Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 3 | Opponent: Wheeler AP | Judge: Erin Caldwell

1NC — Alan Gross QPQ CP

The United States federal government should offer to ~plan~ if and only if the Republic of Cuba releases Alan Gross.

The counterplan solves the case and is net-beneficial—

First, the U.S. should trade increased economic engagement for Gross’s release — a quid pro quo is key to boost relations.

Smith 12 — Wayne Smith, Director of the Cuba Program and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy, served as unofficial ambassador to Cuba under President Jimmy Carter, 2012 ("What Roles for Foreign Direct Investment in the New Cuban Economy?," Transcript of a Brookings Institution Panel Discussion, December 10^th, Available Online at http://www.brookings.edu/~~/media/events/2012/12/1020cuba/20121210_cuban_economy.pdf-http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2012/12/10 cuba/20121210_cuban_economy.pdf, Accessed 09-02-2013, p. 30-31)
MR. PICCONE: Let’s take one more. Wayne, up front here, please. ~end page 30~
SPEAKER: Thank you. Back to the stalemate in which we now find ourselves
AND
would facilitate economic relations between the two, if would seem to me.

• Mr. Piccone = Ted Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution, served eight years as a senior foreign policy advisor in the Clinton Administration

Second, Cuba wants to use Gross as leverage to negotiate with Washington on other bilateral issues — they’ll "say yes" to the counterplan.

Sweig 13 — Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, holds an M.A. and Ph.D. from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, interviewed by Robert McMahon, Editor of CFR.org, 2013 ("Talking to Cuba," Council On Foreign Relations, January 25^th, Available Online at http://www.cfr.org/cuba/talking-cuba/p29879?cid=rss-latinamericaandthecaribbea-talking_to_cuba-012513-http://www.cfr.org/cuba/talking-cuba/p29879?cid=rss-latinamericaandthecaribbea-talking_to_cuba-012513, Accessed 09-02-2013)
Washington continues to point to what it says is the biggest impediment, which is the case of Alan Gross, the U.S. citizen who U.S. officials said was in Cuba to help with Internet access; Cubans say he was subverting the state. He continues to languish in Cuba. How to resolve this issue?
Well, like governments resolve issues, they get in the room and they talk
AND
reinforce the sense that this wasn’t just benign development or benign Internet assistance.
This was part of a program funded by the U.S. government intended
AND
in Miami in 1998 on charges of espionage~, including other bilateral issues.
Some see the case of Alan Gross as playing into a narrative that the Cubans are using this case for leverage and are not genuinely interested in justice or in properly handling this case. How do you respond to that perspective?
Well, they are interested in using the case as leverage. President Obama,
AND
very consistent with the bipartisan approach to Cuba over the last fifty years.
So, Gross is leverage, unfortunately, and Washington’s position now seems to be
AND
very little incentive for Washington to move aggressively toward a better Cuba policy.
Havana’s attempt to use Gross to launch what it calls a political dialogue, in addition to dealing with all of the myriad issues on the table, in its essence is also about pushing Washington to deal with Havana, government to government. That is sort of a deep strategic driver on this ~Gross case~.

• Italicized text is the questions; brackets around "Gross case" in the last sentence is in the original article

Third, Gross’s continued detention is a violation of international law and human decency. Better relations with Cuba are impossible until he is released.

Washington Post 10 — Washington Post, 2010 ("Cuba’s Jewish hostage," Op-Ed, December 6^th, Available Online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/06/AR2010120606357.html, Accessed 09-02-2013)
Raul Castro’s attempt to win foreign favor and investment for Cuba’s moribund economy took a
AND
imprisoned for a year without trial because he tried to help Cuba’s Jews.
Mr. Gross, a 61-year-old specialist in international development,
AND
to Cuban customs - he was arrested on Dec. 3, 2009.
Senior Cuban officials claimed that Mr. Gross, who is himself Jewish but speaks
AND
forced to move from their Potomac home to a small apartment in Washington.
Appeals by the State Department and congressional leaders for Mr. Gross’s release on humanitarian
AND
whose continued detention is a flagrant violation of international law and human decency.
To its credit, the Obama administration has put further improvement of relations with Cuba
AND
media events like his Hanukkah celebration are no substitute for reversing this wrong.

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Milton JM | Judge: Mili Raina

1NC — Apocalyptic Thinking Critique

First, the affirmative’s dramatization of impacts as existential risks replaces risk assessment with worst-case thinking.

Furedi 10 — Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, holds a Ph.D. from the School of Oriental and African Studies at London University, 2010 ("Fear is key to irresponsibility," The Australian, October 9^th, Available Online at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/fear-is-key-to-irresponsibility/story-e6frg6zo-1225935797740, Accessed 10-18-2010)
In the 21st century the optimistic belief in humanity’s potential for subduing the unknown and to become master of its fate has given way to the belief that we are too powerless to deal with the perils confronting us.
We live in an era where problems associated with uncertainty and risk are amplified and, through our imagination, mutate swiftly into existential threats. Consequently, it is rare that unexpected natural events are treated as just that.
Rather, they are swiftly dramatised and transformed into a threat to human survival. The clearest expression of this tendency is the dramatisation of weather forecasting.
Once upon a time the television weather forecasts were those boring moments when you got up to get a snack. But with the invention of concepts such as "extreme weather", routine events such as storms, smog or unexpected snowfalls have acquired compelling entertainment qualities.
This is a world where a relatively ordinary, technical, information-technology problem such as the so-called millennium bug was interpreted as a threat of apocalyptic proportions, and where a flu epidemic takes on the dramatic weight of the plot of a Hollywood disaster movie.
Recently, when the World Health Organisation warned that the human species was threatened by the swine flu, it became evident that it was cultural prejudice rather than sober risk assessment that influenced much of present-day official thinking.
In recent times European culture has become confused about the meaning of uncertainty and risk. Contemporary Western cultural attitudes towards uncertainty, chance and risk are far more pessimistic and confused than they were through most of the modern era. Only rarely is uncertainty perceived as an opportunity to take responsibility for our destiny. Invariably uncertainty is represented as a marker for danger and change is often regarded with dread.
Frequently, worst-case thinking displaces any genuine risk-assessment process. Risk assessment is based on an attempt to calculate the probability of different outcomes. Worst-case thinking—these days known as precautionary thinking—is based on an act of imagination. It imagines the worst-case scenario and demands that we take action on that basis.

Second, this causes serial policy failure — acting based on worst-case possibilities ruins decision-making.

Evans 12 — Dylan Evans, Lecturer in Behavioral Science at University College Cork School of Medicine, holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from the London School of Economics, 2012 ("Nightmare Scenario: The Fallacy of Worst-Case Thinking," Risk Management, April 2^nd, Available Online at http://www.rmmagazine.com/2012/04/02/nightmare-scenario-the-fallacy-of-worst-case-thinking/, Accessed 10-10-2013)
There’s something mesmerizing about apocalyptic scenarios. Like an alluring femme fatale, they exert an uncanny pull on the imagination. That is why what security expert Bruce Schneier calls "worst-case thinking" is so dangerous. It substitutes imagination for thinking, speculation for risk analysis and fear for reason.
One of the clearest examples of worst-case thinking was the so-called "1 doctrine," which Dick Cheney is said to have advocated while he was vice president in the George W. Bush administration. According to journalist Ron Suskind, Cheney first proposed the doctrine at a meeting with CIA Director George Tenet and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in November 2001.
Responding to the thought that Al Qaeda might want to acquire a nuclear weapon, Cheney apparently remarked: "If there’s a 1 chance that Pakistani scientists are helping Al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It’s not about our analysis…It’s about our response."
By transforming low-probability events into complete certainties whenever the events are particularly scary
AND
the extreme but improbable risks and does a poor job at assessing outcomes."

Third, this is the most important impact — training students to make good decisions is debate’s fundamental purpose.

Strait and Wallace 8 — L. Paul Strait, Ph.D. Candidate in Communication at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California, and Brett Wallace, M.A. Candidate in Security Policy Studies at George Washington University, 2008 ("Academic Debate as a Decision-Making Game: Inculcating The Virtue of Practical Wisdom," Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, Volume 29, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via EBSCOhost Communication 26 Mass Media Complete, p. 3-6)
Practical Wisdom
Since the inception of modern academic debate, much of the praise it has received
AND
the highest government officials to the most inconsequential members of society, uses.
Aristotle (c. 330BCE/1941a) argues that this decision-making process combines desire and reasoning in the act of deliberation focused on some end. The ability to make good decisions (and to follow through with them) is associated with the virtue of practical wisdom: ~end page 3~
Practical wisdom... is concerned with things human and things about which it is possible
AND
, and practice is concerned with particulars. (~231141b 6-16).
This underlies our contention that practical wisdom is the final cause of debate. Practical wisdom is broad, provides coherence and unity in a non-arbitrary way, and is value-neutral with respect to the growing divide between the policy-focused and the critically-inclined. Non-practical ends are not helpful – as Aristotle (c. 330BCE/1941a) argues:
The origin of action—its efficient, not its final cause—is choice, and that of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end... Intellect itself, however, moves nothing, but only the intellect which aims at an end and is practical; for this rules the productive intellect as well, since everyone who makes makes for an end, and that which is made is not an end in the unqualified sense. (~231139a32 – 37).
Practical ends that are not unqualified—e.g., Mitchell’s (1995)
AND
highest quality of skills, while at the same time preserving competitive equity.
The ability to make decisions deriving from deliberation, argumentation or debate, is that
AND
is considered the appropriate decision-maker(s) must be identified:
The appropriate decision makers are those necessary to the ultimate implementation of the decision. You may win adherence of fellow students to the proposition that the midterm exam should count less than the final paper in grading your class, but if the professor says no, little is gained... It is important ~end page 5~ for... ~arguers~ to recognize who the appropriate decision makers are. (Rieke 26 Sillars, 1993, p. 2).
Since policy debate aims at determining whether a particular course of action is expedient all arguments which misapprehend the appropriate decision maker(s) are red herrings and interfere with true rational deliberation.
Academics from outside the contest debate community make this argument in different ways in discussing
AND
success, and preparation for college and employment" (p. 49).

Finally, hyperbolic extinction impacts should be rejected. The alternative is to vote against the affirmative because their 1AC has made effective decision-making impossible.

Gross and Gilles 12 — Mathew Barrett Gross, New Media Strategist who served as the Director of Internet Communications for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign, and Mel Gilles, Director of Sol Kula Yoga and Healing, 2012 ("How Apocalyptic Thinking Prevents Us from Taking Political Action," The Atlantic, April 23^rd, Available Online at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/04/how-apocalyptic-thinking-prevents-us-from-taking-political-action/255758/, Accessed 10-10-2013)
Flip through the cable channels for long enough, and you’ll inevitably find the apocalypse
AND
Nile virus, are the looming specter of apocalypse darkening our nation’s horizon.
How to make sense of it all? After all, not every scenario can
AND
rapid reversal of the world’s magnetic poles might seem terrifyingly likely and imminent.
The last time apocalyptic anxiety spilled into the mainstream to the extent that it altered the course of history — during the Reformation — it relied on a revolutionary new communications technology: the printing press. In a similar way, could the current surge in apocalyptic anxiety be attributed in part to our own revolution in communications technology?
The media, of course, have long mastered the formula of packaging remote possibilities
AND
. "They don’t teach that in Sunday school, but it’s true."
Nothing inspires fear like the end of the world, and ever since Y2K,
AND
an Arab terrorist poisoning that drinking supply, resulting in millions of casualties?
Yet not all of the crises or potential threats before us are equal, nor are they equally probable – a fact that gets glossed over when the media equate the remote threat of a possible event, like epidemics, with real trends like global warming.
Over the last decade, the 24-hour news cycle and the proliferation of
AND
flu, or swine flu also never lived up to their media hype.
This over-reliance on the apocalyptic narrative causes us to fear the wrong things
AND
the likely impact of the worst-case model of any given threat?

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Milton JM | Judge: Mili Raina

1NC — Caro Quintero QPQ CP

The United States federal government should ~do the plan~ if and only if Mexico agrees to apprehend Rafael Caro Quintero and extradite him to the United States to face charges.

The counterplan solves the case and is net-beneficial—

First, Rafael Caro Quintero was in prison for killing a DEA Agent but Mexico released him early without telling the United States. Justice demands that the plan be conditioned on Caro Quintero’s apprehension and extradition.

Bensinger 8/29 — Peter Bensinger, served as administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration from 1976 to 1981, 2013 ("Perspective: A travesty of justice," Chicago Tribune, August 29^th, Available Online at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-29/opinion/ct-oped-0830-dea-20130830_1_drug-cartel-u-s-consulate-rafael-caro-quintero-http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-29/opinion/ct-oped-0830-dea-20130830_1_drug-cartel-u-s-consulate-rafael-caro-quintero, Accessed 09-03-2013)
Enrique "Kiki" Camarena, a special agent with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, left the U.S. Consulate in Guadalajara, Mexico, the afternoon of Feb. 7, 1985, to have lunch with his wife. He was kidnapped by several police officers working under the direction of Rafael Caro Quintero, head of the Guadalajara drug cartel.
Camarena had caused problems for Caro Quintero by locating secret marijuana fields and millions of dollars of drug money that was frozen in U.S. banks. Camarena was taken to a private residence in Guadalajara, tortured for two days and killed by a blow to his skull with a tire iron.
DEA agents asked Mexican police to investigate, but many of them were directly involved with Camarena’s kidnapping. The U.S. brought pressure, ordering that every vehicle crossing the border between the U.S. and Mexico be inspected. The Mexican police finally responded four weeks after Camarena’s disappearance, by identifying a ranch 60 miles outside of Guadalajara where the bodies of Camarena and Alfredo Zavala, a Mexican pilot who worked closely with Camarena, were found.
Caro Quintero had taken off in his jet to Costa Rica two days after Camarena’s abduction. The DEA found him by tracing telephone calls from a home he had in Costa Rica. With the cooperation of Costa Rican authorities, Caro Quintero was taken back to Mexico.
He was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison.
On Aug. 9, a three-judge panel in Mexico ordered his release
AND
continuing criminal enterprise. Both charges carry a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Caro Quintero’s early release from prison is a travesty of justice. It represents a
AND
the world did Mexico release one of its most notorious drug cartel bosses?
Mexico has a new president, Enrique Pena Nieto. His government needs to send
AND
leader and the killer of a U.S. drug enforcement agent.
The United States must make clear its outrage at the release of Caro Quintero. And Mexico must bring him to justice.

Second, insisting on extradition as a condition for engagement is vital to preserve U.S.-Mexico relations and maintain law and order. The signal of the counterplan is key.

DMN 8/12 — Dallas Morning News, 2013 ("Mexican cartel leader’s release an outrage," August 12^th, Available Online at http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130812-editorial-mexican-cartel-leaders-release-an-outrage.ece-http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20130812-editorial-mexican-cartel-leaders-release-an-outrage.ece, Accessed 09-03-2013)
A Mexican judge’s decision to release drug cartel leader Rafael Caro Quintero makes our blood boil. Caro Quintero played a key role in the 1985 kidnapping, sustained torture and death of a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Enrique "Kiki" Camarena.
Few cases did more to sour U.S.-Mexico relations than this one. And if President Enrique Peña Nieto fails to act swiftly to block Caro Quintero from escaping justice, bilateral relations could once again turn frosty. Since the United States has long requested Caro Quintero’s extradition, Peña Nieto should honor it. Washington should insist on it.
Caro Quintero remains at the top of the DEA’s list of international fugitives. He partnered with two other drug lords, Ernesto Fonseca Carrillo and Miguel Angel Felix Gallardo, in a cartel based in the western state of Jalisco but whose business spanned multiple Mexican states, Colombia and the U.S.-Mexico border.
They paid massive bribes to Mexican officials to expand their empire and evade prosecution. All of this occurred when the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, was firmly ensconced as the ruling party, a position it held for seven decades, until 2000.
Last year, Mexicans returned the PRI to the presidency after Peña Nieto pledged there would be no return to the party’s old, corrupt ways. His handling of Caro Quintero’s case serves as a test of the PRI’s new commitment to law and order.
Caro Quintero’s operations, including Camarena’s murder, fell under the aegis of an international
AND
Fonseca Carrillo. Felix Gallardo’s attorney has yet not stated plans to appeal.
Not only did the three cartel leaders order Camarena’s execution, according to U.S. trial documents, they employed a doctor whose job was to administer drugs to keep Camarena alive and conscious so they could drag out his torture sessions.
The abduction, trial and ultimate acquittal of the doctor in the United States added to the international rancor over this case. Since then, free trade and other cooperative ventures have helped thaw bilateral relations, though coordination on counternarcotics operations continues to be fraught with mistrust.
Neither country can afford to let relations devolve to that old, abysmal era. Mexico should not expect Washington simply to forget what happened. Caro Quintero’s extradition would send a strong message about the priority Peña Nieto places on close U.S. relations — and on serving notice to other cartel leaders that they will not escape justice for their crimes.

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Milton JM | Judge: Mili Raina

1NC — China Disadvantage

A. Uniqueness — Chinese investment in Latin America is strong and increasing.

Economic Observer 13 — Byline Wang Xiaoxia, Economic Observer, Translated by Worldcrunch ("In America’s Backyard: China’s Rising Influence In Latin America," Worldcrunch/Economic Observer, May 6, 2013, Available Online: http://worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/-http://worldcrunch.com/china-2.0/in-america-039-s-backyard-china-039-s-rising-influence-in-latin-america/foreign-policy-trade-economy-investments-energy/c9s11647/, Accessed: 05/25/2013)
Over the past five years, Chinese businesses have been expanding their footprint in Latin America in a number of ways, beginning with enhanced trade to ensure a steady supply of bulk commodities such as oil, copper and soybeans. At this year’s Boao Forum for Asia, for the first time a Latin American sub-forum was created that included the participation of several heads of state from the region.
Since 2011, China has overtaken the Netherlands to become Latin America’s second biggest investor behind the United States. China has signed a series of large cooperation agreements with Latin American countries in such fields as finance, resources and energy.
According to the latest statistics of the General Administration of Customs of China, Sino-Latin American trade grew in 2012 to a total of 24261.2 billion, a year-on-year increase of 8.18.
This trend risks undermining the position of the United States as Latin America’s single dominant trading partner. In 2011, the U.S.-Latin American trade volume was 24351 billion.

B. Link — Influence is zero sum — Latin America allows Chinese investment because of lack of US economic engagement.

Erikson and Chen 7 — Daniel P. Erikson, Senior Associate for U.
AND
. World Aff. 69, Available Online from Lexis Nexis Law Journals)
Meanwhile, China’s galloping entrance into the Latin American market for energy resources and other
AND
presidents of all those and other countries have paid reciprocal visits to China.
China’s economic engagement with Latin America responds to the requirements of a booming Chinese economy
AND
. FIGURE 2. CHINA V. TAIWAN: TRADING WITH LATIN AMERICA  n11
 ~*75~  For their part, Latin Americans are intrigued by the idea
AND
supply of cheap Chinese labor as a menace to their nascent manufacturing sectors.

C. Impact — Chinese investment in Latin America key to economic growth and regime stability.

Ellis 11 — R. Evan Ellis, professor of national security studies, modeling, gaming, and simulation with the Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies at the National Defense University, with a research focus on Latin America’s relationships with external actors, including China, Russia, and Iran, Ph.D. in Political Science ("Chinese Soft Power in Latin America: A Case Study, Joint Force Quarterly, A Publication of the National Defense University Press, Issue 60, 1^st Quarter 2011, Available Online: http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-60/JFQ60_85-91_Ellis.pdf-http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-60/JFQ60_85-91_Ellis.pdf, Accessed: 05/22/2013)
Access to Latin American Markets. Latin American markets are becoming increasingly valuable for Chinese
AND
Area of the Americas) in which the PRC would have been disadvantaged.

Chinese economic decline risks internal collapse and war over Taiwan.

Lewis 8 — Dan Lewis, Research Director of the Economic Research Council, 2008 ("Industry will put innovation on fast track," World Finance, May 13^th, Available Online at http://www.worldfinance.com/home/final-bell/the-nightmare-of-a-chinese-economic-collapse, Accessed 11/26/2012)
A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a decline in China’s economic growth rate.
That is alarming. It has been calculated that to keep China’s society stable – ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban society without devastating unemployment – the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population from the country to the cities becomes unsustainable. This is when real discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal and hard to ignore.
It doesn’t end there. That will at best bring a global recession. The
AND
by going to war with Taiwan – whom America is pledged to defend.

Tournament: Sequoyah | Round: 3 | Opponent: Killian Hill HM | Judge: Raghav Kaul
First, the affirmative is caught up in the cult of reputation—the assumption that the U.S.’s credibility is its own possession and that it spills over across issues and to other countries is demonstrably false.
Tang 5 — Shiping Tang, Associate Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Regional Security Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, Co-director of the Sino-American Security Dialogue, 2005 (“Reputation, Cult of Reputation, and International Conflict,” Security Studies, Volume 14, Number 1, January-March, p. 41-45)
Two implicitly related notions underpin this belief system. The first notion is that one’s reputation is one’s own possession, hence “something worth fighting for.”
AND,
second notion is that reputation is fungible
Second, the U.S. can’t control the perceptions of others—the underlying assumptions of the cult of reputation are logically and empirically bankrupt.
Fettweis 8 — Christopher J. Fettweis, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and Comparative Politics from the University of Maryland-College Park, 2007-2008 (“Credibility and the War on Terror,” Political Science Quarterly, Volume 122, Number 4, Winter, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via IngentaConnect, p. 633)
Both logic and a preponderance of the evidence suggest that the current U.S. obsession with credibility is as insecure, misplaced, and malinformed
Third, this turns the case—the belief in credibility empirically causes war.
Tang 5 — Shiping Tang, Associate Research Fellow and Deputy Director of the Center for Regional Security Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, Co-director of the Sino-American Security Dialogue, 2005 (“Reputation, Cult of Reputation, and International Conflict,” Security Studies, Volume 14, Number 1, January-March, p. 46)
Decisionmakers’ persistent concern for losing reputation has brought unnecessary bloodiness to international politics:
The alternative is to stop believing in credibility.
Basing decisions on perceptions of credibility makes serial policy failure inevitable—decades of scholarship are on our side.
Fettweis 9 — Christopher J. Fettweis, Assistant Professor of National Security Affairs in the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, holds a Ph.D. in International Relations and Comparative Politics from the University of Maryland-College Park, 2009 ("Madmen in Authority: Threats, Pathology and Grand Strategy," Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, June, Available Online at http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p314364_index.html , p. 4-6)

Tournament: Carrollton | Round: 3 | Opponent: Westminster KC | Judge: Akash Gogate
1NC — Immigration Reform Politics DA

First, immigration reform will pass even if it gets pushed back to 2014, but it will be close.

Washington Times 11/14 — Washington Times, 2013 ("Democrats still hoping for an immigration bill this year," Byline Stephen Dinan, November 14^th, Available Online at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/14/democrats-still-hoping-for-an-immigration-bill-thi/print/, Accessed 11-15-2013)
Many analysts argue that if immigration legislation isn’t done by the end of this year it won’t be taken up until after the 2014 elections, since it may be too toxic for consideration in an election year.
But Sen. Charles E. Schumer said political pressure could change that.
"I still think it’s possible this year," the New York Democrat said at the Washington Ideas Forum hosted by The Atlantic. "But if it’s not, I think we have a real good chance to do it in the first half of next year if I had to bet money, we’re going to have an immigration reform bill on the president’s desk."
Mr. Schumer was chief author of the Senate immigration bill, which legalizes most illegal immigrants, calls for billions of dollars to hire more Border Patrol agents and build more fencing, and rewrites the legal immigration system.

Second, The Cuba Lobby will destroy Obama’s agenda in response to the plan.

LeoGrande 12 — William M. LeoGrande, Professor in the Department of Government at the School of Public Affairs at American University specializing in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, served on the staffs of the Democratic Policy Committee of the United States Senate and the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Central America of the United States House of Representatives, former Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow and Pew Faculty Fellow in International Affairs, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Syracuse University, 2012 ("Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?," Paper prepared for presentation at a conference in Cuba, December, Available Online at http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf, Accessed 09-26-2013, p. 14-16)
The Second Obama Administration
Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political considerations played
AND
, whose views were more in line with the president’s stated policy goals.
At the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela favored initiatives to improve relations
AND
to avoid the Cuba issue because it was so fraught with political danger.
When the president finally approved the resumption of people-to-people travel to
AND
exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuela’s replacement.44
With Obama in his final term and Vice-President Joe Biden unlikely to seek
AND
restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances. ~end page 15~
Much will depend on who makes up Obama’s new foreign policy team, especially at
AND
rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers to take action.

Third, political capital is key to passage — yes top priority, no thumpers, yes Boehner will compromise, and yes it will pass.

WSJ 11/13 — Wall Street Journal, 2013 ("Obama Pushing Immigration as New Doubts Emerge in House," Byline Laura Meckler and Kristina Peterson, Available Online at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196350305411182, Accessed 11-15-2013)
The White House is intensifying its push to get an immigration overhaul through Congress this year, but House Speaker John Boehner cast new doubt Wednesday about the prospects for quick action.
President Barack Obama brainstormed at the White House Wednesday with religious leaders over how to persuade House Republicans to move on the issue. Last week, the president met with business executives to urge them to speak out for action. He is planning other immigration events on the road, with a mix of national and local outreach, both behind the scenes and publicly. On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden talked to Roman Catholic leaders.
But Mr. Boehner said House lawmakers wouldn’t vote on any immigration bills while Republicans work on "principles" behind legislation. Many advocates for an immigration overhaul read the Ohio Republican’s announcement as a setback. Others saw hope that the speaker was setting a course that could lead the GOP House to take up legislation, which has stalled since the Senate passed a sweeping bill in June.
Mr. Obama has limited influence on House Republicans as they consider their immigration strategy
AND
chance of passing Congress and serves more as a rallying point for Democrats.
After last week’s immigration meeting with business leaders, one corporation represented, McDonald’s Corp., decided to enlist its franchise owners to lobby members of Congress on the issue, two people familiar with the company’s plans said. The company declined to detail its plans but said it supported the overall immigration effort.
In the Oval Office Wednesday, religious leaders discussed a plan to connect religious messages
AND
You all can do more to change the country than I can do."
Last week, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, wrote to Mr. Boehner and pressed the speaker to move on immigration "as soon as possible." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushed parishioners to call members of Congress on Wednesday about immigration and plans events for Dec. 12 at local churches.
On Capitol Hill, it was unclear whether Mr. Boehner’s maneuvering was a stalling tactic or a move designed to help unify Republicans, especially rank-and-file lawmakers opposed to an immigration overhaul. The speaker has said repeatedly he would like to see action on immigration, and other GOP leaders, including Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, also are advocating broad legislative action.
Advocates of the overhaul had held out hope that the House would move legislation before
AND
we develop the principles we’ll figure out how we’re going to move ahead."
He added: "I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill," he said.
Mr. Boehner’s move was welcomed by the leading opponent of the Senate immigration bill, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who applauded House Republicans for "resisting an influence campaign and standing for the interests of the American people."
Mr. Boehner’s decision wouldn’t preclude the House from negotiating with the Senate on individual bills, aides said, though the precise mechanics of how that would work remain unclear.
House committees have passed five immigration bills and are expected to consider additional legislation. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R., Texas) said he has been pushing to get a floor vote on his border-security bill, which passed unanimously in his panel. "We’ve wasted a lot of time by not moving it forward," he said.
House GOP leaders announced the push to develop immigration principles without discussing the idea with the rank-and-file lawmakers most involved in the immigration effort. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) said the discussions had just begun.
Ali Noorani, who leads a coalition of business, religious and law-enforcement officials in favor of an immigration overhaul, expressed dismay with what he saw as a needless delay. "The time for legislative principles is long past," he said.
But Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who heads the advocacy group ImmigrationWorks USA, saw the Boehner move as a step toward passing a bill because it makes clear to wary House Republicans that the House won’t compromise with the Senate bill, which many of them despise.
"It’s possible recognizing that reality helps," she said. "What I hear Boehner saying is…now we’re going to get serious and look for a way forward."

Fourth, Immigration reform is vital to sustain American hegemony — both hard and soft power.

Nye 12 — Joseph S. Nye, Jr., University Distinguished Service Professor and former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, 2012 ("Immigration and American Power," Project Syndicate, December 10^th, Available Online at http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s—nye-http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s~-~-nye, Accessed 02-08-2013)
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its ancestors – as "fellow immigrants."
In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012. But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.
As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing the decline of American power.
Fears about the impact of immigration on national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century "Know Nothing" movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.
During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born
AND
US public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39 in 2008.
Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25 of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14 and 8, respectively.
But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.
While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems, over the long
AND
few that may avoid demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.
For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49 over the next four decades.
Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.
In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration
AND
children of immigrants founded roughly 40 of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.
Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The fact that people want
AND
friends back home help to convey accurate and positive information about the US.
Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both.
Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US
AND
its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.
That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.

U.S. leadership prevents global conflicts.

Felzenberg and Gray 11 — Alvin S. Felzenberg, Professorial Lecturer at The Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, Presidential Historian and Adjunct Faculty Member at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, former Fellow at the Institute of Politics at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, served as Principal Spokesman for the 9/11 Commission, holds a Ph.D. in Politics from Princeton University, and Alexander B. Gray, Student at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University and the War Studies Department of King’s College, London, 2011 ("The New Isolationism," National Review, January 3^rd, Available Online at http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/256150, Accessed 01-03-2011)
A world in which the United States willingly ceded power and influence would both be
AND
American military presence on land, at sea, and in the air.

Tournament: Carrollton | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marist AM | Judge: Adam Grellinger
1NC — Immigration Reform Politics DA

First, immigration reform will pass even if it gets pushed back to 2014, but it will be close.

Washington Times 11/14 — Washington Times, 2013 ("Democrats still hoping for an immigration bill this year," Byline Stephen Dinan, November 14^th, Available Online at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/nov/14/democrats-still-hoping-for-an-immigration-bill-thi/print/, Accessed 11-15-2013)
Many analysts argue that if immigration legislation isn’t done by the end of this year it won’t be taken up until after the 2014 elections, since it may be too toxic for consideration in an election year.
But Sen. Charles E. Schumer said political pressure could change that.
"I still think it’s possible this year," the New York Democrat said at the Washington Ideas Forum hosted by The Atlantic. "But if it’s not, I think we have a real good chance to do it in the first half of next year if I had to bet money, we’re going to have an immigration reform bill on the president’s desk."
Mr. Schumer was chief author of the Senate immigration bill, which legalizes most illegal immigrants, calls for billions of dollars to hire more Border Patrol agents and build more fencing, and rewrites the legal immigration system.

Second, The Cuba Lobby will destroy Obama’s agenda in response to the plan.

LeoGrande 12 — William M. LeoGrande, Professor in the Department of Government at the School of Public Affairs at American University specializing in Latin American politics and U.S. foreign policy toward Latin America, served on the staffs of the Democratic Policy Committee of the United States Senate and the Democratic Caucus Task Force on Central America of the United States House of Representatives, former Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow and Pew Faculty Fellow in International Affairs, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Syracuse University, 2012 ("Fresh Start for a Stale Policy: Can Obama Break the Stalemate in U.S.-Cuban Relations?," Paper prepared for presentation at a conference in Cuba, December, Available Online at http://www.american.edu/clals/upload/LeoGrande-Fresh-Start.pdf, Accessed 09-26-2013, p. 14-16)
The Second Obama Administration
Where in the executive branch will control over Cuba policy lie? Political considerations played
AND
, whose views were more in line with the president’s stated policy goals.
At the Department of State, Assistant Secretary Arturo Valenzuela favored initiatives to improve relations
AND
to avoid the Cuba issue because it was so fraught with political danger.
When the president finally approved the resumption of people-to-people travel to
AND
exchange for him dropping his hold on the appointment of Valenzuela’s replacement.44
With Obama in his final term and Vice-President Joe Biden unlikely to seek
AND
restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances. ~end page 15~
Much will depend on who makes up Obama’s new foreign policy team, especially at
AND
rarely happen unless the urgency of the problem forces policymakers to take action.

Third, political capital is key to passage — yes top priority, no thumpers, yes Boehner will compromise, and yes it will pass.

WSJ 11/13 — Wall Street Journal, 2013 ("Obama Pushing Immigration as New Doubts Emerge in House," Byline Laura Meckler and Kristina Peterson, Available Online at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303559504579196350305411182, Accessed 11-15-2013)
The White House is intensifying its push to get an immigration overhaul through Congress this year, but House Speaker John Boehner cast new doubt Wednesday about the prospects for quick action.
President Barack Obama brainstormed at the White House Wednesday with religious leaders over how to persuade House Republicans to move on the issue. Last week, the president met with business executives to urge them to speak out for action. He is planning other immigration events on the road, with a mix of national and local outreach, both behind the scenes and publicly. On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden talked to Roman Catholic leaders.
But Mr. Boehner said House lawmakers wouldn’t vote on any immigration bills while Republicans work on "principles" behind legislation. Many advocates for an immigration overhaul read the Ohio Republican’s announcement as a setback. Others saw hope that the speaker was setting a course that could lead the GOP House to take up legislation, which has stalled since the Senate passed a sweeping bill in June.
Mr. Obama has limited influence on House Republicans as they consider their immigration strategy
AND
chance of passing Congress and serves more as a rallying point for Democrats.
After last week’s immigration meeting with business leaders, one corporation represented, McDonald’s Corp., decided to enlist its franchise owners to lobby members of Congress on the issue, two people familiar with the company’s plans said. The company declined to detail its plans but said it supported the overall immigration effort.
In the Oval Office Wednesday, religious leaders discussed a plan to connect religious messages
AND
You all can do more to change the country than I can do."
Last week, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the archbishop of New York, wrote to Mr. Boehner and pressed the speaker to move on immigration "as soon as possible." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pushed parishioners to call members of Congress on Wednesday about immigration and plans events for Dec. 12 at local churches.
On Capitol Hill, it was unclear whether Mr. Boehner’s maneuvering was a stalling tactic or a move designed to help unify Republicans, especially rank-and-file lawmakers opposed to an immigration overhaul. The speaker has said repeatedly he would like to see action on immigration, and other GOP leaders, including Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, of Wisconsin, also are advocating broad legislative action.
Advocates of the overhaul had held out hope that the House would move legislation before
AND
we develop the principles we’ll figure out how we’re going to move ahead."
He added: "I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill," he said.
Mr. Boehner’s move was welcomed by the leading opponent of the Senate immigration bill, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who applauded House Republicans for "resisting an influence campaign and standing for the interests of the American people."
Mr. Boehner’s decision wouldn’t preclude the House from negotiating with the Senate on individual bills, aides said, though the precise mechanics of how that would work remain unclear.
House committees have passed five immigration bills and are expected to consider additional legislation. House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R., Texas) said he has been pushing to get a floor vote on his border-security bill, which passed unanimously in his panel. "We’ve wasted a lot of time by not moving it forward," he said.
House GOP leaders announced the push to develop immigration principles without discussing the idea with the rank-and-file lawmakers most involved in the immigration effort. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.) said the discussions had just begun.
Ali Noorani, who leads a coalition of business, religious and law-enforcement officials in favor of an immigration overhaul, expressed dismay with what he saw as a needless delay. "The time for legislative principles is long past," he said.
But Tamar Jacoby, a Republican who heads the advocacy group ImmigrationWorks USA, saw the Boehner move as a step toward passing a bill because it makes clear to wary House Republicans that the House won’t compromise with the Senate bill, which many of them despise.
"It’s possible recognizing that reality helps," she said. "What I hear Boehner saying is…now we’re going to get serious and look for a way forward."

Fourth, Immigration reform is key to American agriculture — it’s declining in the status quo.

Schierer 13 ~Ben Schierer Vice President of Government Relations for Communicating for America (CA), a rural, non-profit, non-partisan organization with members across America and whose national headquarters are in Fergus Falls, MN. CA has been working on agricultural policy issues for more than three decades, 2013, ("Immigration Reform and American Agriculture," January 30^th, Available Online at http://communicatingforamerica.org/news/PDFs/Immigration20Reform20Column201.pdf-http://communicatingforamerica.org/news/PDFs/Immigration Reform Column 1.pdf, Accessed on January 31, 2013)~
President Obama and members of Congress from both political parties have recently expressed their desire
AND
United States who are living and working outside of the rule of law.
All of these components are essential for effective reform, but the most important to
AND
the will to do what’s right, and not what is politically easiest.

Strong U.S. agriculture is crucial to prevent global starvation, environmental destruction, and resource conflicts.

Lugar 4 — Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator from Indiana who serves as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a member and former chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, 2004 ("Plant power," Our Planet, Volume 14, Number 3, Available Online at http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/143/lugar.html-http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/143/lugar.html, Accessed 02-08-2013)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning
AND
that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion
AND
that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat.
Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations. As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the entire globe.
Productivity revolution
To meet the expected demand for food over the next 50 years, we in
AND
we will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare.
Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases.
But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again.
AND
research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
The United States can take a leading position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.

Tournament: Carrollton | Round: 2 | Opponent: Cairo AD | Judge: Libby Mandarino

1NC—Mental Deputy Politics

The affirmative begins with the wrong starting point—highlighting the need for change at the level of government obscures our individual responsibility for violence.

Kappeler 95 — Susanne Kappeler, Lecturer in English at the University of East Anglia (UK) and freelance writer, 1995 ("Violence and the will to violence," The Will To Violence: The Politics of Personal Behaviour, Published by Polity Press (Cambridge, UK), ISBN 0745613047, p. 10)
’We are the war’ does not mean that the responsibility for a war is
AND
or Somalia — since the decisions for such events are always made elsewhere.

This makes the affirmative nothing more than mental deputy politics. Vote negative to acknowledge our individual agency and refuse to displace responsibility onto the government.

Kappeler 95 — Susanne Kappeler, Lecturer in English at the University of East Anglia (UK) and freelance writer, 1995 ("Violence and the will to violence," The Will To Violence: The Politics of Personal Behaviour, Published by Polity Press (Cambridge, UK), ISBN 0745613047, p. 10-11)
Yet our insight that indeed we are not responsible for the decisions of a Serbian
AND
to stop this backlash’, or ’I want a moral revolution.’7
’We are this war’, however, even if we do not command the
AND
our values’ according to the structures and the values of war and violence.

Tournament: Carrollton | Round: 5 | Opponent: Marist AM | Judge: Adam Grellinger

1NC—Monsters To Destroy Critique

First, the affirmative’s depiction of an imminent terrorist threat transforms the real people who commit terrorist acts into a group of shadowy monsters who are always just around the corner plotting their next attack.  This framing of the terrorist threat sidesteps the question of why they hate us and normalizes a state of permanent national insecurity.

Chernus 6 — Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies and Co-Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Colorado-Boulder, 2006 (Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Published by Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 1594512752, p. 1-2)
Monsters are not real—unless you believe in them. Monsters exist only in fictional stories. But if you really believe in the stories, you will believe in the monsters. Then the monsters will have very real effects. That’s how monsters become real.
That’s what we are doing in our war on terrorism. On September 11, 2001, some very real people hijacked four airplanes and did very terrible, wholly unjustifiable things. Then America turned those people, and many other people perhaps (or perhaps not) associated with them, into monsters. We call them "the terrorists." The real people are certainly dangerous to us. They are far more dangerous, though, as monsters.
Every day, America goes abroad searching for those monsters and trying to destroy them
AND
world opinion, making it more likely that allies will turn into enemies.
Meanwhile, restrictions on civil liberties create constitutional dilemmas and growing political splits at home
AND
as the question is so often put, Why do they hate us?
But that’s a question you ask only about human beings, who have reasons and motives for their hatred. You don’t ask that question about monsters. You simply search them out and destroy them. Americans faced a choice on that dreadful September 11 and still face the same choice today: Treat the attackers as human beings, or treat them as monsters?
To treat them as human beings means finding out why they hate us. It’s
AND
, and leave our land, and we will stop attacking you."2
No grievances could ever begin to justify the horrors of 9/11 and Madrid
AND
House: "They hate our freedoms." "They’re flat evil." 3
The attackers, past and future, are transformed from human beings into monsters,
AND
just as insecure, waiting for yet another round of attack and counterattack.

Second, their impact claims are self-fulfilling — constant repetition of terrorism scenarios creates a vicious cycle of fear and violence.

Lifton 3 — Robert Jay Lifton, Visiting Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, previously Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry and Psychology at the Graduate School and Director of The Center on Violence and Human Survival at John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, 2003 (Superpower Syndrome: America’s Apocalyptic Confrontation With The World, Published by Thunder’s Mouth Press / Nation Books, ISBN 1560255129, p. 115-116)
The amorphousness of the war on terrorism carries with it a paranoid edge, the
AND
-them version of it, our distorted national self becomes the world.
Despite the Bush administration’s constant invocation of the theme of "security," the war
AND
be said to partner with and act in concert with the Islamist apocalyptic.

Third, this turns the case — the affirmative’s framing of the terrorist threat entrenches a cycle of insecurity that makes attacks more likely.

Chernus 6 — Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies and Co-Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Colorado-Boulder, 2006 (Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Published by Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 1594512752, p. 4-5)
The structure is simple enough. A battle is raging between absolute good and absolute evil. Evil threatens to unleash chaos and anarchy upon the world. The good must summon up the strength, both moral and military, to stand firm against the threat and thus protect the social order. That strength is the sign, and often the very definition, of moral goodness.
When this utterly familiar plot is transferred from the realm of fairy tales to the
AND
never go away. So the battle against them must go on forever.
On September 11, 2001, the administration started turning its stories about domestic values
AND
not less, likely that the United States will suffer another grievous attack.

The alternative is to problematize the affirmative’s impact claims and stop believing in monsters.  The affirmative’s policy prescription is inescapably bound up in the stories they tell to justify action.  The role of the ballot is to choose between two competing visions of the world.

Chernus 6 — Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies and Co-Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at the University of Colorado-Boulder, 2006 (Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Published by Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 1594512752, p. 11-13)
The twin towers of the World Trade Center are gone, but the national insecurity state still stands. Indeed, it stands stronger and taller precisely because the towers are gone. There seems to be no escape from the self-perpetuating cycle of violence. How shall we find sources of hope in a society that systematically shuts every door to hope?
The first step—the step taken in this book—is to take a
AND
complex chain of human decisions. Human decisions can create a different future.
Once we recognize the stories as stories, we realize that there are no monsters. The root of the terror doesn’t come from the outside world. It comes from within, from the terrifying anxiety provoked by change and the uncertainty it brings. Until we face and overcome that terror, everything we do in the name of national security will only heighten the terror and make us more insecure.
To face it, we have to take a second step: recognizing the confusion in our public debates. When Americans talk about the war on terrorism, we are usually talking about both the real threat of terror and the emotional terror we feel, living in a world that seems to be changing beyond our control or understanding. We are confusing two questions:
What can we do to make ourselves safer against future attacks?
Should we get our moral values from an external (and supposedly eternal) source, rather than from our own changeable minds?
As long as this confusion goes unnoticed, neither question can be discussed thoughtfully and fruitfully. If we want to have constructive debates about national security and about specific moral issues, first we have to disentangle them (as much as we can) from the issue of how we should acquire moral values.
This is no easy task. According to scholar of American civil religion Robert Bellah
AND
rouse fears of decline.... Even phantom fear provokes real political action."8
The fears get attached to different political issues at different times. But the specific
AND
fruitful only when we have a clear idea what we are talking about.
Now, although domestic social policies still evoke strong feelings, the biggest symbolic vehicle
AND
it is tangled up with the question of how we acquire our values.
Both questions are urgently important. Most Americans are not conservative moralists. They don’t
AND
about national security, moral certainty, and the difference between the two.

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Milton JM | Judge: Mili Raina

T – Appeasement

"Engagement" requires long-term contacts across multiple issue-areas in order to normalize relations.

Resnick 1 — Evan Resnick, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia University, 2001 ("Defining engagement," Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)
A REFINED DEFINITION OF ENGAGEMENT
In order to establish a more effective framework for dealing with unsavory regimes, I propose that we define engagement as the attempt to influence the political behavior of a target state through the comprehensive establishment and enhancement of contacts with that state across multiple issue-areas (i.e. diplomatic, military, economic, cultural). The following is a brief list of the specific forms that such contacts might include:
DIPLOMATIC CONTACTS

• Extension of diplomatic recognition; normalization of diplomatic relations
• Promotion of target-state membership in international institutions and regimes
• Summit meetings and other visits by the head of state and other senior government officials of sender state to target state and vice-versa
  MILITARY CONTACTS
• Visits of senior military officials of the sender state to the target state and vice-versa
• Arms transfers
• Military aid and cooperation
• Military exchange and training programs
• Confidence and security-building measures
• Intelligence sharing
  ECONOMIC CONTACTS 
• Trade agreements and promotion
• Foreign economic and humanitarian aid in the form of loans and/or grants
  CULTURAL CONTACTS
• Cultural treaties
• Inauguration of travel and tourism links 
• Sport, artistic and academic exchanges
  Engagement is an iterated process in which the sender and target state develop a relationship
  AND
  hope that this will precipitate political change from below within the target state.
  This definition implies that three necessary conditions must hold for engagement to constitute an effective
  AND
  Union, and the near-total collapse of its national economy.28
  Third, the target state must perceive the engager and the international order it represents as a potential source of the material or prestige resources it desires. This means that autarkic, revolutionary and unlimited regimes which eschew the norms and institutions of the prevailing order, such as Stalin’s Soviet Union or Hitler’s Germany, will not be seduced by the potential benefits of engagement.
  This reformulated conceptualization avoids the pitfalls of prevailing scholarly conceptions of engagement. It considers the policy as a set of means rather than ends, does not delimit the types of states that can either engage or be engaged, explicitly encompasses contacts in multiple issue-areas, allows for the existence of multiple objectives in any given instance of engagement and, as will be shown below, permits the elucidation of multiple types of positive sanctions.

The plan doesn’t meet this interpretation because it doesn’t establish and enhance contacts across multiple issue-areas. The plan is "appeasement," not "engagement".

Resnick 1 — Evan Resnick, Ph.D. Candidate in Political Science at Columbia University, holds an M.Phil. in Political Science and an M.A. in Political Science from Columbia University, 2001 ("Defining engagement," Journal of International Affairs, Volume 54, Issue 2, Spring, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via ABI/INFORM Complete)
DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND APPEASEMENT
In contrast to many prevailing conceptions of engagement, the one proposed in this essay
AND
conflict between two states can be removed in a number of ways.31
A more refined definition of appeasement that not only remains loyal to the traditional connotations
AND
off-again diplomatic negotiations between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority.
Thus, a rigid conceptual distinction can be drawn between engagement and appeasement. Whereas
AND
or in exchange for certain concessions on the part of the target state.

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 1 | Opponent: Milton JM | Judge: Mili Raina

Topicality – Distinct from Political/Diplomatic Engagement

Economic engagement includes assistance, trade, and investment — it is distinct from political and diplomatic engagement.

Delury 12 — John Delury, Associate Director of the Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations and Director of the China Boom Project, Assistant Professor of Chinese Studies at Yonsei University, holds a Ph.D. in History from Yale University, 2012 ("Triple-Pronged Engagement: China’s Approach to North Korea," American Foreign Policy Interests: The Journal of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, Volume 34, Issue 2, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Taylor 26 Francis Online)
So what is revealed about China’s approach to Korea if Americans and South Koreans clear out a priori hopes and fears, and analytically privilege state behavior (how is Beijing actually approaching North Korea) over public discourse (how do the Chinese say they should approach North Korea)?
If we attend to Beijing’s conduct, a fairly consistent pattern comes into focus. The main feature of China’s approach to North Korea is neighborly engagement. Beijing’s engagement approach has three prongs: bilateral political ties, bilateral economic cooperation, and multilateral diplomatic engagement.
Bilateral political engagement is anchored in maintaining strong ties between the Communist Party of China
AND
apparent, effusively embracing the succession moves after Kim Jong-il’s death.
The political systems and ideologies of China and North Korea, as variations on the
AND
improved version of the status quo to "contingencies" like regime collapse.
The second key component of China’s approach (an "improved" version of the status quo) is reforming and strengthening the North Korean economy. Thus, the second prong of the pitchfork of Chinese engagement—bilateral economic engagement. This core feature of China’s approach to North Korea is pursued regardless of diplomatic vicissitudes.
Economic engagement includes state-backed assistance, market-based provincial trade, and long-term strategic investment. Assistance includes technical assistance, knowledge sharing and human capacity building—in effect, educating North Korean counterparts on the China model of market transition and authoritarian capitalism. What is hoped is that trade will stimulate growth in bordering Jilin and Liaoning provinces. Long-term investment is aimed at North Korean mineral resources and, perhaps, an East Sea port (at Rason).
North Korea’s lack of basic infrastructure frustrates China’s hopes for strategic development. The DPRK’s refusal to introduce basic market reforms, moreover, renders North Korea an inhospitable business environment for Chinese entrepreneurs and traders. Nevertheless, Beijing persists in encouraging North Korea to take steps on the road to authoritarian economic reform—both out of its own economic self-interest and its geopolitical interest in a more prosperous, and thus more stable, Communist neighbor.
The third prong of China’s engagement approach is multilateral diplomatic engagement (i.e., the Six Party Talks). Both the ends and means of the Six Party Talks appear acceptable as the endgame for the Korean Peninsula so far as Beijing is concerned. The North gives up its nukes but improves its security, perhaps at long last triggering economic reform and opening. The way to get there is lots and lots of dialogue hosted by Beijing.
The Six Party Talks, from their initiation in 2003, was a rare example of China taking a proactive, leadership role in global diplomacy. For the fleeting period when the Talks were making progress (from early 2007 until the fall of 2008), Beijing was justly proud of its diplomatic success, and North Korea had even leapt to the top of the list of positives in Sino–U.S. relations.
The Six Party Talks are structurally flawed, with multiple political factors responsible for their
AND
to make Pyongyang "behave" and prove its "seriousness of purpose."
Common in U.S. foreign policy discourse is talk of China as the
AND
, the demand to exercise influence by cutting off its source is illogical.
Even more ironic is that the most effective leverage Beijing could gain over Pyongyang would
AND
one broken prong of China’s three-fold engagement approach to North Korea.

Tournament: Alpharetta | Round: 3 | Opponent: Wheeler AP | Judge: Erin Caldwell

T – Government-Government

"Engagement" requires direct talks with the target government

Crocker 9 – Chester Crocker, Professor of Strategic Studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs ("Terms of Engagement", New York Times, 9-13, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/opinion/14crocker.html?_r=0)
PRESIDENT OBAMA will have a hard time achieving his foreign policy goals until he masters some key terms and better manages the expectations they convey. Given the furor that will surround the news of America’s readiness to hold talks with Iran, he could start with "engagement" — one of the trickiest terms in the policy lexicon.
The Obama administration has used this term to contrast its approach with its predecessor’s resistance to talking with adversaries and troublemakers. His critics show that they misunderstand the concept of engagement when they ridicule it as making nice with nasty or hostile regimes.
Let’s get a few things straight. Engagement in statecraft is not about sweet talk. Nor is it based on the illusion that our problems with rogue regimes can be solved if only we would talk to them. Engagement is not normalization, and its goal is not improved relations. It is not akin to détente, working for rapprochement, or appeasement.
So how do you define an engagement strategy? It does require direct talks. There is simply no better way to convey authoritative statements of position or to hear responses. But establishing talks is just a first step. The goal of engagement is to change the other country’s perception of its own interests and realistic options and, hence, to modify its policies and its behavior.