ to suppress knowledge of the events, and specifically not to label the crisis as a genocide. At an ¶ infamous State Department press conference, the world watched spokeswoman Christine Shelley ¶ nervously parse words until utterly devoid of meaning—her phrasing of “acts of genocide” has ¶ since become the symbol of American unwillingness to risk money and soldiers after the disaster ¶ in Somalia in 1993.When discussed in the dozens of emotional accounts of those barbarous one hundred ¶ days, the collective global inaction towards resolving the crisis is often referred to as—in some ¶ variation—a “horrific moral failure.”16 An albatross around Clinton's neck in his next term, he ¶ was even driven to fly to Kigali to personally apologize for his share of the responsibility ¶ (though conspicuously never leaving the airport in doing so). Clinton's National Security Adviser ¶ Anthony Lake later remarked that his own ineptitude and lack of effort during the crisis was, in ¶ his own words, “truly pathetic.”17 A specter haunting the conscience of the world, the case of ¶ Rwanda stands out as a particularly shameful episode in contemporary history. What can be ¶ gleaned from the near-universal contempt for the policy of entirely ignoring the Tutsi's massacre ¶ (often upwards of 10,000 each day) is that respect for human rights goes beyond a utopian ideal. ¶ Instead, perhaps it comes from a rationally-derived system of ethics whose clear logic evokes the ¶ pangs of moral culpability. ¶ Deriving such an ethics from the Kantian system, one can show not only why we should ¶ intervene in humanitarian crises, but also how it can be seen as a moral obligation. The idea ¶ upon which one might found this is Kant's categorical imperative, imploring us (in one ¶ formulation) to “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it ¶ should become a universal law.”18 Ubiquitous in elementary philosophy, he famously uses the ¶ example of the immorality of lying: one should not lie because, if universalized to an entire ¶ society that found no issue with lying, the very idea of 'truth' would become meaningless. ¶ Though deceivingly similar to the “golden rule” ('do unto others...), Kant himself points out that ¶ this principle is “banal” and too restricted—it does not provide a basis for duties to oneself or, ¶ more importantly for the purposes of the present thesis, benevolent duties to others.19 In sum, ¶ given the assumed equality of mankind, only those ethical maxims based on this principle of ¶ universality can be considered valid. ¶ From the categorical imperative stems two critical extensions in need of elaboration. ¶ Firstly, it is the source of the conception of human rights. Kant maintains, and indeed it is an ¶ integral component of the categorical imperative, that “every rational being exists as an end in ¶ himself and not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion.” Implied in this ¶ statement is that mankind is somehow 'outside of nature' and cannot be treated as mere objects. ¶ Personhood, singular and irreplaceable20, sets limits on the actions of others in ways that other ¶ forms of non-rational life does not. Whereas mankind is said to possess absolute value or worth, ¶ the value of objects, he later explains, is contingent on the desires of human subjects. Bearing ¶ only relative value, objects can be said to have a price. The rational actor acts as a touchstone of ¶ value; our ability to be the creator of desires, and therefore value, makes us unique vis-à-vis mere ¶ things. ¶ Furthermore, Kant explains that the capacity for rationally setting ends for oneself, amid ¶ a world of others doing the same, makes a person a special locus of value21 distinct from all other Mellion 9¶ non-rational beings. ¶ Reason accordingly checks out every maxim of your will, in its role as giver ¶ of laws, to see how it relates to everyone else’s will and also to every action ¶ towards yourself. It doesn’t do this from any external practical motive or ¶ future advantage, but rather from the idea of the dignity of a rational being ¶ who obeys no law except one that he himself gives while obeying it.22¶ Universalizing the notion of ones own self-worth, we come to the conclusion that all persons, ¶ insofar as they are capable of reason and self-legislation, are their own source of value—they are ¶ to be considered as an end in themselves and treated with all due dignity. Human rights, thus, ¶ originate not from a top-down, imposed ideal of a cosmopolitan society, but are a priori to ¶ society itself. The origin of human rights, therefore, is indistinguishable from that of mankind ¶ itself. ¶ Appropriately, 1948's Universal Declaration of Human Rights document, is, in many ¶ ways, an extension and pragmatic implementation of the categorical imperative.23 Many of the ¶ thirty articles in the Declaration—including the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery, ¶ the right to own property, and so on—act as a maxim that, withstanding Kant's litmus test, can be ¶ universally applied without exception. In other words, these guarantees would not contradict ¶ themselves if extended to the whole of humanity. The very first article of the Declaration, ¶ mimicking Kant's own words quite closely, reads as follows: “All human beings are born free ¶ and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act ¶ towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”24 The influence apparent, the categorical ¶ imperative is the source of validation for most of what are commonly referred to as 'basic' human ¶ rights. ¶ The ability to universalize the articles of the Declaration does not, however, apply ¶ unconditionally. One must note that included are not only negative rights (freedom from¶ something, such as being enslaved) but positive rights, as well—a quite meaningful distinction. Mellion 10¶ The idea of a positive right demands some sort of end be brought upon or given to another by ¶ society. Article eighteen (“freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”), a negative right, ¶ differs in this sense from article twenty-six, affirming the right to free elementary education. ¶ Kant himself was wary of positive rights being taken as guaranteed, for reasons that will be ¶ explicated below. With this vocabulary of rights in mind one can frame the discussion for the ¶ second essential component derived from the categorical imperative: the duties and obligations ¶ we have towards our fellow man, and, in particular, protecting human rights. 

PLAN
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Mexico, if and only if the Mexican government abides by the San Andres Accords.

Solvency
Mexican political decisions are heavily influenced by US policy. 

Rivera ’04 – Gaspar Rivera, Graduate Student at Stanford University Stanford University, “The Struggle of the Zapatatista Movement: Seeking a Solution after 10 years”, March 11, 2004, https://www.google.com/url?sa=tandrct=jandq=andesrc=sandsource=webandcd=1andved=0CC4QFjAAandurl=http3A2F2Fwww.stanford.edu2Fclass2Fe297a2FThe2520Struggle2520of2520the2520Zapatista2520Movement.docandei=QRjOUbCLGZOn0AGeiYDwAQandusg=AFQjCNFYABTpWRgVE5Tt4hAgPtqQAF8ufwandsig2=UerAsQZ5HXvGX4QPjH-niwandbvm=bv.48572450,d.dmQ

And – US acceptance of accords is uniquely key – they’ve been the ones urging Mexico to stay non-compliant all along. Now is a critical time to opening the door to negotiations and empower Chiapas. 

Narconews ’00 Narconews, drug war bulletin and voice of the people, “Fox's First Challenge: The San Andrés Peace Accords”, November 26, 2000, http://www.narconews.com/mextransition2.html 

The San Andres Accords would usher in a new wave of rights for everyone affected by this oppressive domination
Hernandez 2010 NavarroLuis Hernandez March 26, 2010 The San Andrés Accords: Indians and the Soul CSQ Issue: 23.1 (Spring 1999) Indigenous Rights and Self-Determination in Mexico Hernandez is Vice President, Specialized Information Publishers Association at Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA) Past Director of Publishing at Thompson Publishing Group Senior Research Associate at Barrera Associaes Project Manager at Indus Corp. Education Georgetown University St. Mary's University

And – enforcing the San Andres Accords leads to a broader solution.
Rivera ’04 – Gaspar Rivera, Graduate Student at Stanford University Stanford University, “The Struggle of the Zapatatista Movement: Seeking a Solution after 10 years”, March 11, 2004, https://www.google.com/url?sa=tandrct=jandq=andesrc=sandsource=webandcd=1andved=0CC4QFjAAandurl=http3A2F2Fwww.stanford.edu2Fclass2Fe297a2FThe2520Struggle2520of2520the2520Zapatista2520Movement.docandei=QRjOUbCLGZOn0AGeiYDwAQandusg=AFQjCNFYABTpWRgVE5Tt4hAgPtqQAF8ufwandsig2=UerAsQZ5HXvGX4QPjH-niwandbvm=bv.48572450,d.dmQ 

Marcos himself believes the San Andres Accords are a crucial step to give power to the Zapatistas and is a pinpoint of their ideology
Marcos 1 (Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos, insurgent leader for the EZLN, in charge of all public statements, Our World is Our Weapon, pg. 139, Seven Stories Press: New York,)

Discourse is key to spread the Zapatista movement
Gelsomino 10(Mark Gelsomino, Mark is a recent graduate of the Masters of Information Studies program at the University of Toronto.  In addition to his studies he sat on the executive of the Canadian Library Association U of T Student Chapter and served as co-chair for the U of T Librarians Without Borders chapter. Prior to coming to Toronto, Mark worked as a Systems Specialist for the Ottawa Public Library. He completed his Anthropology undergrad at Carleton University where he focused on criminology, forensic psychology and Indigenous issues, “The Zapatista Effect: Information Communication Technology Activism and Marginalized Communities” http://fiq.ischool.utoronto.ca/index.php/fiq/article/view/15404) Malhar

Debate is key—it brings a new form of communication and activism
Gelsomino 10 (Mark Gelsomino, Mark is a recent graduate of the Masters of Information Studies program at the University of Toronto.  In addition to his studies he sat on the executive of the Canadian Library Association U of T Student Chapter and served as co-chair for the U of T Librarians Without Borders chapter. Prior to coming to Toronto, Mark worked as a Systems Specialist for the Ottawa Public Library. He completed his Anthropology undergrad at Carleton University where he focused on criminology, forensic psychology and Indigenous issues, “The Zapatista Effect: Information Communication Technology Activism and Marginalized Communities” http://fiq.ischool.utoronto.ca/index.php/fiq/article/view/15404) 

Our advocacy means that we’re fighting on the side of the Zapatistas – we choose to affirm solidarity with the Zapatistas. 

Freire ’05 – Paulo Freire, PhD and philosopher, who advocated critical pedagogy Continuum International Publishing Group, New York, 2005 – first published 1970, “PEDAGOGY ¶ of the ¶ OPPRESSED”, http://www.users.humboldt.edu/jwpowell/edreformFriere_pedagogy.pdf 

Participation is possible – the Zapatistas embrace being the average person behind the mask and they are equals
FARAH, 13 (Tatiana is a staff writer for Roarmag.org “Brazilian Movement Takes Inspiration From Zapatistas”) http://www.countercurrents.org/farah270613.htm “Abajo y a la izquierda está el corazón” — “the heart lies below and to the left”.

Tournament: gonzaga | Round: 1 | Opponent: all | Judge:
FW
Their model of education is through a lens which reifies racism and creates a paradigm where students are taught to ignore violence against marginalized oppressed populations
Chase and Dowd ’12 (Megan M. Chase, Doctoral student at the Center for Urban Education, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles Alicia C. Dowd, associate professor of education at the University of Southern California's Rossier School of Education and co-director of the Center for Urban Education. Dr. Dowd's research focuses on political-economic issues of public college finance equity, organizational effectiveness, and accountability and the factors affecting student attainment in higher education, Educational Policy “Transfer Equity for "Minoritized" Students: A Critical Policy Analysis of Seven States”, p.5, 7 December 2012, http://rossier.usc.edu/faculty/Educational20Policy-2012-Chase-0895904812468227.pdf)//BG
Traditional methods of policy analysis, referred
....
and White students (Iverson, 2007; Parker, 2003; Rivas, Pérez, Alvarez, and Solorzano, 2007; Young, 1999).

You don’t need debate for your skills. Video games solve all your offense
Olson 2011 Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, Co-director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, Postdoctoral European Certificate, Pharmaceutical Medicine, University of Basel (Switzerland), ScD (Doctor of Science), Harvard School of Public Health, 1995, MPH, Community Health Education, University of Minnesota, 1986 BA, Communications, University of Minnesota
Why Video Games Can Be Beneficial to Kids
......
You don’t need debate for your skills. Video games solve all your offense
Olson 2011 Cheryl K. Olson, ScD, Co-director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Mental Health and Media, Postdoctoral European Certificate, Pharmaceutical Medicine, University of Basel (Switzerland), ScD (Doctor of Science), Harvard School of Public Health, 1995, MPH, Community Health Education, University of Minnesota, 1986 BA, Communications, University of Minnesota
Why Video Games Can Be Beneficial to Kids 

Their claims of fairness, objectivity, and limits are ways to marginalize the oppressed and silence their voices  
Delgado 92 , Law Prof at U. of Colorado, 1992 Richard, “Shadowboxing: An Essay On Power,” In Cornell Law Review, May
We have cleverly
.....
external" culture, so that we are now enamored with that way of judging action. First, we read our values and preferences into the culture; then we pretend to consult that culture meekly and humbly in order to judge our own acts. 

The capitalist oppression operates directly THROUGH the state. The state MAKES THIS POSSIBLE. Only through disengaging can we successfully combat cap
Deleuze and Guattari 1987 (Gilles and Felix, A Thousand Plateaus p. 447-448).
Hence the very particular character of State violence: it is very difficult to pinpoint this violence because it always presents itself as preaccom- plished. It is not
.....
against the violent, against "criminals"—against primitives, against nomads—in order that peace may reign

The question of what I would do if I was the president is the wrong approach to the topic and allows us to abdicate our responsibility which leads to bad policy outcomes.
Kappeler 95 (Susanne, The Will to Violence, p. 10-11)

We are the war' does not mean that the responsibility for a war is shared collectively and diffusely by an entire society which would be equivalent to exonerating warlords and politicians and profiteers or, as Ulrich Beck says, upholding the notion of `collective irresponsibility', where people are no longer held responsible for their actions, and where the conception of universal responsibility becomes the equival¬ent of a universal acquittal.' On the contrary, the object is precisely to analyse the specific and differential responsibility of everyone in their diverse situations. Decisions to unleash a war are indeed taken
......
. Humanism contributes to this danger insofar as it fosters the illusion that technology is the result of a collective human choice and therefore subject to human control.

CASE

Capitalism excludes alternative viewpoints from policy debate by characterizing them as “unsuccessful”, creating pedagogical hegemony – insulating itself from criticism. Questioning this framework is key to prevent intellectual stagnation and true transformative policy – means we are a pre-req
Gunder and Hiller 2009
(Michael, Aukland University senior planning lecturer, Jean Hillier, Associate Dean, Discipline Leader and Chair, Sustainability and Urban Planning at RMIT U, Planning in Ten Words or Less: A Lacanian Entanglement with Spatial Planning pgs 111-2) BSH

The hegemonic network, or bloc, initially shapes the debates and draws on appropriate policies of desired success
......
responses for every competing local area or city-region. largely resulting in a zero-sum game (Blair and Kumar 1997). 

Anthro

1. No link – Capitalism hurts all animals because of the capital drive
   2. Don’t grant them a link of omission – Dubbing us “anthropocentric” because we didn’t talk about animals makes the creation of an effective environmental movement impossible, and isn’t accurate
   Lewsi 92 – Professor of Environment
   Martin Lewis professor in the School of the Environment and the Center for International Studies at Duke University. Green Delusions, 1992 p17-18
   Nature for Nature’s Sake—And Humanity for Humanity’s It is widely accepted that environmental thinkers can be divided into two camps: those who favor the preservation of nature for nature’s sake, and those who wish only to maintain the environment as the necessary habitat of humankind (see Pepper 1989; O’Riordan 1989; W Fox 1990). In the first group stand the green radicals, while the second supposedly consists of environmental reformers, also labeled “shallow ecologists.” Radicals often pull no punches in assailing the members of the latter camp for their anthropocentrism, managerialism, and gutless accommo¬dationism—to some, “shallow ecology” is “just a more efficient form of exploitation and oppression” (quoted in Nash 1989:202). While this dichotomy may accurately depict some of the major approaches of the past, it is remarkably unhelpful for devising the kind of framework required for a truly effective environmental movement. It incorrectly assumes that those who adopt an anti-anthropocentric view (that is, one that accords intrinsic worth to nonhuman beings) will also embrace the larger political programs of radical environmentalism. Sim¬ilarly, it portrays those who favor reforms within the political and economic structures of representative democracies as thereby excluding all nonhumans from the realm of moral consideration. Yet no convincing reasons are ever provided to show why these beliefs should necessarily be aligned in such a manner. (For an instructive discussion of the pitfalls of the anthropocentric versus nonanthropocentric dichotomy, see Nor¬ton 1987, chapter ir.)

7. Their alternative still requires a concept of human agency. We are limited to our own spatial-temporal perspective,
William Grey '00 Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Queensland, Australia ("A Critique of Deep Green Theory", Beneath the Surface, p. 48)

Values depend on the existence of choice-making preference-havers. However, while our species characteristics are sufficient for having the capacity to choose, they are not necessary. Values are tied to the notion of agency, because without the capacity to choose and to act, there can be no coherent preference-ordering. The domain of action—that is, the domain in which we have the causal power to effect changes—imposes limits on the kind and the scale of states of affairs about which we can coherently entertain preferences. That is, it imposes limits on the domain of praxis. These limits can be illustrated by considering alternative spatial and temporal perspectives. From a remote temporal perspective or a remote spatial perspective, what happens here and now is of little consequence.21 Such perspectives are, in general, not relevant to choice. Similarly, from a subatomic level much of the practically relevant structure of the world disappears. That is not to say it is without interest. Moral questions are not the only interesting questions. But we do not inhabit cosmic or subatomic levels of organization, and the structure and organization at those levels are not relevant to praxis; they lie beyond the boundaries of community. Sylvan's account of values nowhere acknowledges the existence of such limits. The realm of practical reason is the zone of middle dimensions. In our sort of lives, billions of years and nanoseconds are irrelevant for structuring our preferences and choices. Human scale—or rather, the scale appropriate for choicemaking preference-havers who hereabouts happen to be human—does, however, matter. Meaningful deliberation must conform to the range of powers and opportunities that creatures such as ourselves possess.

Tournament: Glenbrooks | Round: 5 | Opponent: Iowa City West MY | Judge: Bob Ciborowski
We begin this debate reading from Eduardo Galeano in 1973
Latin America is the region of open veins. Everything, from the discovery until
AND
is the curse of our multitudes condemned to exist as beasts of burden.

At the Summit of the Americas the late Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez hands president Obama a book, The Open Veins of Latin America by the Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano. Chavez pats Obama on the shoulder and insists on shaking his hand. Obama turns towards the camera and smiles for a photograph but the look of confusion on his face is evident. This is not the broad foreign policy smile from earlier in the video. Later Obama told a reporter "I thought it was one of Chavez’s books. I was going to give him one of mine."

Of all the insinuations of Chavez’s cult of personality, it turns out that Obama is the real narcissist. All of this talk of leaders and figureheads obscures the history that passes between the hands of the two presidents. Chavez gives Obama a gift that he cannot return – not my book for your book, quid pro quo, tit for tat –the gift can only be returned when the historical structures of economic violence that the book describes are dismantled.

Lets read from Galeano:

Eduardo Galeano, 1973
Edited*
Uruguayan journalist, writer and novelist.

The human murder by poverty in Latin America is secret; every year, without
AND
be a lowering of living standards for all peoples, including his own.
The United States is more concerned than any other country with spreading and imposing family
AND
food for infinitely more people than those who now suffer in such penury.
Over a century ago a Guatemalan foreign minister said prophetically: "It would be
AND
and ban strikes and smash trade unions to protect the freedom to work.
Is everything forbidden us except to fold our arms? Poverty is not written in
AND
of the resources that have always been usurped is recovery of our destiny.
The ghosts of all the revolutions that have been strangled or betrayed through Latin America’s
AND
each chosen victim opened the door to a new cycle of 185 moons.

So it is our turn to give back the gift

The gift of poverty misery and ecological destruction

We shall wage war on the resolution

Just as the United states has waged war on the latin American countries

It is time for the U.S. to be drowned in oil that has been extracted from the heart of those countries

The line shall no longer exist

And America will hear the screams and cries that have been echoing throughout Mexico, Venezeuala, Cuba and many other countries.

There will no longer be a wall of money to distance the yells because we have brought them to you

And if you are still too ignorant to hear them

Then maybe you should join the millions who have perished in the name of freedom

Not your freedom- the type where freedom is money

Rather the freedom that gives people the ability to love without starving

To feel more than just bones when hugging their families

For from now on the tears we see wont be those landing on the dead bodies of family members

Rather on the bodies of those rejoicing for the oppression is over and the "American dream" has been destroyed.

Capitalism causes incalculable deaths—nothing can outweigh—this is war

Herod 7-Social Activist since 1968, owns an awesome website, Attended Columbia University and spent a year abroad at the University of Beirut (Lebanon) (James, 2007, "Getting Free" Pg. 22-23)

We must never forget that we are at war, however, and that we
AND
Hun look like boy scouts. This is a terrible enemy we face. 

We have an APriori ethical obligation to reject capitalism in all instances
Zizek 26 Daly 4-(Slavoj, PhD in Philosophy @ the University of Ljubljana
AND
Essex University and Manchester University, Conversations with Zizek page 14-16) 

For Zizek it is imperative that we cut through this Gordian knot of postmodern protocol
AND
abject Other to that of a ’glitch’ in an otherwise sound matrix.

The role of the ballot is to assess which team best critically and methodologically destroys capitalism- creating new sites of pedagogies requires radical forms of resistance

Giroux 6/19/12 ~Henry, Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department, "Beyond the Politics of the Big Lie: The Education Deficit and the New Authoritarianism" June 6, 2012 http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9865-beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie-the-education-deficit-and-the-new-authoritarianism-http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/9865-beyond-the-politics-of-the-big-lie-the-education-deficit-and-the-new-authoritarianism~~

While a change in consciousness does not guarantee a change in either one’s politics or society, it is a crucial precondition for connecting what it
means to think otherwise to conditions that make it possible to act otherwise. The
AND
making education central to organized politics and the quest for a radical democracy.

Capitalism causes structural violence. Nothing can outweigh

Abu-Jamal 98-~Mumia, award winning Pennsylvania journalist, quotes James Gilligan, Professor at Harvard/NYU, "A quiet and deadly violence", http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html-http://www.flashpoints.net/mQuietDeadlyViolence.html~~

The deadliest form of violence is poverty.  —Ghandi    It has often been observed
AND
away, so that their great and terrible violence passes away with them.

Our AFF is an attack on the existing order in the debate space.  We have to abandon all instances and institutions that prop up capitalism.  Only a totalizing rejection can solve the perpetual slavery and extinction caused by capitalism.  Thus, Ricky 26 I advocate that this debate space should become a new site of pedagogy to reject all capitalist structures
Herod 4-Social Activist since 1968, owns an awesome website, Attended Columbia University and spent a year abroad at the University of Beirut (Lebanon) ~James, Getting Free, 2004, http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm~~

It is time to try to describe, at first abstractly and later concretely,
AND
. Otherwise we are doomed to perpetual slavery and possibly even to extinction.  

The revolution must take place in the form of insubordination and refusal to live according to the dictates of capital.  Demands on the state take the command structure of capital as their principal reference point, which will always result in betrayal and cooption.
Holloway 5 (John, teacher at the Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences at the Autonomous University of Puebla-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_University_of_Puebla, "Can we change the world without taking power?" Znet, August 16, http://www.zcommunications.org/can-we-change-the-world-without-taking-power-by-john-holloway-http://www.zcommunications.org/can-we-change-the-world-without-taking-power-by-john-holloway Accessed 7/13/11)

I don’t know the answer. Perhaps we can change the world without taking power
AND
. Revolution not when the time is right but revolution here and now. 

The act of rejection creates the fissures necessary to resist global capitalism
Holloway 05 (John, 8-16, Ph.D Political Science-University of Edinburgh ,  "Can We Change The World Without Taking Power?", http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616-http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/5616)
On the question of fissures. We often feel helpless because capitalism weighs so heavily
AND
? Why should we accept the template of the concept of the state?

As an intellectual your rejection of capitalism has emancipatory results- relentless criticism allows capitalism to be challenged.
Kovel 2  Professor of Social Studies at Bard
(Joel, The Enemy of Nature, p224)
Relentless criticism can delegitimate the system and release people into struggle. And as struggle
AND
mind of the masses of people. There is no greater responsibility for intellectuals

Tournament: PLEASE READ | Round: 1 | Opponent: PLEASE READ THIS FIRST | Judge: SRSLY READ DIS
RICKY AND ADAM ARE BOTH VERY BUSY OUTSIDE OF DEBATE. WE APOLOGIZE FOR ANY CITES THAT ARE NOT UP. IF YOU NEED ANYTHING OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS EMAIL RICKYCYOUNG@GMAIL.COM AND I WILL SEND YOU FULL CITES

Tournament: longbeach | Round: 1 | Opponent: nevada union | Judge:
open source

Tournament: greenhill | Round: 2 | Opponent: bronx science the coolest kids in the world | Judge:
in open source