The 1AC posits performance and agency as articulated

through only through the vehicle of a common human

language- if you are in anyway convinced that you can
engage in their politics without being a speaking subject
then vote negative
Puar 2011 (THE COST OF GETTING BETTER: SUICIDE, SENSATION, SWITCHPOINTS
http://www.jasbirpuar.com/assets/The-Cost-of-Getting-Better.pdf 156-157) DR 15
In an effort to open up capacity as a source of generative affective politics rather than only a closure around neoliberal
demands, I briefly return to Gayatri Spivaks Can the Subaltern Speak?, perhaps unfashionably so.18 In the
context of disability studies, this

question becomes not only a mandate for epistemological

correctives but a query about ontological and bodily capacity, as granting voice
to the subaltern comes into tension with the need, in the case of the
human/animal distinction, to destabilize the privileging of
communication/representation/ language altogether. The ability to understand
language is also where human/ nonhuman animal distinctions, as well as human/technology
distinctions, have long been drawn, and here disability studies, posthumanism, and animal studies
may perhaps articulate a common interest in a nonanthropomorphic, interspecies
vision of affective politics. Posthumanism questions the boundaries between human and nonhuman, matter
and discourse, technology and body, and interro- gates the practices through which these boundaries are constituted,
stabilized, and destabilized. (The burgeoning field of animal studies is thus also a part of the endeavor to situate human
capacities within a range of capacities of species as opposed to reifying their singularity.) If, according to posthumanist
thinkers such as Manual DeLanda and Karen Barad, language

has been granted too much power, a

nonanthropomorphic conception of the human is necessary to resituate language
as one of many captures of the intensities of bodily capacities, an event of bodily
assemblages rather than a performative act of signification.19 Our current politics
are continually reproducing the exceptionalism of human bodies and the
aggrieved agential subject, politics typically enacted through wounded
attachments.20 Without minimizing the tragedy of Clementis and other recent deaths, dialogue about ecologies of
sensation and slow death might open us up to a range of connections. For instance, how do queer girls commit suicide?
What of the slow deaths of teenage girls through anorexia, bulimia, and numerous sexual assaults they endure as
punishment for the transgressing of proper femininity and alas, even for conforming to it? What is the political and cultural
fallout of recentering the white gay male as ur-queer subject? How would our political landscape

transform if it actively decentered the sustained reproduction and proliferation of

the grieving subject, opening instead toward an affective politics, attentive to
ecologies of sensation and switchpoints of bodily capacities, to habituations and
unhabituations, to tendencies, multiple temporalities, and becomings?

The refusal of the affirmative opens up the possibility of

silence- the halting of the anthropological machine and
embracing of unintelligibility- this is the hijacking of
speech through silence Negri was talking about
Jackson 13 (Zakiyyah Iman , Animal: New Directions in the Theorization of Race and
Posthumanism
https://www.academia.edu/6169668/Animal_New_Directions_in_the_Theorization_of_Race_and_P
osthumanism) DR 14

Seshadris

study

Kalpana Rahita
HumAnimal: Race, Law, Language is a careful and generative
of the intersections and divergences
subtending Jacques Derridas, Giorgio Agambens, and Foucaults philosophies of language and power with respect to ethics and politics.

Drawing on varied sources such as J. M. Coetzees Foe, Charles Chesnutts The Dumb Witness, and aerialist Philippe Petits Man on Wire, it

takes as its central task the disruption of the hierarchical binary that
purports to distinguish speech from silence. Seshadri argues that
the figuration of silence as privation has been central to the laws
biopolitical expression with respect to race and nonhuman animals. Namely,
power conflates laws peculiar speech with the capacity for speech ,
and this conflation is then equated with being human. Law, in turn,
denies those it deems inhuman access to speech and law, thereby
producing the inhumanity it excludes. Thus, the inhumans
putative privation of speech, the very figure of inhumanity, is in fact
an effect of law. Seshadri questions the presumption that speech
distinguishes human from inhuman by reminding the reader that
language encompasses speech and silence. Silence, according to Seshadri, is
not identical with not speaking; rather, it is an empty space
where the regulatory power of discourse is inoperable (34). For Seshadri,
what Derrida termed trace possesses the transformative
possibilities of this empty space: trace is not the underlying
logic or historical origin of a particular discourse , but rather
the self-canceling and instituted origin, the condition of all conditions
of possibility for speech and its play of diffrance (xiv). Thus, silence is
a space of possibility for something other than the law. Rejecting the authority
of law, Seshadri maintains that the figure of silence the space and
movement between law and language possesses alternative
ethical and political possibilities that lie beyond the purview of law.
Seshadri suggests that silence is a political realm, a site of contestation.
While silence can function as an alibi for power, it also holds the
converse potential for the neutralization of powers characterization
of silence as privation and therefore inhuman. Thus, silence is both an
instrument and disruption of what Agamben has referred to as the
anthropological machine, or the recursive attempt to adjudicate, dichotomize,
hierarchize, and stage a conflict between the human and the animal
based on the putative presence or absence of language. If it is possible for
language to be liberated from law, to some extent, then perhaps silence holds open the
possibility for powers neutralization.