“McCarthyism is Americanism with its sleeves rolled.”-Joseph McCarthy
Contention one is pronounced “yebat' rossiyu”
The generic K card is really, REALLY, good, like probably better than Sarah Palin
The specific cede the political cards are pretty good on the neg. 10/10 would cut again
The anthro link isn’t specific to satire but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad argument to go for
If you want to be funnier, throw in some cards from the 1AC supplement
The cap cards were actually the inspiration for the aff – they’re decent and you could frame a 1AC around consumption instead of security if you really wanted. I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Have fun running this aff. Stay gold!
Explanation of the aff
This is functionally a security aff, contextualized to hyperbolic impacts in debate. While it looks like a massive joke in the 1AC (mostly because it is) in the 2AC it turns into a serious aff- despite all the tags in the children’s literature contention making no sense, it functions as a solvency contention for the ability of this aff to deconstruct securitized debate practices. As such, for the 2AC I’d recommend writing out/memorizing the warrants of the cards because the tags aren’t really useful.
We didn’t want to re-turn out impacts to cap and consumption, but you can take those out of other files and use them- the aff also functions as a k of consumption/cap, the internal links are in the cap block
For the neg- I know there’s a cap K link in here, but in hindsight a cap/consumption good K might be a better option- it’s pretty much directly responsive (the link is the “all the oils!” contention)
Contention #1 is All the Oils!
DRILL BABY DRILL!
There’s oil in the oceans – let’s drill! It will boost our AMERICA!
Magnoliazz, 10 a writer living on a tree farm in Wisconsin. She has 5 dogs, a flock of sheep, and operates a cat, guinea pig and rabbit rescue. (“America Has More Oil Than Saudi Arabia,” HubPages.com, http://magnoliazz.hubpages.com/hub/America-Has-More-Oil-Than-Saudi-Arabia)//IS
We Need To Start Drlling NOW! The United States has plenty of oil within US borders. We don't have to rely on foreign oil anymore! It is just a matter of drilling and getting the oil out. The oil is there! Remember the song...."America, America God shed his grace on thee"? It is true! God provided this country with more than enough oil for generations to come. Did you know... There is a massive 200 billion barrel oil field located in North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana. And it even gets better! Because of new horizontal drilling technology, it is estimated that this huge field may even produce up to 500 billion barrels of oil! The Saudi's are estimated to have only 260 billion barrels of oil, clearly putting America in the cat bird seat! http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html But the good news does not stop there! Alaska is just waiting to drill for oil. In fact the governor of Alaska is suing the government for failing to drill for oil. Alaskan oil fields are massive. At Gull Island, Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, there is enough oil and natural gas to keep America going for the next 200 years! Yes, for the next 200 years! http://www.pushhamburger.com/hidden.htm There is even better news! The US Outer Continental Shelf has 112 billion barrels of oil, not to mention a whopping 656 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas! WHY are people struggling to pay winter heating bills when we have natural resources like this? http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1424734/us_should_drill_for_oil_and_gas_in_arctic_offshore Oil shale is abundant in the US. In fact, half of all the earth's oil shale deposits are located within 150 miles of Grand Junction, Colorado! Shell Oil is working on new technology which will make oil shale extraction financially feasible. They plan to open a shale oil plant in 2010. It will provide a piece of the puzzle toward energy independence for the United States. http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf Then of course, just about everyone knows that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. With 275 billon tons of coal! We have more coal than just about any other place in the world. Enough coal for American needs for the next 250 years! Once again, new technology is underway to make coal burning safe for our environment. http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/faqs.html#howmuch So there we have it! It is time for the US to get serious about energy independence and drill for oil. The environmentalists should move to China and India where pollution is really is out of control. With the new technology used in the oil fields of today, the impact on the environment is there but it is controlled. With environmental controls oil fields can be environmentally safe. When it comes to the environment we need to understand that as long as there are billions of people living on this planet, there will to be a negative impact on the environment. That is just the way it is unless billions of people die, and even then environmentalists would complain about rotting corpses creating a problem for the environment. There is simply no way around problems with the environment when you have billons of people to contend with. The human race needs to protect this planet, yet we have to live too. Living without energy is not an option. Until we have plentiful, green energy we will have to rely on the oil based solutions of old. It will take time to convert to green energy and that quest is just as important as drilling for oil is now. We can't let the ball drop in either arena. Obviously we should have been exploring our oil supplies 10 years ago. Now it will take at least 2 years before oil and then gas will come back down to a livable price for most Americans. 80% of all Americans claim climbing gas prices are affecting their lives in a very negative way. And is it no wonder! Food prices go up every time a barrel of oil reaches a new high. Add to all of this are the flood woes of the Midwest which will mean even higher food prices yet to come. This winter will be especially tough for most people as they struggle to heat their homes with the highest projected heating costs of all time, and if that is not enough, they will be hit with unaffordable food prices, making it harder than ever to put food on the table for the family. This is not the America I know, or want to know. Whoever wants to be the next president can easily get elected if they take the bull by the horns, and start drilling! We need to open the US oil fields in Alaska, Montana, and North and South Dakota as soon as possible. And, once we have that oil flowing all across America, we can tell the Middle East what to do with their oil. For too long we danced to their tune. It was degrading to both President Bush and Americans across the country when he went begging to the Saudi's, hat in hand, pleading for increased oil production, which the Saudi's denied. No American president should ever have to go through that again, especially when we have billions of barrels of oil right in our own back yard. The next few years will be a time of financial hardship, but once American oil becomes available, it will not take long for the economy to turn around. This time of austerity is beneficial in a way, because it forces us to seek new and better ways to do things. And, new and better ways of doing things.....well that is a lot of what this country is all about! In the face of adversity, we will prevail and prosper in the end! We can do it! God Bless America!
Without oil civilization collapses! We need security!
Connors-Maloney, 12 – Oklahoma 1st Congressional District Coordinator – Oklahoma’s 1st District Coordinator (Annie, 02/16/12 “I Resist Our Dependence on Foreign Oil - Drill Here, Drill Now,” http://patriotaction.net/group/iresistourdependenceonforeignoildrillheredrillnow)//IS
This group was developed to help dispel the myth created by many of our government officials and environmentalists regarding the production of oil within the boundaries of our own country and in it's designated waters. Drilling oil in our country is crucial to our National security. This site is for discussion about what is going on within our government designed to further our descent into a third world country and promoting our dependence on other governments by disallowing the production of oil for our own needs. We need to find a way to get spread the truth to more people and move our government officials along the path of independence of foreign oil. It would be appreciated if you keep your posts in context to the subject of this group. Anything pertaining to the energy field, bills within your state or the federal government that are coming up in regard to energy, or your own comments about anything that you have knowledge of pertaining to energy. Any other posts will be removed. Petroleum is vital to many industries, and is of importance to the maintenance of industrialized civilization itself, and thus is a critical concern for many nations. Oil accounts for a large percentage of the world’s energy consumption, ranging from a low of 32% for Europe and Asia, up to a high of 53% for the Middle East. Other geographic regions’ consumption patterns are as follows: South and Central America (44%), Africa (41%), and North America (40%). The world consumes 30 billion barrels (4.8 km³) of oil per year, with developed nations being the largest consumers. 24% of the oil produced in 2004 was consumed in the United States.The production, distribution, refining, and retailing of petroleum taken as a whole represents the world's largest industry in terms of dollar value. It is the number one major contributor to keeping our economy in this country running. If the oil industry fails, so will our nations economy. My Own Needs to Dispel the Myth I have worked for 35 years in the oil industry. I am the fifth generation in my family to be in the oil business. I am a geophysicist and my job was finding oil. The US has so much oil off of it's shores, in ANWR and in the areas of the Chukchi, Bering and Beaufort Seas, and in the Arctic Ocean that we could make it on our own for more than 100 years. I have seen the maps. Congress is preventing us from drilling for many reasons. Among them are the protection of the polar bears, the seals and much of the wildlife in those seas. While I am an animal lover, and would never do anything to harm an animal, I do believe that people come first. As I originally specialized in Environmental Safety in the Oil Industry, and was among those specialists who helped with the Valdez spill, I know that they oil companies hire people who are educated, know what they are doing, and do everything that is possible to protect the environment of the seas and lands where we find oil deposits and drill. I also know that much of the propaganda is just that. I have never seen a polar bear or a seal struggling to find polar ice. I could tell you stories, show you pictures, and I know because I have been there. Please remember the myth of the Alaska Pipeline. That it would ruin the environment and keep animals from migrating. In fact the opposite is true, and many of the animals collect, in the coldest parts of the winter, beneath the warmth of the pipeline. It is a sight to behold. My goal is and always has been to clear up the lies, and get the word out that oil companies are for the people (I know they make a profit, but that is what America stands for - capitalism), against pollution (accidents happen everywhere, even in our own homes), and working hard to make our country less dependent on foreign oil.
We need oil independence – it’s key to SECURITY, HEGEMONY, and MUH FREEDOMS!
Powers, 10 – some person who wrote for CNN (Jonathan, “Independence from Dependence (on oil),” CNN, http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/jesuscreed/2010/07/independence-from-dependence-o.html)//IS
Oil poses a clear threat to America’s economic and national security. This spring we have watched as untold millions of gallons of oil flowed into the Gulf. But for years, we have watched as billions of dollars flowed to hostile nations to pay for oil. Every day, we send well over a billion dollars out of this country to pay for oil — money that could and should be used to grow our economy and create jobs. The simple fact is that our dependence on oil from nations in the Middle East and other regions constrains our choices, hamstringing America’s flexibility and choices on the world stage. Too often, we are forced to consider the impact our foreign policy will have on our oil supply instead of whether a choice is in line with our values. Every day, we make a clear choice between living up to those values (and strengthening our security) and prolonging our weakness as a dirty-energy nation. Today, thousands of Americans are calling for a new freedom from oil — a dangerous, dirty and vulnerable source of energy. This week, 10,000 American flags were planted on the National Mall, each representing Americans who have pledged to free our nation from a long and damaging cycle of dependence.
Petro, Wake Forest Professor in Toledo Law Review, 1974
(Sylvester, Spring, page 480)
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation: "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no import because there have been invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit.
Heg is the best ever thing ever!
Khalilzad, 1995 analyst at the RAND Corporation (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis)//IS
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.
Seriously, it’s key to all the power!
Herschinger 12 – lecturer in the Department of Political Science at the University of the Armed Forces Munich, Germany
(Eva, “‘Hell Is the Other’: Conceptualising Hegemony and Identity through Discourse Theory”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies September 2012 vol. 41 no. 1 65-90, dml)
Many IR-poststructuralists share with discourse theorists crucial commitments – most importantly, a specific understanding of language, discourse and the role of contingency. To start with, language does not merely reflect reality but constructs reality: by speaking, something is done, for instance, in betting, giving a promise or naming a ship. 23 Thus, a material ‘reality’ of course exists; however, there is no objective or ‘true’ meaning beyond linguistic representations. 24 Discourse is conceived in analogy, as it is constitutive for the construction of knowledge and the constitution of objects. While there are different notions of discourse, the Essex School conceptualises discourse as a ‘structured totality’, 25 a system of meaningful practices, which relates differences to establish their meaning. In other words, the meanings and the identities of objects and subjects are formed through a system of practices embodied by discourse. These practices are routinised forms of human and societal reproduction, which are material and articulatory at the same time, since ‘human beings constantly engage in the process of linking together different elements of their social lives in these continuous and projective sequences of human action’. 26
This constant process of linking hints at the role of contingency in the Essex School. Although being defined as a totality, discourse is a structure penetrated by contingency and temporality, marked by ruptures and breaches because the relation between differences can constantly change and meaning is organised differently. Attempts to fix meaning around closed structures are in vain: ‘neither absolute fixity nor absolute non-fixity is possible’. 27 However, to allow for identity and social formation, the Essex School argues that meaning needs to be partially fixed; that is, partial fixations bind the very flow of differences temporally. Such fixations are achieved as any discourse situates itself as ‘an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity’ 28 and subjects search for a constitutive decision articulating social meaning in one way rather than another. With regard to international counter-terrorist policies and drug prohibition measures, such conceptualisations of language, discourse and contingency imply, on the one hand, that these policies are based on specific, contingent linguistic representations of the security problem they want to address and on specific, partially fixed constructions of Self and Other. On the other hand, these linguistic representations fuel the actions of the respective countermeasures by making them intelligible and legitimate. This is what I mean by conceptualising practices to be articulatory and material at the same time.
In the Essex School, hegemony is conceptualised against this background inasmuch as it builds on Gramsci’s claim that the articulation of collective wills takes place in the midst of political struggles within state, economy and civil society. For Gramsci, hegemony is the genuine political moment marked by an ideological struggle which tries to unify economic, political and intellectual objectives. 29 Hegemony is no longer confined to the attempt to form a political alliance but aims at the total fusion of different objectives, involving the creation of a collective will. The latter is forged via an ideological struggle which, according to Mouffe, is ‘a process of disarticulation-rearticulation of given ideological elements in a struggle between two hegemonic principles to appropriate these elements’. 30
As such, hegemony is a discursive phenomenon produced through specific relations of forces. Typically, these relations articulated in hegemonic practices organise the discursive space by drawing boundaries and creating identities. In the Essex School context, such shaping of the discursive terrain is encompassed by the logic of equivalence. While discursive elements are per se different, the logic of equivalence produces ‘equivalential differences’. To explain: a,b,c are equivalent with regard to something identical underlying them all; thus, a,b,c are equivalent (But not identical!) with respect to z. This ‘something identical’ is termed the ‘general equivalent’. 31 By contrast, the logic of difference encompasses the opposite movement as it extenuates the equivalential ties between elements, that is, it disperses hegemonic formations and disintegrates current identities. The logic relates discursive elements while preserving their difference – indeed, difference makes them conceivable as elements: a is different from b,b from c and so on. Still, both logics ‘cannot do with or without each other’, as a certain degree of difference is conditional to establish equivalential chains. One is diluted by what the other is trying to fix, but none of the logics dominates a discourse completely as only partial fixations are possible. 32
Yet, to pursue my argument further, it is necessary to establish a link between hegemony and the article’s relational concept of identity, which states that in the process of identity construction, a Self and corresponding Other(s) are created. While the terminology of a ‘Self’ is rarely employed in the Essex School context, (which rather speaks of the ‘subject’), ties with the relational conceptualisation of identity in IR-poststructuralism are obvious when Laclau claims that ‘[t]here is no way that a particular group living in a wider community can live a monadic existence – on the contrary, part of the definition of its own identity is the construction of a complex and elaborated system of relations with other groups’. 33 This clearly resonates with the IR-poststructuralist thought of difference being a requirement built into the logic of identity. 34 However, IR-poststructuralism has expended some energy trying to outline that speaking of Self and antagonistic Other(s) captures only half the story since the antagonistic Other is ‘often situated within a more complicated set of identities’. 35 Identity construction produces varying degrees of otherness and does not necessarily depend upon a juxtaposition to a radically threatening Other. 36 Still, the treatment of antagonistic and non-antagonistic Others involves some ‘combination of hierarchy, eradication, assimilation or expulsion’ – and in the moment of a blocked identity ‘the self might be driven by the desire to move from a relationship of mutuality and interdependence to one of autonomy and dominance’. 37 These dynamics show that in IR-poststructuralism, identities are fragmented and can only be partially fixed: identity ‘does not signal that stable core of the self, unfolding from the beginning to end through all the vicissitudes of history without change’. 38 On the contrary, the discursive nature of identity always allows for alternative constructions against which other identity notions are protected and defended: identities are subject to constant (re)writing in the sense of inscribing a particular meaning so as to render more permanent that which is originally contingent. 39
By taking into account these congruent conceptualisations of identity being based on difference in the Essex School and IR-poststructuralism, I argue that international hegemonies are about creating a collective ‘Self’ juxtaposed to its antagonistic Other, that is, that which the Self deems culpable of blocking its desired identity. 40 Central to this claim are the operations of the logic of equivalence: modelling the discursive topography by outlining what a number of elements have in common and drawing frontiers goes hand in hand with separating a discursive space into at least two diametrically opposed entities. In hegemonic relations, the identities constructed are distinct from identities emerging in other contexts (for instance, between cooperation partners). 41 Identity construction in the context of hegemonies is a process soaked in power, since the entities created by the logic of equivalence are separated by an antagonistic frontier and are constructed as antagonistic camps. Thus, the logic makes ‘reference to an “us– them” axis: two or more elements can be substituted for each other with reference to a common negation or threat’. 42 Indeed, the joint project that the logic of equivalence links elements into consists of countering a common enemy in order to achieve the vision of a world which is blocked by the presence of the Other. According to the article’s conceptualisation of hegemony and identity, this is when a Self and an Other are created – by outlining that elements are not equivalent in terms of sharing a positive property but in terms of having a common enemy. And as this Self considers its identity as blocked by the Other, the latter appears to be responsible for the failure of the Self to achieve its ‘full’ identity. The point is not that the Self is ‘nothing’ because it cannot be a full presence of itself. Rather, the political actions of the Self will be shaped by the idea that the annihilation of the enemy will permit the Self to become the fully constituted identity it seeks to be. 43 A typical assertion in this respect would be: ‘if we only eliminated terrorism, the world would be a peaceful and safe place’..
It’s not like drilling hurts the environment
Unconfirmed Sources, no date (“Sarah Palin To Host Nature Show,” Unconfirmed Sources http://unconfirmedsources.com/?itemid=4327)//IS
Nature lover Sarah Palin and Discovery Communications announced today that she will be hosting a new TV series called "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in which she will challenge antiquated notions such as Global warming, promote oil drilling as being beneficial to the environment and discuss how to stop polar bears from being listed as endangered species. "Oil drilling doesn't cause any problem with the animals or the environment", Palin stated. "I love to watch the furry little animals scurry away into the woods as we start setting up the drilling equipment!" Palin insists the animals all find alternate dwelling places that are even nicer than the holes they live in now. She also insisted that even with oil drilling there will be "plenty of places for furry animals to live and frolic". Palin also revealed that Alaska is just as cold as it ever was and global warming is a myth. "There were times this past winter when we couldn't even go outside it was so cold!" Palin lamented. "If people think there's global warming just let them come to Alaska for a winter!" Palin insisted that polar bears be removed from the list of endangered animals because "they are all over the place! You can't go to an iceberg without seeing bunches of them!" "Besides", "Palin continued. "Polar bears eat people! We don't want nasty bears eating nice people!"
Warming isn’t even real – if it was, I’d like it!
Connors-Maloney, 12 – Oklahoma 1st Congressional District Coordinator – Oklahoma’s 1st District Coordinator (Annie, 02/16/12 “I Resist Our Dependence on Foreign Oil - Drill Here, Drill Now,” http://patriotaction.net/group/iresistourdependenceonforeignoildrillheredrillnow)//IS
Science has now proven the following very important points:
* CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. It is a friendly trace gas necessary for all life.
* Human-produced CO2 is a miniscule fraction of a percentage of greenhouse gases.
* 96.5% of all greenhouse gases emit from the oceans, naturally.
* Without CO2, vegetation dies, herbivores die, you die.
* CO2 levels used to be much higher many times in the past.
* Higher temperatures from the sun result in CO2 levels rising long afterwards.
* Rising CO2 is an effect of global warming, not a cause.
* Global warming and cooling is a natural phenomenon.
* The higher the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the greener our planet becomes.
* Forests and plant life growth has increased by approx 40% over the last 50 years, thanks to CO2.
* Increasing CO2 yields larger food crops. This is beneficial to a growing population.
* The Earth is not currently warming, it is in fact cooling.
* Temperatures in the past have often been much warmer than today.
* Even if it were to happen, a warmer Earth is far better than a colder one, for all life.
* Many scientists believe we are on the brink of another ice age.
* When the planet warms and cools it is purely due to the sun. Not your car.
* Polar ice is now at record levels and still growing.
* Climate changes happen all the time, and have occurred much faster than anything in modern times.
* There has been no increase in extreme weather. In fact, records show the exact opposite.
The list goes on and on, supported by NASA data, weather satellites, and much of the meteorological and scientific world.