There is no truth making in history – co opted by nation building
(Katharina, A perfessor at Martin Luther, Landscapes of Violence: Memory and Sacres Space, http://muse.jhu.edu, 6/24/11, S.M)
A third dimension in the discussion of violence and memory concerns the role and contemporary position of perpetrators, which is particularly relevant in German discussions of National Socialism and the Holocaust,27 but also comes up in other contexts, such as the postwar societies of the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda after the genocide, or post-apartheid South Africa. Together with the problem of victimhood, it is closely linked to the issue of reconciliation and the political implications of violent pasts. This theme has become prominently exposed in the various public tribunals that have sprung up since the 1990s, following the example of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In his account of the latter institution, Richard Wilson addresses the problematic representation of the past in a framework of healing and bureaucratic documentation which not only circumvents the issue of justice but also robs the individual of his or her experiences by subordinating them to the objective of nation building.28 Analyzing the “truth-making machine” as a means of producing new South African citizens, Wilson demonstrates how yet again memories of violence are brought to the surface in the public arena only to store them away even more securely afterwards; and he points out the limitations and inconsistencies of such an approach.
The scientific predictions of the 1AC are fundamentally flawed – you cannot predict anything because there are too many variables
McGowan in ‘8
(John, is the Ruel W. Tyson, Jr. Distinguished Professor of the Humanities in the Department of English & Comparative Literature at the University of North Carolina., “The Possibility of Progress: A Pragmatist Account”, The Good Society, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008, pp. 34, MDA)
Once again, in light of our own pessimistic present, I think it important to stress that we have plenty of empirical and experiential evidence that action sometimes, rarely perfectly or completely but still in “good enough” ways, achieves what it sets out to accomplish. We continue to act because we find action, at times, efficacious. James holds on to this point so fiercely because he is convinced that the very meaning of life depends on it. Only within a horizon where we can plausibly retain “this vague confidence in the future” (P, 537) will we continue to act, to strive, to believe that what we do can make a difference, that our strivings are meaningful because they have results. The confidence is “vague” because so many contingencies step in between intentions and results. We cannot guarantee the exact outcome because of the concatenation with other forces and factors in the production of that outcome. But there is not, in many although not all cases, a total disconnect between intention and result, and that fact is enough to warrant the “vague” confidence needed to go on. “Surely,” James writes, “the only possibility that one can rationally claim is the possibility that things may be better ” (P, 539).
Arguments concerning timeframe are slick rhetorical tools to force an audience into making a decision. These senses of urgency and futurism are guise for imperial frontierism
John W. Jordan “Kennedy’s Romantic Moon and its Rhetorical Legacy for Space Exploration” Rhetoric & Public Affairs. Vol 6 Num 2. Summer 2003. Pg: 209-231
Kennedy’s rhetorical use of time in the Rice University address concluded by pre- senting the audience with the requisite sense of urgency needed for motivating “today”to support plans starting “tomorrow.”His rhetorical use of time provided a means “to invite audiences to reorient themselves in the present by reconstructing their past or by considering alternative possibilities for the future.”49 Kennedy’s audience needed to be convinced that their task was achievable because an oppor- tune moment had become available at that historic juncture, and they should pur- sue it with urgency. Kennedy’s address arranged time to bear upon the public consciousness by providing a reading of history that practically begged the audience to champion the lunar objective and thereby realize their historical character. As Stephen P.Depoe argues,“when a temporal vision produces a sense of‘public time’ within an audience,the importance or necessity of an impending collective decision is magnified.”50The future, the first step of the new day,was presented in such a way that it was only by going to the moon that Kennedy’s mythic-heroic past could become “our”past, thus connecting the audience with their pioneer heritage.
A2 Perm – Do Alternative
This is a Severance Perm
1. This means the negative will always loose: allowing the aff to do the alternative means they are robbed of any advocacy. This is creates a severe lack of debate and is unfair.
2. This makes the Affirmative conditional: Allowing the affirmative to advocate the alternative shifts the 1ac advocacy. This creates unfair burdens on the negative.
3. Kills Education: the affirmative plan should be the focus of the debate ; when they can sever parts of plan we have no coherent model on which to debate the round off of.
this is voter for fairness and education
A2 Perm – All other Instances
Extend Links: all of our links are based of direct plan action and/or their methodological epistemologies in the 1ac. All of our evidence argues that each time these endorsements are made a creation of universal narratives justifies inevitable violence.
This perm is a cover-up: Finding some reason to justify plan without changing our epistemological thinking first only furthers the impacts of the 1ac. This is a question of methodology – means this perm doesn’t answer the fundamental question in this debate.
1ac Cannot solve: Our Alternative evidence argues that we must have this type of questioning prior to policy actions otherwise all future policies will fail.
Perm severs the immediacy of the alt - this kills competition due to its instrincness.