Obligatory overview:

1. We’ll concede god doesn’t exist. All of the turns in the 2nr on the god flow are irrelevant if God
doesn’t exist. The only argument that matters on this portion of the debate is the choices debate
– the 2nr concedes that under TANF people are not allowed to practice any way of life other than
the one that is prescribed to them which means that unless there is an aff ballot humanism is
null. Humanism is an advantage to the aff

2. The apology – my opponent says that calling Claudia Von Werlhof a man is acceptable as long
as my opponent apologizes. Cross apply the apology for the aff, we apologize for saying ‘he’ and
use of masculine language. Either you buy the apology and vote aff automatically or the neg
links to the K and you still vote aff.

3. The 2nr drops perm do both: literally the only thing the neg says on the perm is the ‘he’ link.
Cross apply the apology here and extend perm: do both. Even if you don’t let the aff get an
apology perm: do both solves back because it incorporates the negs apology along with the aff.
There is no explanation in the 2nr as to how we re-entrench patriarchy, the 2nr also concedes as
to how the permutation solves:
We demand that the usfg increase welfare as a universal entitlement for the dispossessed and
reject power knowledge constructions. This solves back for the entirety of the K because the only
impact is epistemology the rejection of power-knowledge by the permutation means that we get
the best of both worlds – no cooption ev is extended. No theory on perm do both means you vote
aff immediately.

4. Case outweighs the entirety of the kritik:

A. Biopolitics – The 2nr concedes that the current welfare system is the definition of biopolitical
managerialism. The caseworker-recipient relationship is the modern face of disciplinary power
and the acceptance and denial is the ultimate example of the sovereign power over life. Welfare
queens are left in the slums to die because they have been determined to be detrimental to
society and ‘stealing’ the money of the upper class. Women are forced into abusive relationships
in order to feed their kids, they are forced to give up their identity and anything personal to the
caseworker, and the system incentivizes male dominance over women. The aff stops this
through the end of these invasive requirements and by making welfare a universal entitlement.
This is a conceded impact scenario throughout the entirety of the debate.
B. Neoliberalism – Von werlhof is not talking about patriarchy being the root cause of modern
capitalism and the 2nr doesn’t explain how the distinction from the 1ar doesn’t apply – Von
werlhof specifically indicates that there is a distinction between capitalism and patriarchy as
capitalism and neoliberalism have caused more atrocities that are not fueled just by patriarchy.
The 2nr root cause extensions without warrants are denied upon closer examination of the
evidence, stating that “the creation of a “world system” that replaces the former “empires”” is a
difference from cap and patriarchy. (read the 1ar for the rest of the quote). Neoliberalism has
caused countless genocides and atrocities that have caused the instability of the world today,
the K can’t solve because knowledge production is only one part of the neoliberal paradigm,
prefer the perm on this.

Also, 5, the 2nr doesn’t extend an external impact to patriarchy, just ‘oppression,’ which the aff
obviously solves back for in enormous quantities.

Line by line:

1. The reps first argument gets the neg nowhere. In cross-x the neg failed to specify which reps
of the aff were being kritiked, just saying “the 1nc ev says the aff is bad.” And also this argument
makes no logical sense: scrutiny doesn’t take place before something is in existence. K doesn’t
outweigh, no warrants explaining how it does. Von werlhof flows aff, that’s above.

2 & 3. I’m pretty sure patriarchy is bad, don’t know why it is suddenly good now . The 2nr
concedes the explanation of how the aff things the world should be: men and women should be
equal. In the world of the K, the neg attempts to speak for women and use their oppression for
the negs own gain, and this is patriarchial.
4. Extend perm do both, analysis is above.

6. Cool story, puts you in a double bind:

Either the aff asks the feminist question already per the resemblance to picquateros or the neg is
empirically denied because of the picquateros

7. Conceded you vote aff against the fem K. It may be an argument but no one cares about it
outside of the round, thus you vote aff because people care about the aff.

8. This argument is turned by the aff and links to the k:

A. the K is a knowledge production per this explanation
B. The biopolitics explanation from the overview shows how women are exploited by the system
now. Only the aff solves this mentality

10. This means the aff solves better because it is a demand against all of those power structures.

11. lolwut? Still no explanation and now no grammurz.

12. The 2nr misses the boat on the argument – patriarchy may have lead to early capitalism but
the way capitalism has evolved to neoliberalism is not a result of patriarchy. Removing the
patriarchial concepts from thousands of years ago will not stop the crisis now. Cross apply the
analysis from the overview to here. His “lol you dropped my unwarranted extrapolation!
Winskiez!” argument is nonsense. His extrapolation is not warranted at all and makes no sense
when the idea is tested. Patriarchy isn’t why people want territory. The 2nr has no reason why it
is.

13. The 2nr has no evidence extension nor an explanation of why we don’t solve back for lots of
oppression. Also, oppression of over 4 billion men and women > oppression of 200,000 feminists
who have this dumb idea that women deserve to be better than men in every instance. It’s a
simple calculation. This isn’t to say that oppression of women is bad and that men are the best,
but rather saying that we should be moving towards equality, not matriarchy. All arguments that
contradict this are sexist and matriarchial.

14. lol winskies!!!1 cross apply overview here

15. concede perm do the alt doesn’t make any sense – proves the alt cant’ solve for case. Reject
perm do the alt, not the team . Theory here doesn’t apply to perm do both since it doesn’t sever
any part of the alt or demand.

16. concessions don’t mean you win the debate unless you explain them – there is no
explanation as to why doing nothing is better than asking the feminist question. Assume all of
the aff arguments are true due to lack of warrants by the neg.
17. The aff does through the equalization of gender from welfare as a universal entitlement. No
ev says we need to ask the fem question before welfare.

18. no. I’m not a moving target. The demand is in the form of a social movement that demands
equality through welfare. The pinkus and giorgi evidence, along with the mccluskey evidence
indicate that the picquatero movement worked by stopping politics.
These quotes explain:
“The first piquetes in the mid-'90s took place on national highways in the provinces of Neuquén
and Salta.5 Later the methodology migrated to the cities and to the other provinces, where the
protestors blocked key access to and from the cities, as well as central avenues and significant urban sites. Piqueteros'
methodology of protest, as much as their very existence as a political force, is thus a contestation of
the new political distributions of space, and of the very notion of "public space" in the context of increasing privatization and
zoning of "safe areas," as well as of violent containment of "dangerous" individuals and populations in controlled areas”

And the definition of solvency:

By interrupting streets and routes, by disrupting the public order of the city,7 pique-teros bring back
the life that has been banned and that the neoliberal city wants to contain or make invisible. But this reinscription is not only a
call to the State for jobs and social aid or to other social sectors to create new modes of solidarity, reversing their
stigmatization in the media; it is also a dislocation of the strategies of separation and confinement of bare life. The
interruption of a central avenue in the city or a national route in the provinces is a way to
prevent not only the separation and invisibility of the poor, but also to contest the territorialization of what is fundamentally
biopolitical, rendering paradoxical the territorial mappings of inclusion/exclusion, and exposing the mechanism by which
neoliberalism divides life in productive/nonproductive, healthy/unhealthy, included/residual subjects, at
the same time that it makes these distinctions vertiginously unstable and precarious

The movement solves back by forcing the state into action. At worst this means I defend multiple
actions, increasing ground for the neg. I only claim advantages based off of what happens as a
result of the demand per the 1ac. Prefer reasonability on this question, all the evidence is
specific as to how the movement works and how we attain equality.

19&20. Vote aff now. The alt says to reject knowledge production. The 2nr says the alt is
knowledge production. Reject it. Neoliberalism operates through the control of information just
like the alternative – saying we can only know about certain things and if certain questions are
asked – this is a huge link into the aff and shows why the alt can’t solve. We recognize the
suffering of ALL people, not just women. There is no impact to helping everyone as opposed to
one gender. Solves back best.

God debate: Again, nothing on the flow here has an implication for the debate except the aff
allows for humanism and god doesn’t exist. We concede bible morality is bad, I don’t go
completely by it and the current system of welfare forces a morality that is bad. Only a risk the
aff can allow for choice and freedom, regardless of religious views.