Impacts Blockfile

Table of Contents

A2: Prioritize Structural Violence 13

Answer 1: Structural violence is decreasing now. Goklany’09 finds: 13

Answer 2: Structural violence doesn’t escalate. Hinde’00 writes: 13

Answer 3: Extinction outweighs structural violence. Bostrum’12 finds: 13

Answer 4: Avoiding war solves. Christie’01 finds: 14

A5: We should prefer a consequnetialist framework since it is the only framework that allows us to measure the actual outcomes of policy. Hirschel-Burns’16: 14

A6: Util is the only moral system available to policy-makers without including biases. We act as if policy makers in this deabte space. Goodin’90: 14

A7: [If someone ran a structural violence or fem K arg]. Discussion of existential risks like nuclear war doesn’t displace our focus on structural violence happening now; it injects complexity into the discussion. Prioritize both. Barkawi’: 15

A8: We have to solve large-scale violent conflicts before we can focus on everyday forms of violence – they’re a barrier to peace. Goldstein’01: 15

AT: Women Rights Framework 16

A1: War turns structural violence. Goldstein’01: 16

A2: No impact---no gender root cause. Rotter’08: 16

A2: Womens’ Role of the Ballot (ROB) 16

A1: Counter ROB: 17

A2: Our ROB is better for three reasons: 17

A2: Women’s Discourse/Opressed People’s Discourse 17

A2: Prioritize Specific Opressed Group 17

A0: ROTB: Vote for the best material strategy to combat oppression and save lives. 17

A1: Prefer… 17

A2: Preformative Activism DA: 17

A3: Oppression Olympics DA: 18

A4: Prefer Util(itarianism): 18

A2: Utilitarianism 18

A1: Utilitarianism gets coopted for eugenics. Ekberg’13: 18

A2: Utilitarian risk assessment naturally favors white males. Verchick’96: 18

A2: Long-Link Chains 20

A1: Increasingly long chains of potentialities overestimate probability. Piattelli’96: 20

Overview: Disregard Low-Probability Impacts 21

Answer 1: Their link chain has no historical precedent, and is extremely unlikely. We must weigh competing probabilities and dismiss threats to survival if they are very unlikely. The alternative is that we do nothing about any existential risk. Evaluate probability over magnitude. Posner’04 writes: 21

Overview: Economic Growth Solves For Extinction 22

Overview: (Maintaining) Economic growth solves back for extinction. Ebenstein’02 details: 22

DISAD: Militarism Leads to War at Home 24

A1: The affirmative’s focus on militarism abroad fuels a war at home; the soldiers they talk about become part of the brutal regimes of America’s police forces after returning from war. Jenkins’14: 24

DISAD: IRA Solves For Domestic Environment 25

A1: The passage of the Iflation Reduction Act solves back, their evidence is too old and doesn’t take this into account. Glass’22: 25

A2: The IRA drives down carbon emission in electricity but also develops carbon capture. Newell’22: 25

A3: US leadership in green tech will snowball to other countries. 25

A2: Securitization/Militarism K 26

General Responses 26

A1: Non-Unique. Militarism is inevitable. Stopping it in this one scenario does nothing. Blatchford’(19)00: 26

A2: Turn. Militarism is good for local economies. NCSL’18: 26

A3: Turn. Militarism prevents anarchy. American militarism is good; preserves peace and stops democracies from being overrun. Kaplan’14: 26

A4: Turn. Ending militarism now has disastrous consequences. Goure’13: 27

Analyticals 27

+ more

$3.49