Você está na página 1de 13

Statism K

The affirmatives focus on police officers as the core of racism
in society is inherently flawed. Banning qualified immunity just
beats around the bush it has no intrinsic value in minimizing
oppression. Police bigotry is a mere reflection of state racism.
The Police are inherently bad, not as individual agents but as a
group because there were created to subjugate the others
within society

Police Maintain the power of the government and prevent

structural change
Anarchist People of Color 15 [Anarchy in The Town, http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anarchist-people-

The job of the government is ultimately to

Anarchism is against the government, straight up.
protect a small group of elites and their property. Most of us would be better off without
governments. These elites are the economic class of the rich and powerful. No the
rich and powerful like Beyonce and Drake. Oh helll no. Elites are the no-talent entertainment industry executives
that own the record labels and always get a cut for themselves no matter whos hot this year. Theyre the
executives of corporations, the owners of machinery that makes cars, cell phones, guns and drones. Theyre the
politicians that get cashed out for fixing up the laws to help these greedy business people.
government is the agencies, the laws, and the cops that maintain the
power of the super rich people over the rest of us. The police are the front
line of government. Their job is to criminalize, beat, intimidate, jail, and
kill us so that we never stand a chance at rising agains the elite.

Current passages of qualified immunity dont take into account
race or LBGT community, this creates a system in which police
are able to abuse their power -
Walker 09 [April J. Walker, September 4, 2009 RACIAL PROFILING -SEPARATE AND UNEQUAL KEEPING THE

All too often,

racial minorities have been disadvantaged by criminal procedure
rules that are race-neutral, as the rules have had a disproportionate effect
on communities of color.48 The chain of radicalized terror that spanned during
slavery, lynching, and police whipping49 remains unbroken as the brutalization of
minorities is routinely, but unfortunately, practiced in todays criminal justice
system.50 Like lynchings and police whippings, contemporary police brutality is not an exception to current law.51
Nonetheless, current legal doctrine seems to condone police brutality and makes individual acts of abuse appear isolated,
aberrational, and acceptable rather than part of a systematic pattern of official violence .52 Thus, legal rules
fragment instances of police brutality so as to obscure its systemic nature,
while police supervisors, prosecutors and judges routinely turn a blind eye
to its occurrence.53 Similarly, police torture of suspects continues to be a tolerated means of confirming
the presumed criminality of blacks and minorities. 54 As a result, the cost of relying on the
criminal justice system leaves no room for accountability for police
misconduct and serious reform is needed.55

Thus the Affs advocacy of limiting qualified immunity will not

and does not solve. It only continues this furhterization of the
racist laws to be put in place. Instead, the laws themselves
need to be deconstructed
THE ANARCHIST FAQ (Iain McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas), 13
May 2006, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html, accessed July 10, 2006//WFI
Anarchists argue that hierarchical social relationships will have a negative effect on those subject to them,
who can no longer exercise their critical, creative and mental abilities freely. As Colin Ward argues, people
"do go from womb to tomb without realizing their human potential, precisely because the power to initiate,
to participate in innovating, choosing, judging, and deciding is reserved for the top men" (and it usually is
men!) [Anarchy in Action, p, 42]. Anarchism is based on the insight that there is an interrelationship
between the authority structures of institutions and the psychological qualities and attitudes of individuals.
Following orders all day hardly builds an independent, empowered,
creative personality ("authority and servility walk ever hand in hand." [Peter Kropotkin,
Anarchism, p. 81]). As Emma Goldman made clear, if a person's "inclination and
judgement are subordinated to the will of a master " (such as a boss, as most
people have to sell their labour under capitalism) then little wonder such an
authoritarian relationship "condemns millions of people to be mere
nonentities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 50]


Gewirth, Professor, Philosophy, University of Chicago, HUMAN RIGHTS,

human rights are of supreme

The primary thesis of the following essays is that

importance, and are central to all other moral

considerations, because they are rights of every human
being to the necessary conditions of human action, i.e.,
those conditions that must be fulfilled if human action is to
be possible either at all or with general chances of success in achieving the purposes for which
humans act. Because they are such rights, they must be respected by every

human being, in the primary justification of governance is

that they serve to secure these rights. Thus the Subjects as well as the
respondents of human rights are all human beings; the Objects of the rights are the aforesaid necessary conditions of human
the justifying basis of the rights is the
action and of successful action in general; and

moral principle which establishes that all humans are

equally entitled to have these necessary conditions, to fulfill
the general needs of human agency.


Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist FAQ,
May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July 10,
2006; // WFI- DR

An anarchist can be regarded, in Bakunin's words, as a "fanatic lover of

freedom, considering it as the unique environment within which the intelligence,
dignity and happiness of mankind can develop and increase."
[Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 196] Because human beings are thinking
creatures, to deny them liberty is to deny them the opportunity to
think for themselves, which is to deny their very existence as
humans. For anarchists, freedom is a product of our humanity , because:
"The very fact. . . that a person has a consciousness of self , of being
different from others, creates a desire to act freely. The craving for
liberty and self-expression is a very fundamental and dominant
trait." [Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks, p. 439]
For this reason, anarchism "proposes to rescue the self-respect and
independence of the individual from all restraint and invasion by
authority. Only in freedom can man [sic!] grow to his full stature. Only in
freedom will he learn to think and move, and give the very best of
himself. Only in freedom will he realize the true force of the social
bonds which tie men together, and which are the true foundations of
a normal social life." [Op. Cit., pp. 72-3]
Thus, for anarchists, freedom is basically individuals pursuing their own
good in their own way. Doing so calls forth the activity and power of
individuals as they make decisions for and about themselves and
their lives. Only liberty can ensure individual development and
diversity. This is because when individuals govern themselves and
make their own decisions they have to exercise their minds and this
can have no other effect than expanding and stimulating the
individuals involved. As Malatesta put it, "[f]or people to become
educated to freedom and the management of their own interests ,
they must be left to act for themselves, to feel responsibility for their own actions in
the good or bad that comes from them. They'd make mistakes, but they'd
understand from the consequences where they'd gone wrong and try out new
ways." [Fra Contadini, p. 26]
So, liberty is the precondition for the maximum development of
one's individual potential, which is also a social product and can be
achieved only in and through community. A healthy, free community will
produce free individuals, who in turn will shape the community and
enrich the social relationships between the people of whom it is


[13 May 2006, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB2.html, accessed July 10, 2006, Iain
McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas, //wfi-pinto]

since the birth of the State, the world of politics has

"This explains why,
always been and continues to be the stage for unlimited rascality
and brigandage . . . This explains why the entire history of ancient
and modern states is merely a series of revolting crimes ; why kings
and ministers, past and present, of all times and all countries --
statesmen, diplomats, bureaucrats, and warriors -- if judged from the
standpoint of simply morality and human justice , have a hundred, a
thousand times over earned their sentence to hard labour or to the
gallows. There is no horror, no cruelty, sacrilege, or perjury, no imposture, no
infamous transaction, no cynical robbery, no bold plunder or shabby
betrayal that has not been or is not daily being perpetrated by the
representatives of the states, under no other pretext than those elastic
words, so convenient and yet so terrible: 'for reasons of state.'"
[Bakunin on Anarchism, pp. 133-4]
Governments habitually lie to the people they claim to represent in
order to justify wars, reductions (if not the destruction) of civil liberties
and human rights, policies which benefit the few over the many , and
other crimes. And if its subjects protest, the state will happily use
whatever force deemed necessary to bring the rebels back in line
(labelling such repression "law and order"). Such repression includes the
use of death squads, the institutionalization of torture, collective
punishments, indefinite imprisonment, and other horrors at the worse
The Alternative is to renounce the state, in doing so we
combat the anti-black establishment. Reforms are only an
endless battle and keep minorities playing the white mans

First, the destruction of Statism and human survival can only

be assured if a vanguard of individuals rejects their ties to the
*We dont advocate for the gendered language of this card*

Louis Rene Beres, Professor, International Law, Purdue University, Self-

Determination, International Law and Survival on Planet Earth, ARIZONA JOURNAL

To fulfill the expectations of a new global society, one that would erect
effective barriers around humankind's most murderous forms of self-
determination, 17 the essential initiatives must be undertaken within
States. In this connection, national leaders can never be expected to
initiate the essential changes on their own. Rather, the new evolutionary
vanguard must -- in the fashion of the growing worldwide movement against nuclear weapons and nuclear
war 18 -- grow out of informed publics throughout the world. Such a vanguard
[*8] must aim to end the separation of State interests from those of its citizens
and from those of humanity as a whole. This vanguard must grow out of searches for individual
self-determination. But the journey from the herd to selfhood begins in myth and ends in doubt. For this
journey to succeed, the individual traveling along the route must learn to
substitute a system of uncertainties for what he has always believed; learn
to tolerate and encourage doubt as a replacement for the comforting
"securities" of Statism. Induced to live against the grain of our civilization, he must become not only
conscious of his singularity, but also satisfied with it. Organically separated from "civilization,"
he becomes aware of the forces that undermine it, forces that offer him a
last remaining chance for both meaning and survival .

Individual separation from the state and criticizing it is a

necessary first step in denouncing the state.

Engaging in debates about the core of racism, not mere

reflections of it, are key. The alt is reject the Aff's narrowed
focus on the police as the source of racial violence and reject
the hierarchal social structures.
Liberty cannot be given; Only through self-action will true
freedom be reached
Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist FAQ, May
13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July 10, 2006; //

Liberty, by its very nature, cannot be given. An individual cannot be

freed by another, but must break his or her own chains through their own effort. Of course, self-
effort can also be part of collective action , and in many cases it has
to be in order to attain its ends. As Emma Goldman points out: "History tells us
that every oppressed class [or group or individual] gained true
liberation from its masters by its own efforts." Anarchists have long
argued that people can only free themselves by their own actions .
The various methods anarchists suggest to aid this process will be
discussed in section J ("What Do Anarchists Do?") and will not be discussed here . However,
these methods all involve people organizing themselves, setting their own agendas, and acting in ways that
empower them and eliminate their dependence on leaders to do things for them. Anarchism is based on
people "acting for themselves" (performing what anarchists call "direct action" -- see section J.2 for
The role of the ballot is to vote for debater that better
challenges oppressive ideologies rather than concrete policy
changes. We need to challenge the state to solve the
reproduction of oppressive mindsets in the real world

The debate space allows us to engage in discussion which

allows us to break down racism to make change in the
Smith 13 [Elijah Smith, A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate,
Vbriefly, 9/4/13 http://vbriefly.com/2013/09/06/20139a-conversation-in-ruins-race-and-black-participation-in-lincoln-

It will be uncomfortable, it will be hard, and it will require continued effort but the necessary
step in fixing this problem, like all problems, is the community as a whole admitting that such a problem with many socially
acceptable choices exists in the first place. Like all systems of social control, the reality of racism in debate is

constituted by the singular choices that institutions, coaches, and

students make on a weekly basis. I have watched countless rounds where competitors attempt to win by rushing to
abstractions to distance the conversation from the material reality that black debaters are forced to deal with every day. One of the students I coached,

who has since graduated after leaving debate, had an adult judge write out a ballot that concluded by hypothetically defending my student

being lynched at the tournament. Another debate concluded with a young man defending that we can kill animals humanely, just like we did that guy

Troy Davis. Community norms would have competitors do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse black debaters of breaking to escape hard

the only constructive strategy is to

conversations but as someone who understands that experience,

acknowledge the reality of the oppressed, engage the discussion from the perspective of
authors who are black and brown, and then find strategies to deal with the issues at hand. It

hurts to see competitive seasons come and go and have high school students and judges spew the same hateful things you expect

to hear at a Klan rally. A student should not, when presenting an advocacy that aligns them with the oppressed, have to justify why
Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with
oppression is bad.

liberatory potential . Even if the form debate gives to a conversation is not the same you would use to discuss race in general
conversation with Bayard Rustin or Fannie Lou Hamer, that is not a reason we have to strip that conversation of its connection to a reality that black

students cannot escape.

Equality is necessary for true individual liberty to flourish.

Anarchism allows for equality in terms of opportunity which
allows for humans to attain their own potential and march by
the beat of their own drum. Nothing else solves this
A2: Post fiat/No solvency
History proves that mutual aid, sharing of labor, and free
access to resources is a workable concept that can still sustain
organized life
Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist
FAQ, May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July
10, 2006; // WFI- DR
The fact that anarchists are in favour of organization may seem strange at first, but it is understandable. "For those with experience
only of authoritarian organization," argue two British anarchists, "it appears that organization can only be totalitarian or democratic,
and that those who disbelieve in government must by that token disbelieve in organization at all. That is not so." [Stuart Christie and
Albert Meltzer, The Floodgates of Anarchy, p. 122] In other words, because we live in a society in which virtually all forms of
organization are authoritarian, this makes them appear to be the only kind possible. What is usually not recognized is that this mode
society -- one whose motive
of organization is historically conditioned, arising within a specific kind of
principles are domination and exploitation . According to archaeologists and anthropologists, this kind
of society has only existed for about 5,000 years, having appeared with the first
primitive states based on conquest and slavery , in which the labour of slaves
created a surplus which supported a ruling class . Prior to that time, for hundreds of
thousands of years, human and proto-human societies were what Murray Bookchin calls "organic," that is,
based on co-operative forms of economic activity involving mutual aid , free access
to productive resources, and a sharing of the products of communal labour
according to need. Although such societies probably had status rankings based on age, there were no
hierarchies in the sense of institutionalized dominance-subordination relations
enforced by coercive sanctions and resulting in class-stratification involving the
economic exploitation of one class by another (see Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom).

Anarchy would not facilitate the natural differences of humans

to recreate hierarchical power, but social equality would allow
for integration of functions to sustain freedom
Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist
FAQ, May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July
10, 2006; // WFI- DR

If hierarchical social relationships, and the forces that create them, are abolished in favour of ones that encourage participation and
are based on the principle of "one person, one vote" then natural differences would not be able to be turned into hierarchical power.
without capitalist property rights there would not be means by which a
For example,
minority could monopolize the means of life (machinery and land) and enrich themselves by
the work of others via the wages system and usury (profits, rent and interest). Similarly, if workers
manage their own work, there is no class of capitalists to grow rich off their labour .
Thus Proudhon: "Now, what can be the origin of this inequality? "As we see it, . . . that origin is the realization within society of this
triple abstraction: capital, labour and talent. "It is because society has divided itself into three categories of citizen corresponding to
the three terms of the formula. . . that caste distinctions have always been arrived at, and one half of the human race enslaved to
the other. . . socialism thus consists of reducing the aristocratic formula of capital-labour-talent into the simpler formula of labour! . .
. in order to make every citizen simultaneously, equally and to the same extent capitalist, laborer and expert or artist." [No Gods, No
Masters, vol. 1, pp. 57-8] Like all anarchists, Proudhon saw this integration of functions as the key to equality and freedom and
Thus self-management is the key to social
proposed self-management as the means to achieve it.
equality. Social equality in the workplace, for example, means that everyone has an
equal say in the policy decisions on how the workplace develops and changes .
Anarchists are strong believers in the maxim "that which touches all, is decided by all."
SEE TRUE HUMAN NATURE [Assumption the aff make on human
inherent racism is flawed because it is based on the
imcomplete nature of people under the state]
Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist
FAQ, May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July
10, 2006; // WFI- DR

As such, the use of "human nature" as an argument against anarchism is simply

superficial and, ultimately, an evasion. It is an excuse not to think. "Every fool," as Emma Goldman put it, "from king to
policemen, from the flatheaded parson to the visionless dabbler in science , presumes to
speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more
definite his insistence on the wickedness and weakness of human nature . Yet how
can anyone speak of it to-day, with every soul in prison, with every heart fettered, wounded, and
maimed?" Change society, create a better social environment and then we can judge what is
a product of our natures and what is the product of an authoritarian system . For this
reason, anarchism "stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of
religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property ; liberation
from the shackles and restraint of government." For "[f]reedom , expansion, opportunity, and
above all, peace and repose, alone can teach us the real dominant factors of human nature
and all its wonderful possibilities." [Red Emma Speaks, p. 73]

Solidarity is necessary to resist hierarchy

Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist
FAQ, May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July
10, 2006; // WFI- DR

And, within a hierarchical society, solidarity is important not only because

of the satisfaction it gives us, but also because it is necessary to
resist those in power. Malatesta's words are relevant here:
"the oppressed masses who have never completely resigned themselves to
oppress and poverty, and who . . . show themselves thirsting for justice, freedom
and wellbeing, are beginning to understand that they will not be able
to achieve their emancipation except by union and solidarity with all
the oppressed, with the exploited everywhere in the world." [Anarchy, p. 33]

Solidarity key to defend against power

Iain McKay et al, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas; The Anarchist
FAQ, May 13, 2006; http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secA2.html; Accessed July
10, 2006; // WFI- DR

Solidarity, therefore, is important to anarchists because it is the means

by which liberty can be created and defended against power .
Solidarity is strength and a product of our nature as social beings .
However, solidarity should not be confused with "herdism," which implies
passively following a leader. In order to be effective, solidarity must be
created by free people, co-operating together as equals. The "big WE" is not
solidarity, although the desire for "herdism" is a product of our need for
solidarity and union. It is a "solidarity" corrupted by hierarchical society, in
which people are conditioned to blindly obey leaders .


(Iain McKay, Gary Elkin, Dave Neal and Ed Boraas), 13 May 2006,
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secB1.html, accessed July 10, 2006//WFI KEC
It is, in other words, the difference between taking part in a decision and listening to
alternative viewpoints and experts ("natural influence") before making your mind up and
having a decision made for you by a separate group of individuals (who may or may not be
elected) because that is their role in an organization or society. In the former, the individual exercises
their judgement and freedom (i.e. is based on rational authority). In the latter, they are
subjected to the wills of others, to hierarchical authority (i.e. is based on irrational authority).
This is because rational authority "not only permits but requires constant scrutiny
and criticism . . . it is always temporary, its acceptance depending on its
performance." The source of irrational authority, on the other hand, "is always power over people . . . Power on
the one side, fear on the other, are always the buttresses on which irrational authority is built." Thus former is
based upon "equality" while the latter "is by its very nature based upon inequality." [Erich Fromm, Man for Himself,
pp. 9-10]