2AC vs Tortilla Boy

8/18/2019 2AC vs Tortilla Boy

1/26

T


2/26

Interp Debate:They say plan text doesn’t specify an end to exploitation of its

backdoors. So? They read you no piece of evidence say the

government doesn’t put backdoors in to computers so if e

in a net decrease of government surveillance e in.

The government does it lol

Teri !obinson, SC Magazine, July 20"#, OTI report exposes economic costs of NSAspying, ttp!""###$scmagazine$com"oti%report%exposes%economic%costs%of%nsa%spying"article"&'&''0" (OA! &%2)%)*

An+, te stu+y note+, y #ea-ening -ey encryption stan+ar+s , allege+ly insertingsurveillance backdoors into .#i+ely use+ ar+#are an+ soft#are pro+ucts, . eingslo# to report soft#are security /ulnerailities an+ participating in a ./ariety ofoensi/e ac-ing operations,. te NSA as roun+ly +amage+ internet security $ To

mitigate te economic an+ foreign policy +amage cause+ y NSA sur/eillanceacti/ities, OTI ma+e a numer of recommen+ations, inclu+ing .strengteningpri/acy protections for ot Americans an+ non%Americans. an+ .pro/i+ing forincrease+ transparency aroun+ go/ernment sur/eillance, ot from te go/ernmentan+ companies$. Te report also note+ tat te 1$S$ soul+ ta-e steps to restoretrust in cryptograpy stan+ar+s troug te National Institute of Stan+ar+s an+

Tecnology$ Te 1$S$ go/ernment must not .un+ermine cyersecurity. y puttingsur/eillance ac-+oors into tec pro+ucts an+ soul+ commit to eliminating/ulnerailities rater tan stoc-piling tem$

http://www.scmagazine.com/oti-report-exposes-economic-costs-of-nsa-spying/article/363660/http://www.scmagazine.com/oti-report-exposes-economic-costs-of-nsa-spying/article/363660/http://www.scmagazine.com/oti-report-exposes-economic-costs-of-nsa-spying/article/363660/http://www.scmagazine.com/oti-report-exposes-economic-costs-of-nsa-spying/article/363660/


3/26

$o you should feel very uncomfortable voting on this

because there is no extra T argument in the "$% so if e in

e decrease government surveillance e in.

They say &oid for &agueness

". $o evidence saying this ould be an error in the la'. (iat says the plan ould get passed )no *at is illusory

arguments in the '$% that’s a ne argument hich ould

have seriously changed our strat + voter for strat ske

and fairness,

-. In the context of criminal statutes not surveillance.

The card above ansering their its means belonging to/

argument and also this next sentence is really important.

If it’s means belonging to but they don’t say hat it has to

belong to this 0usti*es reading literally anything as an a1.There is no 2S(3 de*nition in the "$% hich is a limits D4 to

this interp because they could do literally anything and that

ould be topical because the plan text ould belong to the

team.

%ounter Interp: Its means associated ithDictionary.com5 6 ase+ on Collins 3nglis (ictionary,ttp!""+ictionary$reference$com"ro#se"its4s5t6

its 7ts6 8 +eterminer! a$ of, elonging to, or associate+ in some #ay #it it! its left rear #eel $ aspronoun 6! eac to#n claims its is te est

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its?s=thttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/its?s=t


4/26

&iolation Debate/They say 7etter evidence fe issues

". (rom an article from 8I!9D.com called the acker

;exicon. !eally gonna take that into consideration?

'. It 0ust says administrator. $ever once said that theseadministrators are nongovernmental. 8e read evidence

saying they are governmental hich means no violation.

This also ansers the < subpoint. The backdoors are

oned by the government and used by the government

-. This shit

7etter5 "#9etter, :im$ .;ac-er ac-+oor4. =I?3($ N$p$, )@ (ec$ )@$ =e$ @ Mar$ 20)'$ttp!""###$#ire+$com"20)@")2"ac-er%lexicon%ac-+oor"B$ :im 9etter is an a#ar+%#inning, senior sta reporter at=ire+ co/ering cyercrime, pri/acy, an+ security$ Se is #riting a oo- aout Stuxnet, a +igital #eapon tat #as+esigne+ to saotage Irans nuclear program$ ""DS

4 backdoor in softare or a computer system is generally an

undocumented portal that allos an administrator to enter the system to

troubleshoot or do upkeep. vio.


5/26

Standards DebateThey say &acuum Test + no e don’t seek to abolish

nongovernmental backdoors.


6/26

&oters DebateThey say 9lmore evidence

". This evidence doesn’t make an argument

'. $o reason policy making is good in the "$%

-. ur proposal is pretty ell understood5 not our fault that

they don’t kno hat a backdoor is.

They say (airness and @oving Target +

". There is no vague ording

'. $o evidence saying this is vague ording

-. $o o1 case ith links dependent on the plan text so this

argument is a nonstarter.

They say 9ducation +

". 8e aren’t spiking out of links ansered this above'. Aou don’t give us an opportunity to spike out of links +

means no in round abuse and don’t vote on hat e

0ustify because ". 8e don’t 0ustify anything bad. '. $o its

hat you 0ustify argument in the "$%/

-. 8e aren’t using evasion techniBues. @ake them prove

that.

#. 8e are clashing on t and on case + disproves their clash

arguments

C. $o reason education is good. Aou’re shitting me if you really think you are learning

nothing in this debate. @ake them prove that they have

learned nothing.

E. $o reason e aren’t going back and forth on an issue.

F. 4ctually education isn’t a real impact because education

is inevitable in debate and also you concede heg ill be

hurt so you are incorrect.


7/26

InherencyThis argument is bad and you should feel very uncomfortable

voting for it.

". 4ll the internal links on the a1 prove that the governmenthas and is abusing backdoors for surveillance purposes.

'. ere’s a card if you ant +also an internal link for both

advantages

Sasso "# >ren+an, tecnology correspon+ent for National Journal, pre/iouslyco/ere+ tecnology policy issues for Te ;ill an+ #as a researcer an+ contriuting#riter for te 20)2 e+ition of te Almanac of American Dolitics, ETe NSA Isnt JustSpying on 1s, Its Also 1n+ermining Internet SecurityF, April 2G 20)@,ttp!""###$nationalHournal$com"+aily"te%nsa%isn%t%Hust%spying%on%us%it%s%also%un+ermining%internet%security%20)@0@2G6

>olstering te nations +efenses against ac-ers as een one of te Oamaa+ministrations top goals$ Ocials a/e #arne+ for years tat a sopisticate+cyerattac- coul+ cripple +estroy6 critical infrastructure or allo# tie/es to ma-eo #it te Knancial information of millions of Americans$ Dresi+ent Oama puse+ Congress toenact cyersecurity legislation, an+ #en it +i+nt, e issue+ is o#n executi/e or+er in 20)&$ ETe cyer treat to ournation is one of te most serious economic an+ national security callenges #eface,F Oama #rote in a 20)2 op%e+ in Te =all Street Journal$ >ut critics argue tat the $ ational S ecurity4 gency has actually undermined cybersecurity and made the 2 nited

S tates more vulnerable to hackers$ At its core, te prolem is te NSAs +ualmission$ On one an+, te agency is tas-e+ #it securing 1$S$ net#or-s an+information$ On te oter an+, te agency must gater intelligence on foreign

treats to national security$ Collecting intelligence often means ac-ing encrypte+communications$ Tats noting ne# for te NSAL te agency traces its roots ac- to co+e%rea-ers +ecipering Nazimessages +uring =orl+ =ar II$ So in many #ays, strong Internet security actually ma-es teNSAs Ho ar+er$ ETis is an a+ministration tat is a /igorous +efen+er of sur/eillance,F sai+ Cristoper Sogoian, teea+ tecnologist for te American Ci/il


8/26

touched is no tainted./ Its a particularly a+ time for NIST to a/e lost tesupport of te cyersecurity community$ In is executi/e or+er, Oama tas-e+ NIST#it +rafting te cyersecurity gui+elines for critical infrastructure such aspoer plants an+ pone companies$ >ecause its an executi/e or+er instea+ of a la#, te cyersecuritystan+ar+s are entirely /oluntary, an+ te 1$S$ go/ernment #ill a/e to con/ince te pri/ate sector to comply$ Te Sno#+en

lea-s #erent te Krst to in+icate tat te NSA is in/ol/e+ in exploiting commercialsecurity$ Accor+ing to a 20)2 Ne# or- Times report, te NSA +e/elope+ a #orm,+ue+ EStuxnet,F to cripple Iranian nuclear centrifuges$ >ut te #orm, #icexploite+ four pre/iously un-no#n a#s in Microsoft =in+o#s, escape+ te Iraniannuclear plant an+ uic-ly egan +amaging computers aroun+ te #orl+$ Te NSA an+Israeli ocials a/e also een tie+ to EPlame,F a /irus tat impersonate+ a Microsoft up+ate to spy on Iranian computers$ QaneeQines, an NSA spo-es#oman, sai+ te 1$S$ go/ernment Eis as concerne+ as te pulic is #it te security of tese pro+ucts$F ETe1nite+ States pursues its intelligence mission #it care to ensure tat innocent users of tose same tecnologies are not aecte+,F

se sai+$ Accor+ing to Qines, te NSA relies on te same encryption stan+ar+s it recommen+sto te pulic to protect its o#n classiKe+ net#or-s $ E=e +o not ma-e recommen+ations tat #e cannotstan+ ein+ for protecting national security systems an+ +ata,F se sai+$ ETe acti/ity of NSA in setting stan+ar+s as ma+e te

Internet a far safer place to communicate an+ +o usiness$F >ut +ue to concern o/er te NSA +amaging Internet security, tepresi+ents re/ie# group on sur/eillance issues recommen+e+ tat te 1$S$ go/ernment promise not to Ein any #ay su/ert,

un+ermine, #ea-en, or ma-e /ulnerale generally a/ailale commercial encryption$F E3ncryption is an essentialasis for trust on te InternetL #itout suc trust, /aluale communications #oul+not e possile,F te group #rote in its report, #ic #as release+ in (ecemer$ E(or the entire systemto ork5 encryption softare itself must be trustorthy$F Te =ite ;ousescyersecurity coor+inator sai+ tat +isclosing security a#s .usually ma-es sense$. In response to te report, te a+ministrationa+opte+ a ne# policy on #eter te NSA can exploit Ezero%+aysF8/ulnerailities tat a/ent een +isco/ere+ y anyone else yet$Accor+ing to te =ite ;ouse, tere is a EiasF to#ar+ pulicly +isclosing a#s in security unless Etere is a clear national security

or la# enforcement nee+$F In a log post Mon+ay, Micael (aniel, te =ite ;ouses cyersecuritycoor+inator, sai+ tat +isclosing security a#s Eusually ma-es sense$F E>uil+ing up a uge stoc-pile of un+isclose+ /ulnerailities#ile lea/ing te Internet /ulnerale an+ te American people unprotecte+ #oul+ not e in our national security interest,F e sai+$>ut (aniel a++e+ tat, in some cases, +isclosing a /ulneraility means tat te 1$S$ #oul+ Eforego an opportunity to collect crucialintelligence tat coul+ t#art a terrorist attac-, stop te teft of our nations intellectual property, or e/en +isco/er more +angerous/ulnerailities$F ;e sai+ tat te go/ernment #eigs a /ariety of factors, suc as te ris- of lea/ing te /ulneraility un%patce+, te

li-elioo+ tat anyone else #oul+ +isco/er it, an+ o# important te potential intelligence is$ lac-, te C3O of teComputer R Communications In+ustry Association, #ic represents companiesinclu+ing oogle, Microsoft, aoo, an+ Sprint$ ENo# I tin- people +ealing #it tat ureaucracy a/e toun+erstan+ tey cant ta-e anyting for grante+$F Most computer net#or-s are run y pri/atecompanies, an+ the government must ork closely ith the private sectorto improve cybersecurity. lac- sai+$ oogle an+ one oter cyersecurity Krm+isco/ere+ E;eartlee+F8a critical a# in a #i+ely use+ Internet encryption tool8inMarc$ Te companies notiKe+ a fe# oter pri/ate%sector groups aout te prolem,ut no one tol+ te 1$S$ go/ernment until April$ EInformation you sare #it te NSAmigt e use+ to urt you as a company, F #arne+ As-an Soltani, a tecnical consultant #o as #or-e+#it tec companies an+ elpe+ Te =asington Dost #it its co/erage of te Sno#+en +ocuments$ ;e sai+ tat company


9/26

ocials a/e istorically +iscusse+ cyersecurity issues #it te NSA, ut tat e#oul+nt e surprise+ if tose relationsips are no# straine+ $ ;e pointe+ to ne#stat te NSA pose+ as Paceoo- to infect computers #it mal#are$ ETat +oes a lotof arm to companies ran+s,F Soltani sai+$ The $S4’s actions have also made itdicult for the 2.S . to set international norms for cyberconHict . Por se/eral

years, te 1$S$ as trie+ to pressure Cina to scale ac- its cyerspying operations,#ic allege+ly steal tra+e secrets from 1$S$ usinesses$ Jason ;ealey, te +irectorof te Cyer Statecraft Initiati/e at te Atlantic Council, sai+ te 1$S$ asEmilitarize+ cyer policy$F The 2 nited S tates has been saying that the orldneeds to operate according to certain norms5 / e sai+$ It is dicult to get

the norms that e ant because it appears to the rest of the orld that

e only ant to follo the norms that e think are important./ Qines, te NSAspo-es#oman, empasize+ tat te NSA #oul+ ne/er ac- into foreign net#or-s to gi/e +omestic companies a competiti/e e+geas Cina is accuse+ of +oing6$ E=e +o not use foreign intelligence capailities to steal te tra+e secrets of foreign companies onealf of8or gi/e intelligence #e collect to81$S$ companies to enance teir international competiti/eness or increase teir ottomline,F se sai+$ Jim


10/26

Solvency". Their !yge evidence is horrid. It’s not about backdoors5

it’s about the 3olden Jey and a 3olden Jey is

mathematically impossible

'. 9ven if vulnerabilities inevitably exist )hich is false

because e get rid of backdoors, then e resolve

cybersecurity concerns via private sector cooperation +

that’s 7eKima


11/26


12/26

Internal ;ink:%riminals5 nation state actors5 terrorists5 and cyber actors are

leveraging ne techniBues to exploit backdoors and attack

critical infrastructure speci*cally the gridG that’s


13/26

%ritical Infrastructure:

Devastating cyber attacks on critical infrastructure comingnoG destroys food supplyG triggers 88- as countries *ghtover remaining food supplyG dras in all ma0or poers and

escalates to nuclear use. @ost probably and on brinkG 8ilhusenstudy shos cyber attacks have increased by CLM in the pastC years and e’re being attacked every day. + that’s ourSebastian evidence

4 cyberattack causes grid collapse and collapses the economy

!euters "C

Carolyn Con, reporter, %U%)*, ECyer attac- on 1$S$ po#er gri+ coul+ costeconomy V) trillion! report,F ttp!""###$reuters$com"article"20)*"0"0U"us%cyerattac-%po#er%sur/ey%i+1S:CN0DI0WS20)*00U, >C6

A cyer attac- #ic suts +o#n parts of te 1nite+ States po#er gri+ coul+ cost as muc asV" trillion to te 1$S$ economy, accor+ing to a report pulise+ on =e+nes+ay$X Company executi/esare #orrie+ aout security reaces, ut recent sur/eys suggest tey are not con/ince+ aout te /alue or

eecti/eness of cyer insurance$X Te report from te 1ni/ersity of Camri+ge Centre for ?is-Stu+ies an+ te


14/26

Of course, te report encompasses more tan economics an+ in+ee+ elie/es te future is li-ely to e te result of a numer ofintersecting an+ interloc-ing forces$ =it so many possile permutations of outcomes, eac #it ample ?e/isiting te Puture

opportunity for uninten+e+ conseuences, tere is a gro#ing sense of insecurity$ 3/en so, istory may e moreinstructi/e tan e/er$ =ile #e continue to elie/e tat te reat (epression is not li-ely to e repeate+, telessons to e +ra#n from tat perio+ inclu+e te armful eects on e+gling +emocracies an+multietnic societies tin- Central 3urope in )G20s an+ )G&0s6 an+ on te sustainaility of multilateralinstitutions tin-


15/26


16/26

Space:%onceded. Donahue says rogue actors ill target ground

stations that control satellites because they are lightly

guarded. This ill stop data transmission and prevent satellite

control. The Tyson evidence indicates this causes extinctionthrough miscalculation due to tension escalation as

communication goes don.


17/26

;


18/26

egI don’t understand ho you concede an advantage in a v

debate5 but ya kno. They did it. $o ne block ansersG makes

the "4! impossible and guts the '4%5 that’s a voter for

fairness and education. nly response is the hole math

internal links argument hich I’ll anser no.

They say the evidence only says backdoors times. This is not

an argument. I’ll copy paste the arrants of our internal links

here for all to vie.

Sasso evidence:the $S4 inserted a soGcalled back door into at least one encryption

standard that as developed by the $ational Institute of Standards and

Technology.

companies have become reluctant to share security information ith the

2.S. government5 fearing the $S4 could use any information to hack into

their systems$ E=en you #ant to go into partnersip #it someo+y an+ #or- on serious issues8suc ascyersecurity8you #ant to -no# youre eing tol+ te trut,F >lac- sai+$ oogle

%lark evidence:

3/er since te 3+#ar+ Sno#+en lea-s starte+ it as ecome more an+ more o/ious tat te NSA an+ teir Pi/e 3yes partnerste spoo-s in te 1:, Cana+a, Australia an+ Ne# 9ealan+6 a/e een ma-ing a concerte+ eort to monitor an+ control te entireInternet$ Tey/e engage+ in /ast +ata stealing exercises +esigne+ to s#eep up an+ store te pri/ate communications +ata of/irtually e/eryoneL te NSA a/e employe+ a team of some U*0,000 NSA sta an+ pri/ate security contractors to tra#l tis ocean of

stolen +ata for #ate/er tey can Kn+L tey/e damaged international relations y snooping on +ozens of ea+s of stateL tey/e use+ teir snooping po#ers to spy on companies li-e te >razilian oil company Detroras surely moti/ate+y in+ustrial espionage, rater tan teir state+ HustiKcation of .Kgting terrorism.6L tey/e undermined

encryption tech nology % en+angering te security of *nancial transactionsL an+tey/e compelled countless 2S based technology companies to /iolate te pri/acy of teir o#n customers an+ to build backdoors

te most +amning element of all from an American perspecti/e6 is te extraordinary amount ofdamage te NSA a/e +one to te reputation of 2S technology companies,

millions of customers are turned o1 the idea of investing in uggy, insecure an+spy#are la+en pro+ucts from 1S companies


19/26


20/26

;inear 4ction". (rameork + e get the e1ects of the plan and the neg gets

the status Buo or a competitive policy optionQ best for fairness

because there are an in*nite of philosophical ideas e have to

research and education because its key to learning about the

actual topic.

'. =erm G do the plan and the alternative +

a. the to aren’t mutually exclusive + the plan text doesn’t

necessitate linear predictions + their contradicting reps ith

this J and T means e should be able to sever our reps too

b. their evidence doesn’t say linear predictions cause

extinction5 it 0ust says that complex predictions solve

extinction + no D4s to the perm.

-. =rioritiKation of theoretical constructs over problemGdriven

approaches causes policy paralysisOwen 02 [ (a/i+ O#en, ?ea+er of Dolitical Teory at te 1ni/$ of Soutampton, Millennium Qol &) No & 2002 p$

'**%6

Commenting on te \pilosopical turn in I?, =]/er remar-s tat \^a_ frenzy for #or+s li-eEepistemologyF an+ EontologyF often signals tis pilosopical turn, altoug e goes on tocomment tat tese terms are often use+ loosely$@ ;o#e/er, loosely +eploye+ or not, it is clear tat +eatesconcerning ontology an+ epistemology play a central role in te contemporary I? teory #ars$ In one respect,tis is unsurprising since it is a caracteristic feature of te social sciences tat perio+s of +isciplinary+isorientation in/ol/e recourse to reection on te pilosopical commitments of +ierent teoreticalapproaces, an+ tere is no +out tat suc reection can play a /aluale role in ma-ing explicit te

commitments tat caracterise an+ elp in+i/i+uate6 +i/erse teoretical positions$ et, suc apilosopical turn is not #itout its +angers an+ I #ill riey mention tree efore turning to consi+era confusion tat as, I #ill suggest, elpe+ to promote te I? teory #ars y moti/ating tis pilosopical turn$

Te Krst +anger #it te pilosopical turn is tat it as an inuilt ten+ency to prioritise issues ofontology an+ epistemology o/er explanatory an+"or interpreti/e po#er as if te latter t#o#ere merely a simple function of te former$ >ut #ile te explanatory an+"or interpreti/epo#er of a teoretical account is not #olly in+epen+ent of its ontological an+"or epistemologicalcommitments oter#ise criticism of tese features #oul+ not e a criticism tat a+ any /alue6, it is y no

means clear tat it is, in contrast, #olly +epen+ent on tese pilosopical commitments $ Tus,for example, one nee+ not e sympatetic to rational coice teory to recognise tat it can pro/i+e po#erfulaccounts of certain -in+s of prolems, suc as te trage+y of te commons in #ic +ilemmas of collecti/e

action are foregroun+e+$ It may, of course, e te case tat te a+/ocates of rational coiceteory cannot gi/e a goo+ account of #y tis type of teory is po#erful in accounting for tis

class of prolems i$e$, o# it is tat te rele/ant actors come to exiit features in tese circumstances tatapproximate te assumptions of rational coice teory6 an+, if tis is te case, it is a pilosopical#ea-ness8ut tis +oes not un+ermine te point tat, for a certain class of prolems,rational coice teory may pro/i+e te est account a/ailale to us$ In oter #or+s, #ilete critical Hu+gement of teoretical accounts in terms of teir ontological an+"orepistemological sopistication is one -in+ of critical Hu+gement, it is not te only or e/ennecessarily te most important -in+$ Te secon+ +anger run y te pilosopical turn is tatecause prioritisation of ontology an+ epistemology promotes teory%construction frompilosopical Krst principles, it culti/ates a teory%+ri/en rater tan prolem%+ri/en


21/26

approac to I? $ Daraprasing Ian Sapiro, te point can e put li-e tis! since it is te case tat tereis al#ays a plurality of possile true +escriptions of a gi/en action , e/ent or penomenon,te callenge is to +eci+e #ic is te most apt in terms of getting a perspicuous grip onte action, e/ent or penomenon in uestion gi/en te purposes of te inuiryL yet, fromtis stan+point, \ teory%+ri/en #or- is part of a re+uctionist program in tat it \+ictatesal#ays opting for te +escription tat calls for te explanation tat o#s from te

preferre+ mo+el or teory$* Te HustiKcation oere+ for tis strategy rests on te mista-enelief tat it is necessary for social science ecause general explanations are reuire+ tocaracterise te classes of penomena stu+ie+ in similar terms$ ;o#e/er, as Sapiro points out,tis is to misun+erstan+ te enterprise of science since \#eter tere are generalexplanations for classes of penomena is a uestion for social%scientiKc inuiry, not to epreHu+ge+ efore con+ucting tat inuiry$' Moreo/er, tis strategy easily slips into tepromotion of te pursuit of generality o/er tat of empirical /ali+ity $ Te tir+ +anger istat te prece+ing t#o comine to encourage te formation of a particular image of+isciplinary +eate in I?8#at migt e calle+ only sligtly tongue in cee-6 \te;iglan+er /ie#8namely, an image of #arring teoretical approaces #it eac, +espiteoccasional temporary tactical alliances, +e+icate+ to te strategic acie/ement of so/ereignty o/er te

+isciplinary Kel+$ It encourages tis /ie# ecause the turn to, an+ prioritisation of, ontology an+

epistemology stimulates te i+ea tat tere can only e one teoretical approac #icgets tings rigt, namely, te teoretical approac tat gets its ontology an+epistemology rigt$ Tis image fee+s ac- into I? exacerating te Krst an+ secon++angers, an+ so a potentially /icious circle arises$

#. J links to itself + their impact card predicts the threats in

the future that complexity can solve. They also even concede

in crossGex that the impact ould result from passing the a1.

This is a linear mode of thought that you should re0ect the

argument because of.

C. TurnRre0ecting strategic predictions of threats makes them

inevitableRdecision makers ill rely on preconceived

conceptions of threat rather than the more Buali*ed

predictions of analysts(itKsimmons LE ^Micael, =asington (C +efense analyst, ETe Drolem of 1ncertainty in StrategicDlanningF, Sur/i/al, =inter 0'%0, online_

>ut an+ling e/en tis #ea-er form of uncertainty is still uite calleng% ing$ If not suciently oun+e+, aig +egree of /ariaility in planning factors can exact a signiKcant price on

planning$ The complexity presented by great

variability strains the cognitive abilities of even

the most sophisticated decisionG makers$)* An+ e/en a roust+ecision%ma-ing process sensiti/e to cogniti/e limitations necessarily sacriKces +ept of analysis for rea+t as

/ariaility an+ complexity gro#s$ It soul+ follo#, ten, tat in planning un+er con+itions of ris-,/ariaility in strategic calculation soul+ e carefully tailore+ to a/ailale analytican+ +ecision processes$ =y is tis important4 =at arm can an imalance et#een complexity an+cogniti/e or analytic capacity in strategic planning ring4 State+ simply, #ere analysis is silent orina+euate, te personal eliefs of +ecision%ma-ers Kll te /oi+ $ As political scientist?icar+ >etts foun+ in a stu+y of strategic sur% prise, in \an en/ironment tat lac-s clarity, aoun+s


22/26

#it conicting +ata, an+ allo#s no time for rigorous assessment of sources an+/ali+ity, amiguity allo#s intuition or #isfulness to +ri/e interpretation $$$ Tegreater te amiguity, te greater te impact of preconceptions$)' Te +ecision%ma-ingen/ironment tat >etts +escries ere is one of political%military crisis, not long%term strategic planning$ >ut astrategist #o sees uncertainty as te central fact of is en/iron% ment rings upon imself

some of te patologies of crisis +ecision%ma-ing $ ;e in/ites amiguity, ta-esconicting +ata for grante+ an+ sustitutes a priori scepticism aout te /ali+ity ofpre+iction for time pressure as a rationale for +iscounting te importance of analyticrigour$ It is important not to exaggerate te extent to #ic +ata an+ \rigorous assessment can illuminatestrategic coices$ Amiguity is a fact of life, an+ scepticism of analysis is necessary$ Accor+ingly, te intuition an+ Hu+gement of +ecision%ma-ers #ill al#ays e /ital to strategy, an+ attempting to suor+inate tose factors to someformulaic, +eterministic +ecision%ma-ing mo+el #oul+ e ot un+esirale an+ unrealistic$ All te same, tere is

+anger in te opposite extreme as #ell$ =itout careful analysis of #at is relati/ely li-ely an+

#at is relati/ely unli-ely, #at #ill e te possile ases for strategic coices4 4

decisionGmaker ith no faith in prediction is left

ith little more tan a set of #orst%case scenarios an+ his existing beliefs

about the orld to confront te coices efore im$ Tose eliefs may e more orless #ell foun+e+, ut if tey are not ma+e explicit an+ suHect to analysis an++eate regar+ing teir application to particular strategic contexts, tey remain onlyeliefs an+ premises, rater tan rational Hu+gements $ 3/en at teir est, suc+ecisions are li-ely to e poorly un+erstoo+ y te organisations carge+ #it teirimplementation $ At teir #orst, suc +ecisions may e poorly un+erstoo+ y te +ecision%ma-ers temsel/es$

. The alt fails + there’s no ay to take into account every

single factor that goes into things like our advantages + our

authors are Buali*ed and get their data from a variety of

sources G good should be good enough.E. The bystander e1ect creates complacency in face of dangerQ

individuals stare froKen5 ithout their autonomy to act against

atrocities. This makes extinction inevitable as individuals

refuse to take action. Audkosky LF % ?esearc Pello# at te Singularity Institute for ArtiKcial Intelligence 3liezer, ECogniti/eiases potentially aecting Hu+gment of gloal ris-sF, peer e+ite+ y te Singularity Institute,ttp!""singularity$org"Kles"Cogniti/e>iases$p+f6My last ias comes, not from te Kel+ of euristics an+ iases, ut from te Kel+ of social psycology$ A no#%famous

series of experiments y


23/26

tis ypotesis is a++uce+ from manipulations in #ic suHects elie/e tat te /ictim isespecially +epen+ent on temL tis re+uces te ystan+er eect or negates itentirely$ Cial+ini 200)6 recommen+s tat if you are e/er in an emergency, you single out onesingle ystan+er, an+ as-tat person to el p8terey o/ercoming te +iusion$Dluralistic ignorance is a more sutle eect $ Cial+ini 200)6 #rites! Qery often an emergency is noto/iously an emergency$ Is te man lying in te alley a eart%attac- /ictim or a +run- sleeping one o4 $ $ $ In times

of suc uncertainty, te natural ten+ency is to loo- aroun+ at te actions of oters forclues$ =e can learn from te #ay te oter #itnesses are reacting #eter tee/ent is or is not an emergency$ =at is easy to forget, toug, is tat e/eryo+yelse oser/ing te e/ent is li-ely to e loo-ing for social e/i+ence, too$>ecause #eall prefer to appear poise+ an+ unustere+ among oters, #e are li-ely to searc fortat e/i+ence placi+ly, #it rief , camouage+ glances at tose aroun+ us $

Terefore e/eryone is li-ely to see e/eryone else loo-ing unruYe+ an+ failing to act $ Te ystan+er eect is not aout in+i/i+ual selKsness, or insensiti/ity to te suering of oters$ Alone suHects +o

usually act$ Dluralistic ignorance can explain, an+ in+i/i+ual selKsness cannot explain, suHectsfailing to react to a room Klling up #it smo-e$ In experiments in/ol/ing apparent +angers to eiter oters orte self , suHects place+ #it nonreacti/e confe+erates freuently glance at te

nonreacti/e confe+erates$ I am sometimes as-e+! EIf existential ris- W is real, #y arent more people〈 〉+oing someting aout it4F Tere are many possile ans#ers, a fe# of #ic I a/e touce+ on ere$ Deoplemay e o/erconK+ent an+ o/er%optimistic$ Tey may focus on o/erly speciKcscenarios for te future, to te exclusion of all oters$ Tey may not recall any past extinctione/ents in memory$ Tey may o/erestimate te pre+ictaility of te past, an+ enceun+erestimate te surprise of te future$ Tey may not realize te +iculty ofpreparing for emergencies #itout eneKt of in+sigt $ Tey may prefer pilantropic gamles#it iger payo proailities, neglecting te /alue of te sta-es$ Tey may conate positi/einformation aout te eneKts of a tecnology as negati/e information aout itsris-s$ Tey may e contaminate+ y mo/ies #ere te #orl+ en+s up eing sa/e+$ Tey may purcase moralsatisfaction more easily y gi/ing to oter carities$ Or te extremely unpleasant prospect of

uman extinction may spur tem to see- arguments tat umanity #ill not goextinct, #itout a n eually frantic searc for reasons #y #e #oul+$ >ut if te uestion is,speciKcally, E=y arent more people +oing someting aout it4F, one possile component is tat people areas-ing tat /ery uestion8+arting teir eyes aroun+ to see if anyone else isreacting to te emergency, mean#ile trying to appear poise+ an+ unustere+$ Ifyou #ant to -no# #y oters arent respon+ing to an emergency, efore yourespon+ yourself, you may a/e Hust ans#ere+ your o#n uestion$

F. 9ven if our predictions aren’t "LLM accurate5 they are still

better than inaction and policy paralysis + our authors take

into account multiple factors and come to a conclusion based

on facts and statistics.6. 9xpert predictions and analysis is keyG good for political

action and epistemological achievementsTurner L" [ Drofessor of Dilosopy at 1 of Sout Plori+a Stepen, E=at is te prolem #it 3xperts4Faccesse+ from JSTO? on ")")26

Te ans#er to Pis is to treat te lieral principle of neutrality not as an asolute assertion aout te nature ofeliefs, ut as a core rule, #ose application /aries istorically, #ose main point is to estalis a means oforganizing te +iscussion of political matters, tat is to say te +iscussion of political +ecisions$ =e can apply tis to


24/26

te prolem of expertise as follo#s! it is no surprise tat, in or+er for tere to e genuine +iscussion in Scmitts

sense, some tings #oul+ e temporarily ta-en for fact, or, alternati/ely, some things ould be

left to the experts tosettle$ \=oliticiKing’ everything5 making

everything into the sub0ect of political decisionmaking or treating it

as an analogue to political +ecision%ma-ing6, ould lose the advantages of the

intellectual division of labour and make reasoned persuasionimpossible$ Some facts need to be taken for granted in order

for there to be genuine political discussion5 and some of the

ork of establishing the facts is5 properly, delegated to experts$In+ee+, to imagine a #orl+ in #ic suc +elegation +i+ not occur #oul+ e to imagine a simpler society, at est asociety of Jeersonian yeomen, in #ic e/eryone -ne# pretty muc #at e/eryone else -ne# tat #as rele/ant to

pulic +ecisionma-ing$ To preserve the possibility of political discussion

that such societies established5 it is essential to delegate to

experts and grant them cognitive authority$ ut the very

vigour of discussion5 and the ability of the public to make

decisions about hat claims are legitimate5 belies the image of

the liberal public as victim.


25/26

"L. =ermG do the plan and the alt in all other instancesG either

doing the alt ill be strong enough to overcome the residual

links to one instance of the plan or the alt ill be too eak to

overcome the status sBuo. ur interpretation is that e get

one intrinsic permG the purpose of a J alt is to resolve 4;; the

links since Js are nonuniBue. Jey to check Js that can never

be resolved and makes for better debates of method on

solvable problems

"". Aou read T. That is literally as linear as it gets. Aou link

back into this argument.

"'. =erm do the alt and then the a1 + there is no seBuencing

disad to doing the a1 after the alt

"-. extinction *rst

8apner - Daul, Associate Drofessor an+ (irector of te loal 3n/ironmentalDolicy Drogram [ American 1ni/ersity, Eutisnt mastery exactly #at postmo+ernism is exerting as it captures te nonuman #orl+ #itin its o#nconceptual +omain4 (oesnt postmo+ern cultural criticism +eepen te mo+ernist urge to#ar+ masteryy eliminating te ontological #eigt of te nonuman #orl+4 =at else coul+ it mean to assert tattere is no suc ting as nature4 I a/e alrea+y suggeste+ te postmo+ernist response! yes,recognizing te social construction of .nature. +oes +eny te self%expression of te nonuman #orl+,

ut o# #oul+ #e -no# #at suc self%expression means4 In+ee+, nature +oesnt spea-L rater, someperson al#ays spea-s on natures ealf, an+ #ate/er tat person says is, as #e all -no#, a socialconstruction$ All attempts to listen to nature are social constructions%except one$ 3/en te most ra+ical

postmo+ernist must ac-no#le+ge te +istinction et#een pysical existence an+ non%existence$ As Ia/e sai+, postmodernists accept that there is a physical substratum to the phenomenal world e/en iftey argue aout te +ierent meanings #e ascrie to it$ This acknowledgment of physical existence is crucial. We can't ascribe meaning to that which doesn't appear . =at +oesntexist can manifest no caracter$ Dut +ierently, yes, te postmo+ernist soul+rigtly #orry aout interpreting natures expressions$ An+ all of us soul+ e #ary of tose #o claim to spea- on natures ealf inclu+ing en/ironmentalists #o +otat6$ >ut we need not doubt the simple idea that a prerequisite of expression is existence$ Tis inturn suggests tat preserving the nonuman world%in all its +i/erse emo+iments%must beseen y eco%critics as a fundamental good$ 3co%critics must be supporters, in some fasion, of en/ironmental preservation$ Dostmo+ernists reHect te i+ea of a uni/ersal goo+$ Tey rigtlyac-no#le+ge te +iculty of i+entifying a common /alue gi/en te multiple contexts of our /alue%pro+ucing acti/ity$ In fact, if tere is one ting tey /eemently scorn, it is te i+ea tat tere can e a/alue tat stan+s ao/e te in+i/i+ual contexts of uman experience$ Suc a /alue #oul+ presentitself as a metanarrati/e an+, as Jean%Pranbois


26/26

constructe+ uality of uman experience an+ te +angers of reiKcation, postmo+ernism inerentlya+/ances an etic of respecting te .oter$. At te /ery least, respect must in/ol/e ensuring tat te.oter. actually continues to exist$ In our +ay an+ age, tis reuires us to ta-e responsiility forprotecting te actuality of te nonuman$ Instea+, o#e/er, #e are running rougso+ o/er teearts +i/ersity of plants, animals, an+ ecosystems$ Dostmo+ern critics soul+ Kn+ tis particularly+isturing$ If tey +ont, tey +eny teir o#n intellectual insigts an+ compromise teir fun+amentalmoral commitment$ NO=, =;AT +oes tis mean for politics an+ policy, an+ te future of te

en/ironmental mo/ement4 Society is constantly eing as-e+ to a++ress uestions of en/ironmentaluality for #ic tere are no easy ans#ers$ As #e #restle #it callenges of gloal climate cange,ozone +epletion, loss of iological +i/ersity, an+ so fort, #e nee+ to consi+er te economic, political,cultural, an+ aestetic /alues at sta-e$ Tese consi+erations a/e tra+itionally mar-e+ te politics ofen/ironmental protection$ A sensiti/ity to eco%criticism reuires tat #e go furter an+ inclu+e an eticof oterness in our +elierations$ Tat is, #e nee+ to e mo/e+ y our concern to ma-e room for te

.oter. an+ ence fol+ a commitment to te nonuman #orl+ into our policy +iscussions$ I +ontmean tat tis argument soul+ +ri/e all our actions or tat respect for the "other" soul+ al#ays carry te +ay$ >ut it must be a central part of our reflections and calculations. Forexample as we estimate te numer of people tat a certain area can sustain,consi+er #at to +o aout climate cange, debate restrictions on ocean Ksing, oroter#ise assess the effects of a particular course of action we must think about the lives of other

creatures on te eart%and also te continued existence of te nonli/ing pysical #orl+$ Wemust do so not ecause #e #is to maintain #at is .natural. ut because we wish to act ina morally respectable manner $

"#. %ase is a D4 to the alt + xtn ould result from both

advantages and conceded ;ieber evidence on eg scenario

means that if e don’t do the a1 multiple escalatory conHicts

result like arms races and economic crises.

2AC vs Tortilla Boy

Documents

Transcript of 2AC vs Tortilla Boy