Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
AND, AARON TIMMONS DISLIKES GENERIC BAUDRILLARD AFFS, THIS IS HIS A LINE FROM HIS WIKI
PAGE:
I deplore teams that run generic critical arguments without application to the
plan/presentation/framework of the aff.
AND VOTING AFF MEANS AARON TIMMONS COMES IN AND STEALS THE BALLOTS, TURNS CASE
B) THE REAL LINK – BUSH DOESN’T EXIST – HE’S AN ANIMATRONIC ROBOT. TURNS CASE
Created in absolute secrecy by the CIA and top defense contractors, "Unit W" was designed to simulate
average human motion, speech, and behavior. Originally intended for espionage, he is the fusion of a
servo-motorized biofidelic shell and a sophisticated artificial intelligence module. The fiendish experiment
proved to be such a success that his human masters decided to put their creation to the ultimate test --
run him for President.
Now George W, a mindless automaton created in a top-secret lab, will preside over the first literal "puppet
government.”
C)
1) FAIRNESS. PLAN SPIKES OUT OF ALL OF OUR POLITICS LINKS BECEAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
DETERMINE HOW MUCH POLITICAL CAPITAL A ROBOT HAS. EVEN IF WE WERE TO ACCESS THE
SECRET CIA FILES, THEY COULD ALWAYS JUST CHANGE THE LEVELS ON US, WHICH EXPLODES
LIMITS.
2) LIMITS. PLAN UNLIMITS THE TOPIC BECAUSE IF WE ALLOW ROBOTIC ACTORS THAT ENCOURAGES
DEBATERS TO BUILD THEIR OWN ANIMATRONIC ROBOTS TO DO THE PLAN WHICH IS
UNPREDICTABLE BECAUSE THERE IS AN INFINITE AMOUNT OF ROBOTS THAT COULD BE BUILT AND
THERE’S NO LITERATURE ON THEM.
3) SOLVENCY. ALL OF THEIR SOLVENCY EVIDENCE ASSUMES THAT A HUMAN DOES THE PLAN. THIS
KILLS 90 PERCENT OF THEIR SOLVENCY, WHICH IS ENOUGH OF THE TABLE’S LEG SAWED OFF SO
THAT THE TABLE COLLAPSES.
Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing
those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, "What percentage
of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the
preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that, in
the normal case it was about 10 percent leaving the remaining 90 percent in the
realm of implementation.
4) DEHUMANIZATION. THEY UPHOLD THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AS A SAFE HAVEN FOR
ANIMATRONIC ROBOTS. THIS SETS UP A SLIPPERY SLOPE. THAT’S NUCLEAR WAR.
Assuming we are able to predict who or what are optimized humans, this entire resultant worldview
smacks of eugenics and Nazi racial science. This would involve valuing people as means. Moreover, there
would always be a superhuman more super than the current ones, humans would never be able to escape
their treatment as means to an always further and distant end. This means-ends dispute is at the core of
Montagu and Matson's treatise on the dehumanization of humanity. They warn: "its destructive toll is already greater
than that of any war, plague, famine, or natural calamity on record -- and its potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of
civilized society is beyond calculation. For that reason this sickness of the soul might well be called the Fifth Horseman of the
Apocalypse.... Behind the genocide of the holocaust lay a dehumanized thought; beneath the menticide of deviants and dissidents...
in the cuckoo's next of America, lies a dehumanized image of man... (Montagu & Matson, 1983, p. xi-xii). While it may never be
possible to quantify the impact dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness
offer great opportunities which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a
nearly inestimable value greater than any tools which we can currently use to measure it. Dehumanization is nuclear war,
environmental apocalypse, and international genocide. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are
dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and
dehumanization is evil's most powerful weapon.
The Onion IN THE Year of the Red Overtone Moon. "I'm Afraid We Will Never Win In
Afghanistan Unless Central Command Gets A Pinball Machine." The Onion - America's Finest
News Source. Web. <http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-afraid-we-will-never-win-in-
afghanistan-unless,18256/>.
As anyone who has been following the news recently can attest, there is very little
positive that can be said about the war in Afghanistan. Recent leaks to the media have
given the public a glimpse of the sort of hellish realities and demoralizing intelligence
that I have to deal with day in and day out. The grim truth is that the Taliban is at its
strongest point since the invasion, al-Qaeda is on the rise along the border, and the
nation's American-backed government remains mired in corruption and failure. To put it
frankly, the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan may be a lost cause.
For the past several years, our Joint Intelligence Center has pored through the daily
stream of raw intel coming in from our troops on the ground, searching for a way to turn
the military tide in our favor. And while there are rarely any easy answers in war, we
have discovered that in this case there is: pinball. Or rather, a full-size pinball machine
that we could put right between the soda dispenser and the projection screen.
Believe me when I say that brave men and women in uniform are dying every day, and
we owe it to them to do everything within our power to ensure victory. Which is why if
we want to have any chance of rooting insurgents out of Kandahar and cutting off
Taliban supply lines from Pakistan, then we'll need to bring in some serious firepower at
Central Command. We're talking multi-ball, frequent jackpots, a third flipper midway up
the game board, and a lot of those bumpers that make that loud ping noise when the
ball collides with them. Multiple levels of skill-shots would also be fantastic, but not at
the expense of gameplay, of course.
We need our nation's lawmakers to give us their full and undivided support. Watering
down any defense appropriations bills by sending us a substandard machine would have
dire consequences. An analog-motor board is not going to cut it; we need solid-state technology with
a dot-matrix screen to display point bonuses and jackpots. Any of the Stern or Bally movie tie-in boards like Addams Family or T3:
Rise Of The Machines would be terrific; that awesome-looking Sopranos one that plays actual lines recorded by the actors when you
hit a combo shot would work, too. Consider that the fate of the war itself is at stake and proceed
accordingly. Also, check out PinballUniverse.com. They've got some killer boards, including a Royal Rumble machine that's
near-mint. Scroll down and find the guy's e-mail to ask about price and availability. While combat troops have been withdrawn from
Iraq, the fighting in Afghanistan has only intensified. Indeed, the monthly counts of U.S. fatalities are now at their highest levels since
the war began nine years ago. As an understandable consequence, morale among our troops has plummeted. But if there's one thing
I learned back in Officer Candidate School, it's that nothing takes a young soldier's mind off his daily stresses quite like a thrilling,
fast-paced game of pinball in which his reflexes snap at lightning speed while a buzzing crowd gathers around him as he racks up
So before you
replay after replay. My God, I miss that Bally's Fireball machine at the Quantico Bowl & Bar. That game ruled.
resign yourself to an American defeat in Afghanistan, let me assure you that two possible
futures remain before us. There is the course that we are currently on, in which a pinball machine
does not show up two rooms down from my office and the United States flees Afghanistan in disgrace, allowing the country to fall
And there is another option
back under Taliban control and placing our own homeland at greater risk of terrorist attack.
that, thankfully, is still within our grasp. If we all set aside our differences and agree to
put a pinball machine in Central Command today, then we still have a chance at a
brighter tomorrow. A future in which a safe and free Afghan state flourishes. A future in
which our soldiers return home triumphant. A future in which the high score flashes the
initials "USA."
C) VOTERS
1. GROUND-DENY SPECIFIC LINKS TO DISADS, IMPLEMENTATION TAKEOUTS, AND
AGENTS CPS- 90 PERCENT OF POLICY IS IMPLEMENTATION – cross apply elmore
C. Standards
1. Education -
I can call singularity educators the most
putrid name on Earth and claim they eat
cow-dung ambrosia, but the lying ass
bastards will not even object - for they
know I am right and that any debate will
indict them for the evil they perpetuate
against the students and future humanity.
D. Voting issue
2. Death -
2.) Capital is key to START ratification, Obama has room to juggle some issues but adding an additional
contentious issue will doom arms control
James Kitfield October 9 2009 The National Journal Group, Wars, Political Battles Complicate
Obama Effort to Prevent Spread of Nuclear Weapons, Google News
Because arms control treaties require a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate for ratification, Obama has no choice
but to win significant Republican support. Already, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz)., who helped organize opposition to the test-ban treaty in 1999, is reportedly lining up votes in opposition. Insiders believe that
Republicans may try to make support, even for the new START treaty, contingent on the administration's supporting a "Reliable Replacement Warhead" to modernize the nation's aging nuclear arsenal. That condition, which Obama voted against as a senator, would be a poison pill for arms control advocates. Kyl and
Richard Perle, the former chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on June 30 that Obama's arms control agenda was based on "dangerous, wishful thinking." Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, said, "If you look at the controversy triggered by President Obama's
decision in regards to missile defense in Europe, I think that was a harbinger of the arguments to come over arms control as opponents come after him for watering down the Bush legacy and being weak on national security." Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state in the Clinton administration, has never forgotten
the "horrendous defeat" that Clinton -- weakened by an impeachment battle and a divisive war in Kosovo -- suffered in 1999 when a Republican-controlled Senate rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. By launching the nonproliferation initiative while Obama's popularity and stock of political capital
remain relatively high, the administration seems to have absorbed the lesson of 1999. "But I see both risk as well as opportunity in the administration's very ambitious strategy," Talbott said. "They obviously hope to get some points on the board with negotiation and ratification of a new START, building a sense of
momentum that will translate into Senate ratification of the test-ban treaty. That has a familiar ring, however, because this administration similarly hoped to score some early points with their domestic agenda and then get on a roll where victory begot victory. Then they ran into trouble on health care, which will
translate into trouble on other domestic issues. The same thing could happen on their nonproliferation agenda." Indeed, Obama is facing a pivotal decision on whether to surge as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops to salvage an unpopular war in Afghanistan. Influential Democrats in Congress are already mobilizing
to oppose a surge. Such an expansion of the war effort there would likely force the administration to seek Republican support for a supplemental war-funding bill, even as Obama tries to hold his own fractious caucus together behind the nonproliferation agenda. Peter Feaver served in the White House on the National
Security Council staff during the Bush administration's surge of forces to Iraq in 2007. If Obama decides to repeat that tactic in Afghanistan, Feaver said, the administration is about to learn some tough lessons about the limits of a president's personal and political capital, and Washington's ability to simultaneously
digest major, contentious policy proposals. "The most precious White House resource is a president's actual time and attention, because there are only so many hours in a day and you can't let the president get burned out. The fact that Obama has only spoken to his top commander in Afghanistan a couple of times
congressional bandwidth, meaning you can only jam so many major issues into the pipeline before
they are traded off against each other." As an example, Feaver notes that if the administration angers Republicans
on missile defense but needs their help on an Afghan supplemental, then it may be forced to give on the test-ban treaty or
perhaps cap-and-trade. "The deals become more complicated," he said, "and lawmakers have fresh
memories of when the administration rolled them and when it conceded to their demands." In the end,
Bush pushed through a divisive invasion of Iraq in 2003; won re-election in 2004; and even after the war turned unpopular,
mustered enough political backing to surge troops to Iraq in 2007. But major domestic priorities such as immigration and
Social Security reform became casualties of war. "I think Obama is in a similar place as Bush in 2002," Feaver said. "Though
he's starting to get a lot of push-back, Obama probably has the political capital to ram through health care
and get what he wants on Afghanistan and possibly even arms control, but he'll pay a price."
4. The impact is extinction – this is the fastest and most likely scenario
John Hallam, Editor of Nuclear Flashpoints, John Burroughs and Marcy Fowler, Lawyers
Committee on Nuclear Policy, 2009, NPT Preparatory Committee, Steps Toward a Safer World
Why did an article in the September 2008 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, entitled 'avoiding human
extinction' give a list of measures needed to avoid that, with lowering the operating status of nuclear weapon systems
(along with their elimination) topping the rather consequential 'to - do' list, even before climate - change measures and
incoming large asteroids? Why over the years has this issue been thought so important at such a high level? The US
and Russia undeniably keep a large number (estimated by Blair at 2,654 by Kristensen more recently 2,300) of nuclear
warheads (both land - based ICBMs and SLBMs) in a status in which they can be launched at roughly 2 minutes or
less notice. This fact is never seriously disputed. The core of the issue is that standard operating procedures envisage
extremely short decision making timeframes, and these are imposed by the simple fact of having some missiles on
quick - launch status. Careful and measured decision-making in such a situation is simply not possible. Yet the
consequences of such decisions are truly apocalyptic. Recent research by US scientists (Toon and Robock 2008/9)
on the effects of the use of US and Russian arsenals indicates that even at levels down to 1000 warheads, the use by
malice, madness, miscalculation or malfunction of the 'on alert' portions of US and Russian strategic nuclear
forces would be essentially terminal for civilization. Maintaining arsenals in an unstable configuration was insanely
risky during the Cold War, when there were even larger numbers of warheads on alert and when there were just too many
occasions on which it would be fair to say that the world came just too close to ending. There is even less reason, now that the
cold - war confrontation has supposedly ended, to maintain nuclear forces in these dangerous configurations. Yet in spite of
denials and obfuscations from those who wish to maintain existing postures they are indeed so maintained. President Obama,
in his election manifesto, promised to negotiate with Russia to lower the operational status of nuclear weapon systems.
It is vital that this promise is not forgotten. The talks between the US and Russia on the successor to the
START Treaty are an ideal opportunity to take action to implement Obama's promises to negotiate
with Russia to achieve lower operational status of nuclear weapon systems.