Case

1AR AT No ! Heg
There is an impact to hegemony U.S. hegemony prevents great power wars,
miscalculation, and aggression, and creates interdependence and ties thats Thayer.
1AR AT No ! China Taiwan War
There is an impact to a China Taiwan war If China pushes out the U.S. it will attack
Taiwan, and encourage Latin America to stop aiding the U.S. in deterrence efforts.
The war goes nuclear thats Lowther
1AR AT influence inevitable
Chinese influence isnt inevitable U.S. influence will fall, but we still hold 50 percent
of the trade in Latin America.
1AR AT No ! Protectionism
Conceded protectionism - collapse of free trade eliminates cooperation and blockades
interaction, causing war thats Pazner
K
1AR Case Outweighs
The case outweighs 3 scenarios for extinction in the short term - makes their impacts
inev w/o the plan all their offense is predicated off a world in which we reconstruct
the US-Mexican border more access roads allows less congestion at security
checkpoints which solves the social conception of the border as an impermeable
barrier and allow interaction and understanding
Case turns the K not the other way around 1AC Pazner and Thayer indicates that
trade removes incentives for war 1AC Cisneros and Trujillos indicates that a free
market system on Cuba is comparatively better than the squo it promotes social
equality and creates better living conditions also makes democracy promotion
effective and permanent
1AR Ext. Neolib Breaks Barriers
We break barriers Our reps incentivizes interaction around the globe, which breaks
barriers. It also allows every individual the freedom to control his/her capital
theyve conceded social mobility is only possible in a world in which we encourage
free trade and can break these social geographical constructs we construct a
worldview of Cuba as a global trading partner not a bunch of dirty Commies
1AR No Root Cause
No root cause at worst the alt cant overcome the inherent root cause of greed at
best the K is just a non-unique observation about our internal links
1AR No SPF
1AR AT: Floating PIK
1AR Youre RACIST!
We solve the implications to racism we need to win that the way we frame the
Cubans is productive 1AC Cisneros and Trujillos indicates the Cubans would be global
partners in all forms of international relations current US policy props up the same
racist dominant forms of discourse that they criticize the 1AC is a shift away from
that
The free market emphasis on efficiency eliminates racial incentives
Friedman 02(Milton Friedman, senior research fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Paul Snowden Russel Distinguished
Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago, Awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics 1976, Member of President
Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board starting at 1981, received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science,
Capitalism and Freedom Fortieth Anniversary Edition, Page 109 -110, 2002, RLA)

As pointed out in chapter i, one of the paradoxes of experience is that, in spite of this historical evidence, it is precisely the minority groups that
have frequently furnished the most vocal and most numerous advocates of fundamental alterations in a capitalist society. They have tended
to attribute to capitalism the residual restrictions they experience rather than to recognize that the free market has been the major factor
enabling these restrictions to be as small as they are. We have already seen how a free market separates economic
efficiency from irrelevant characteristics. As noted in chapter I, the purchaser of bread does not know whether it was made
from wheat grown by a white man or a Negro, by a Christian or a Jew. In consequence, the producer of wheat is in a position to use resources
as effectively as he can, regardless of what the attitudes of the community may be toward the color, the religion, or other characteristics of
people he hires. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, there is an economic incentive in a free market to
separate economic efficiency from other characteristics of the individual. A businessman or an
entrepreneur who expresses preferences in his business activities that are not related to productive
efficiency is at a disadvantage compared to other individuals who do not. Such an individual is in effect
imposing higher costs on himself than are other individuals who do not have such preferences. Here
in a free market they will tend to drive him out. This same phenomenon is of much wider scope. It is often taken for
granted that the person who discriminates against others because of their race, religion, or color, or whatever, incurs no cost by doing so but
simply imposes costs on others. This view is on a par with the very similar fallacy that a country does not hurt itself by imposing tariffs on the
products of other countries. Both are equally wrong. The man who objects to buying from or working alongside a
Negro, for example, thereby limits his range of choice. He will generally have to pay a higher price for
what he buys or receive a low return for his work. Or, put the other way, those of us who regard color of skin or religion as
irrelevant can buy things more cheaply as a result.
Theres no alternative to Neoliberalism, other systems would worsen income
inequality.

1AR Ext. Framework
A few conceded disads to their framework
a. Focusing on theory prevents us from engaging in politics policymaking is the
only way to bring effective change only way to access real world education
b. Conceded the judge is a rational policymaker RTB is to vote for the team with
the best policy option solves innovative education
Focus on linguistic semantics obscures the emancipatory potential of the 1AC
Brown 1
[Wendy Brown, professor at UC-Berkeley, 2001 Politics Out of History, p. 35-36]
Speech codes kill critique, Henry Louis Gates remarked in a 1993 essay on hate speech.Although Gates was referring to what happens
when hate speech regulations, and the debates about them, usurp the discursive space in which one might have offered a
substantive political response to bigoted epithets, his point also applies to prohibitions against questioning from within selected political
practices or institutions.But turning political questions into moralistic onesas speech codes of any sort donot only
prohibits certain questions and mandates certain genuflections,it also expresses a profound hostility toward political
lifeinsofar as it seeks to preempt argument with a legislative and enforced truth.And the realization of that patently
undemocratic desire can only and always convert emancipatory aspirations into reactionary ones.Indeed, it insulates those aspirations
from questioning at the very moment that Weberian forces of rationality and bureaucratization are quite likely to be domesticating them
from another direction.Here we greet a persistent political paradox:the moralistic defense of critical practices, or of any besieged
identity, weakens what it strives to fortify precisely by sequestering those practices from the kind of critical inquiry out of which they
were born.Thus Gates might have said, Speech codes, born of social critique, kill critique.And, we might add, contemporary identity-
based institutions, born of social critique, invariably become conservative as they are forced to essentialize the identity and naturalize
the boundaries of what they once grasped as a contingent effect of historically specific social powers. Butmoralistic reproaches to
certain kinds of speech or argument kill critique not only by displacing it with arguments about abstract rights versus
identity-bound injuries, but also by configuring political injustice and political righteousness as a problem of remarks,
attitude, and speech rather than as a matter of historical, political-economic, and cultural formations of power.Rather than
offering analytically substantive accounts of the forces of injustice or injury, they condemn the manifestation of these forces in particular
remarks or events.There is, in the inclination to ban(formally or informally) certain utterances and to mandate others, a politics of
rhetoric and gesture that itself symptomizes despair over effecting change at more significant levels.As vast quantities of left and liberal
attention go to determining what socially marked individuals say, how they are represented, and how many of each kind appear in
certain institutions or are appointed to various commissions, the sources that generate racism, poverty, violence against
women, and other elements of social injustice remain relatively unarticulated and unaddressed.We are lost as how to address
those sources; but rather than examine this loss or disorientation, rather than bear the humiliation of our impotence, we posture as if we
were still fighting the big and good fight in our clamor over words and names.Dont mourn, moralize
Policy analysis should precede discourse most effective way to challenge power
Taft-Kaufman 95
Jill Taft-Kaufman, Speech prof @ CMU, 1995, Southern Comm. Journal, Spring, v. 60, Iss. 3, Other
Ways, p pq

The postmodern passwords of "polyvocality," "Otherness," and "difference," unsupported by
substantial analysis of the concrete contexts of subjects, creates a solipsistic quagmire. The
political sympathies of the new cultural critics, with their ostensible concern for the lack of power experienced by marginalized people,
aligns them with the political left. Yet, despite their adversarial posture and talk of opposition, their
discourses on intertextuality and inter-referentiality isolate them from and ignore the
conditions that have produced leftist politics--conflict, racism, poverty, and injustice. In short, as
Clarke (1991) asserts, postmodern emphasis on new subjects conceals the old subjects, those who have limited access to good jobs, food,
housing, health care, and transportation, as well as to the media that depict them. Merod (1987) decries this situation as one which
leaves no vision, will, or commitment to activism. He notes that academic lip service to the oppositional is
underscored by the absence of focused collective or politically active intellectual communities. Provoked by the academic manifestations
of this problem Di Leonardo (1990) echoes Merod and laments: Has there ever been a historical era
characterized by as little radical analysis or activism and as much radical-chic writing as
ours? Maundering on about Otherness: phallocentrism or Eurocentric tropes has become a
lazy academic substitute for actual engagement with the detailed histories and
contemporary realities of Western racial minorities, white women, or any Third World population. (p. 530) Clarke's
assessment of the postmodern elevation of language to the "sine qua non" of critical discussion is
an even stronger indictment against the trend. Clarke examines Lyotard's (1984) The Postmodern Condition in
which Lyotard maintains that virtually all social relations are linguistic, and, therefore, it is through the coercion that threatens speech
that we enter the "realm of terror" and society falls apart. To this assertion, Clarke replies: I can think of few more
striking indicators of the political and intellectual impoverishment of a view of society that
can only recognize the discursive. If the worst terror we can envisage is the threat not to be
allowed to speak, we are appallingly ignorant of terror in its elaborate contemporary forms.
It may be the intellectual's conception of terror (what else do we do but speak?), but its projection onto
the rest of the world would be calamitous....(pp. 2-27) The realm of the discursive is derived from the
requisites for human life, which are in the physical world, rather than in a world of ideas or
symbols.(4) Nutrition, shelter, and protection are basic human needs that require collective activity for their fulfillment.
Postmodern emphasis on the discursive without an accompanying analysis of how the
discursive emerges from material circumstances hides the complex task of envisioning and
working towards concrete social goals (Merod, 1987). Although the material conditions that create the situation of
marginality escape the purview of the postmodernist, the situation and its consequences are not overlooked by scholars from
marginalized groups. Robinson (1990) for example, argues that "the justice that working people deserve is
economic, not just textual" (p. 571). Lopez (1992) states that "the starting point for organizing the
program content of education or political action must be the present existential, concrete
situation" (p. 299). West (1988) asserts that borrowing French post-structuralist discourses about "Otherness" blinds us to realities
of American difference going on in front of us (p. 170). Unlike postmodern "textual radicals" who Rabinow (1986) acknowledges are
"fuzzy about power and the realities of socioeconomic constraints" (p. 255), most writers from marginalized groups are clear about how
discourse interweaves with the concrete circumstances that create lived experience. People whose lives form the
material for postmodern counter-hegemonic discourse do not share the optimism over the
new recognition of their discursive subjectivities, because such an acknowledgment does not
address sufficiently their collective historical and current struggles against racism, sexism,
homophobia, and economic injustice. They do not appreciate being told they are living in a
world in which there are no more real subjects. Ideas have consequences. Emphasizing the
discursive self when a person is hungry and homeless represents both a cultural and
humane failure. The need to look beyond texts to the perception and attainment of concrete
social goals keeps writers from marginalized groups ever-mindful of the specifics of how
power works through political agendas, institutions, agencies, and the budgets that fuel them.

Only the perm solves challenging representations without challenging institutional
forms of domination furthers oppression
Tuathail 96 Prof in the Department of Geography at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
(Gearoid, Political Geography, 15(6-7), 664)

While theoretical debates at academic conferences are important to academics, the discourse and
concerns of foreign-policy decision- makers are quite different, so different that they constitute a
distinctive problem- solving, theory-averse, policy-making subculture. There is a danger that academics
assume that the discourses they engage are more significant in the practice of foreign policy and
the exercise of power than they really are. This is not, however, to minimize the obvious importance of academia as a
general institutional structure among many that sustain certain epistemic communities in particular states. In general, I do not disagree
with Dalbys fourth point about politics and discourse except to note that his statement-Precisely because reality could
be represented in particular ways political decisions could be taken, troops and material moved and war fought-evades
the important question of agency that I noted in my review essay. The assumption that it is representations
that make action possible is inadequate by itself. Political, military and economic structures,
institutions, discursive networks and leadership are all crucial in explaining social action and
should be theorized together with representational practices. Both here and earlier, Dalbys reasoning inclines
towards a form of idealism. In response to Dalbys fifth point (with its three subpoints), it is worth noting, first, that his book is about the
CPD, not the Reagan administration. He analyzes certain CPD discourses, root the geographical reasoning practices of the Reagan
administration nor its public-policy reasoning on national security. Dalbys book is narrowly textual; the general contextuality of the
Reagan administration is not dealt with. Second, let me simply note that I find that the distinction between critical theorists and post-
structuralists is a little too rigidly and heroically drawn by Dalby and others. Third, Dalbys interpretation of the reconceptualization of
national security in Moscow as heavily influenced by dissident peace researchers in Europe is highly idealist, an interpretation that
ignores the structural and ideological crises facing the Soviet elite at that time. Gorbachevs reforms and his new security discourse were
also strongly self- interested, an ultimately futile attempt to save the Communist Party and a discredited regime of power from
disintegration. The issues raised by Simon Dalby in his comment are important ones for all those interested in the practice of critical
geopolitics. While I agree with Dalby that questions of discourse are extremely important ones for political geographers to engage,
there is a danger of fetishizing this concern with discourse so that we neglect the institutional and
the sociological, the materialist and the cultural, the political and the geographical contexts within
which particular discursive strategies become significant. Critical geopolitics, in other words, should not be a
prisoner of the sweeping ahistorical cant that sometimes accompanies poststructuralism nor convenient reading strategies like the
identity politics narrative; it needs to always be open to the patterned mess that is human history.

1AR Ext Alt Doesnt Solve (Reject Criticism)
The alternative doesnt solve
a) No USFG or liberalization of trade doesnt solve same reps that other
countries use to justify neoliberalism
b) No alternative to the system capitalism is self-sustaining
c) And criticizing neoliberalism reinforces the status quo
1AR Ext. Alt Doesnt Solve (Reject 1AC)
Rejecting the 1AC does nothing
a. Neoliberalism is an inherent part of much of US foreign policy justifies perm
do the plan and reject neolib in all other instances
b. Conceded 2AC cede the political they reject political action which makes their
impacts inevitable policymaking is coopted by the militaristic right which
ensures systemic violence and turns SPF
c. No USFG or liberalization of trade doesnt solve same reps/language that
other countries use to justify neoliberalism
d. Their alt literally is an observation of history
e. Alt cant resolve its own impacts
1AR Ext Perm Do Both
Extend perm do both the plan and resist imperialist/colonialist discourse. Ours is a
system of voluntary exchange not coercion and dominance no reason why trade
specifically gets coopted hes not reading any standards to severance
1AR Perm Double Bind + Intrinsic Perm
Theres a perm double bind either the perm solves or the alt cant overcome the
residual links to the aff if the alt can overcome an entire economic system, theres
no reason why the perm fails
Even if they win a link we only need to win that the plan solves the impacts to the
kritik to win the permutation 1AC Cisneros and Trujillos indicates that the plan
promotes social equality and democracy by establishing free markets in Cuba we
solve structural violence poverty is rooted in economic failure means the plan
solves
Our 2AC evidence indicates that there is a profit incentive not to harm the economy
green solutions are being sold on a market economy in the squo extend perm do the
plan and reject neoliberalism in all other instances hes conceding that the case
outweighs and turns the K heg is the only way to solve for all the short term
extinction scenarios that means the only way that the alt can even be considered is
after the plan no structural violence if everyones dead