Tournament: Colleyville | Round: 5 | Opponent: Immaculate Heart ES | Judge: Levi Briajia
Indigenous Harm
(Link)
Indigenous people’s harm will be overlooked by negating the resolution. Thus I affirm to not overlook indigenous communities harms.
1}The harm Indigenous communities have faced has had a long history of being overlooked. TW mention of r*pe and racism
Johnson 20 https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/indigenous-views-christopher-columbus
Indigenous communities have been persecuted in the Americas since Christopher Columbus first came ashore on the island of Guanahani in the present-day Bahamas 528 years ago. They (We) have had their (our) land stolen, people slaughtered, enslaved, and infected with diseases, women raped, children kidnapped, treaties broken, and possessions and goods plundered and looted. There were between 5 million and 15 million Indigenous people living in North America in 1492. By the late 1800s, there were fewer than .238 left. The so-called “Age of Discovery” has begot (started) centuries of genocide. We can’t keep overlooking Indigenous harms, even when it comes to private space appropriation.
2} Smith 13 We cannot continue to overlook poc harm in the debate space. A Conversation in Ruins: Race and Black Participation in Lincoln Douglas Debate." Victory Briefs. Opinion, 6 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/9/a-conversation-in-ruins-race-and-black-participation-in-lincoln-douglas-debate. BS
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 POC 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 and do intellectual gymnastics or make up rules to accuse POC debaters of breaking to escape hard conversations but as someone who understands that experience, the only constructive strategy is to 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 issue 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 oppression is bad. Debate is not just a game, but a learning environment with liberatory potential .
3} My opponent has to overlook indigenous harms to win because by negating you cause them. This makes debate a non-safe space for indigenous people like myself.
Impacts
Private entities launching Satellites causes a cultural genocide to indigenous people.
Deondre 20 - Satellites put into space cause light pollution which affects indigenous people. In turn causing a cultural genocide.
Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logic Of (Outer) Space.” Society + Space. October 26, 2020. Web.December 11, 2021. https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-ofouter-space.
Mega Constellations of Satellites is Colonization The launch of Starlink by SpaceX has had a dramatic and damaging impact on research in astronomy and astrophysics (Clery 2020, Kocifaj 2021). These satellites have added to the (high) amount of light pollution and future satellite constellations could have far greater impact depending on the legal requirements and the purpose of those satellites. Hamacher et al (2020) presented a compelling argument that light pollution is a form of cultural genocide (please note that in the context of the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission we will use the term Indigenous erasure instead). In their article, the authors noted that a significant amount of Indigenous knowledge is based on star lore and observations of the sky. Those observations are connected to Indigenous stories about the land and nature - for some peoples the sky is a reflection of the land (Cajete 2000). Those observations, however, are based on a dark night sky without substantive light pollution. As such, light pollution acts to disconnect Indigenous peoples from the land they live, and as such, is a form of erasure. In the same vein, we argue that constellations of satellites are also a form of colonization, especially those that are bright enough to be visible from the ground. If light pollution results in an erasure of knowledge, then mega constellations of satellites would also constitute an attempt to rewrite that knowledge. There is a second issue that the CSA should consider with respect to space exploration and the impact of new satellites. That issue is At what height do treaties and agreements with Indigenous peoples, end? It is understood that treaties have impact on Indigenous rights and responsibilities with respect to mining, water resources, hunting, etc. but Indigenous communities should be consulted with the impacts on the skies above. This is especially true for satellites that contribute to light pollution, but also satellites that are designed to offer services to communities (such as wireless internet), satellites designed for ground based or remote imaging such as mapping satellites and LIDAR imaging. The CSA has an obligation to consult with Indigenous communities and Indigenous-led organizations with respect to the legalities of how satellites that impact communities operate.
Pultarova 22 - Space X is launching a Mega-Constilation of satellites. https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-satellites.html
Starlink is the name of a satellite network developed by the private spaceflight company SpaceX to provide low-cost internet to remote locations. SpaceX eventually hopes to have as many as 42,000 satellites in this so-called megaconstellation. The size and scale of the project flusters astronomers, who fear that the bright, orbiting objects will interfere with observations of the universe, as well as spaceflight safety experts who now see Starlink as the number one source of collision hazard in Earth's orbit. In addition to that, some scientists worry that the amount of metal that will be burning up in Earth's atmosphere as old satellites are deorbited, could trigger unpredictable changes to the planet's climate.
Smith 18 - SpaceX Makes most of their money by launching satellites https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/25/how-does-spacex-make-money.aspx
SpaceX makes the bulk of its money from engaging in just one activity: launching satellites into orbit. The company charges commercial customers a standard rate of $62 million per launch for this service. It charges perhaps $20 million more for more complicated government space missions such as resupplying the International Space Station, putting a science satellite into orbit for NOAA, or launching a GPS satellite for the Air Force.
Impact
As stated in my Deondre 20 Card Megaconstilation/satellites add to the high amount of light pollution. In my Pultrova 22 card it states that space x hopes to launch a megaconstillation of satellites (around 42,000). Lastly, In my Smith 18 card it says SpaceX makes millions off of launching satellites. All this shows you that Space X is profifting off of a cultural genocide. They cause light pollution directly harming indigenous communities. This makes private space appropriation unjust because they harm indigenous communities while making money.
Private entities are sending rockets into space for vacation. This cause indigenous land to be harmed
Heilweil 21 - Private entities are harming the environment with space vacations. How bad is space tourism for the environment? And other space travel questions, answered. Six questions to consider before launching yourself into space.
The emissions of a flight to space can be worse than those of a typical airplane flight because just a few people hop aboard one of these flights, so the emissions per passenger are much higher. That pollution could become much worse if space tourism becomes more popular. Virgin Galactic alone eventually aims to launch 400 of these flights annually. “The carbon footprint of launching yourself into space in one of these rockets is incredibly high, close to about 100 times higher than if you took a long-haul flight,” Eloise Marais, a physical geography professor at the University College London, told Recode. “It’s incredibly problematic if we want to be environmentally conscious and consider our carbon footprint.” These flights’ effects on the environment will differ depending on factors like the fuel they use, the energy required to manufacture that fuel, and where they’re headed — liquid hydrogen and oxygen fuel Blue Origin uses is damaging to the environment (technically, his flight didn’t release carbon dioxide), but experts (say) it could still have significant environmental effects. There are also other risks we need to keep studying, including the release of soot that could hurt the stratosphere and the ozone. A study from 2010 found that the soot released by 1,000 space tourism flights could warm Antarctica by nearly 1 degree Celcius. “There are some risks that are unknown,” Paul Peeters, a tourism sustainability professor at the Breda University of Applied Sciences, told Recode. “We should do much more work to assess those risks and make sure that they do not occur or to alleviate them somehow — before you start this space tourism business.” Overall, he thinks the environmental costs are reason enough not to take such a trip.
Sub Impact: Private entities are causing global warming in the name of letting the top one percent visit space! 1,000 space tourism flights would warm Antarctica by 1 degree celsius. This may not seem like a lot but Antarctica only warms up by .1 degree celsius annually. Space vacation warms up the content 10 times more! This would cause Antarctica to melt faster which would raise the sea levels. in turn would cause coastal cities to go underwater in the long run.
Climate.Gov has listed a few ways in which indigenous people are harmed by global warming.
https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/tribal-nations
Observed and future impacts from climate change threaten indigenous communities' access to traditional foods such as fish, game, and wild and cultivated crops. These resources have provided sustenance as well as cultural, economic, medicinal, and community health for generations.
Of the 567 federally recognized tribes in the United States, 40 percent (229 tribes) live in Alaska Native communities. The rapid pace of rising temperatures, melting sea ice and glaciers, and thawing permafrost in Alaska is having a significant negative impact on critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods in the state.
Indigenous health is based on interconnected social and ecological systems that are being disrupted by a changing climate. Its impacts threaten sites, practices, and relationships with cultural, spiritual, or ceremonial importance that are foundational to indigenous peoples’ cultural heritages, identities, and physical and mental health.
Some native coastal communities are being forced to relocate to higher ground after experiencing more extreme storm surges, flooding, and sea level rise, which can impact cultural integrity and access to vital resources.
Impact
Private entities are sending people in space to go on vacation. As stated in my Heilweil 21 card this causes climate change. Finally, I gave four examples of how Indigenous people are harmed by climate change with my Climate.Gov card. Private Appropriation is unjust because they’re causing climate change just so some rich people can enjoy space. The climate change they cause directly harms Indigenous people.
Alt
The aff will solve these problems by banning private appropriation that directly causes indigenous harm (space vacations/mega constellations). We cannot keep overlooking indigenous people. That only produces a continuous strain of structural violence. Once again the neg has to overlook indigenous harms to win because the negative causes them. The aff helps voice indigenous harms and solve for them by banning things that directly affect bipoc.
Framing
Alston and Timmons 14 It is the role of the judge to not overlook poc harm in debate.
https://www.vbriefly.com/2014/04/28/20144nobody-knows-the-trouble-i-see-and-in-national-circuit-lincoln-douglas-debate-does-anyone-really-care/
A person of color who is told by judges that it is okay if people who look like them are slaughtered isn’t listening to the conclusions of a hypothetical debate. People who look like them have been slaughtered in various forms in various ways for over four hundred years. Being white means not ever having to think about it. The suggested role of the judge according to Kristof, Massey, and Reiter is to care nothing about the safety of the environment and the people in the room. Kill Africans, rape women, don’t let people of color vote. While the role of the judge is to vote for the better debater, we feel strongly that the judge in any given debate must adopt both the role of a decision-maker and educator. Evaluating the better debater must be considered as a matter of both performance and substance. Most scholars agree that the judge’s role is twofold. Richardson writes: ”A judge describes what occurs in the round while a critic/educator prescribes what should have occurred in the round. However, the prevailing opinion is that judges have the obligation to serve beyond the role of descriptor, and they are indeed capable of performing two types of evaluations simultaneously – that of a judge and that of a critic (Patterson and Zarefsky). In fact, debate is first and foremost an educational activity (Decker and Morello). If indeed the purpose of debate is to teach, judges must also serve as educators (Rowland, Ganer). Debate, while a competitive game, is an educational game—an extension of the classroom. The idea that regardless of what is done in a debate, the judge has no jurisdiction or obligation to act as a critical educator seems short sighted at best, and sociopathic in our current environment. In a world of “just vote for the better debater”, judges would be under no obligation to give a reason for decision in either a written, or oral form. The concept of “just vote for the better debater” absolves the judge of any real responsibility to give constructive feedback to students, either good or bad. In a worst case scenario a student could use language that was racist, sexist or homophobic, and if they won the “substance” of the debate, the language and behavior would be ignored. In fact, if things became physical between the students, and the aggressor “won” the debate, using a literal interpretation of the position of Kristof et al, the judge would be under no obligation to act. Morris and Herbeck elucidate: “Such judge passivity is responsible for the often dramatic decline in the quality of debate arguments and the promotion of shallow practice nearly devoid of educational utility. Ganer (1987) has observed: Many of the problems in contemporary debate can be traced to those who persist in divorcing debate from general academic concerns of argumentation and viewing debate as nothing more than a “game,” in the antitheoretical rather than theoretical sense, to be played under the sponsorship of an academic institution.” (p. 387) Muir adds in a discussion of Ehninger:“Questioning the power of such a perspective (the gaming model of debate), Ehninger offers several concerns about the game metaphor. Pedagogically, Ehninger cautions that viewing debate as a game violates a balance of technique and subject matter, fragmenting the instruction of the whole. The emphasis on technique reduces the real world applicability of debate skills; a specialized terminology, coupled with a focused perspective on how the game is played, renders debate increasingly esoteric and irrelevant. Morally, the game metaphor is questionable because if debate is just a game, then it is very easy to cheat and distort the truth. Even if ‘the game’ is played ethically, Ehninger argues, it is separated and isolated and makes ‘little or no direct contribution to the solving of mankind’s present and future problems.'” Muir furthers his characterization of Ehninger’s argument, “Fostering the idea of debate as a game renders a discussion of contemporary predicaments and their solutions a mere pastime, rather than a way of learning how to participate democratically in such solutions. Debate, Ehninger concludes, cannot afford to be ethically neutral- it must be a positive force for good.” Morris and Herbeck impact our position by stating: “We insist that coaches, competitors, and judges stop treating debate as a game. If debate is merely a game, it may be appropriate for judges to act as referees assigning points to the participants. By contrast, debate should be an educational exercise designed to serve as a “laboratory for teaching argumentation skills”. (McBath, 1974; Thomas, 1980). Forensic educators must intervene as necessary to redress some of the “irrational practices currently emphasized in academic debate” (Rowland and Deatherage, 1986, p. 246). What makes the Kristof et al article so despicable is that they want judges to beat students down who implore those judges to resist privilege and stand for something more. We are not calling for judges to randomly intervene against racist, sexist and homophobic arguments. In our current climate, that is too much to ask, and we are not that optimistic. The adults in the Lincoln-Douglas community have consistently failed to do anything to protect young people and have actively encouraged the sociopathic pseudo pedagogy embodied in the Kristof, Massey, and Reiter article. We can’t help but think that the role of the judge demonstrated by too many adults strongly resembles the actions of bystanders who watched as Kitty Genovese was murdered in the streets of New York. But when students understand that the debate space is hostile to women and people of color and try to do something about it, don’t join the attacker. Don’t murder them. Don’t wish they go away. Be constructive. Be educational. Be humane. We must prove why genocide is bad? They should be ashamed, and we should be ashamed for accepting it. Being white in America means never having to think about it. But they should think about it. People who face structural oppression have to think about it. We (Poc) are assaulted without warning and dismissed with smiles and politeness or barbs and arrows. The debate community by deliberate aggression or privileged non-consideration declared war on students of color long before Chris Randall’s rallying cry. Being white in America means never having to think about it. Never thinking about it makes for ignorant, destructive, careless people without any clue how they relate to the rest of the planet. They believe that they live in a hostile world without any understanding that they are the source of the hostility. They want people who call out their privilege to just go away. The good news about our community is that a critical mass of students have decided to not go away. It is up to the adults in our community to make space for them. We cannot know how this conflict will end. But in the process, adults must not remain silent and watch structural violence replicated and reinforced. In our community, we must encourage people to expand their libraries, read new literature, and enter new search terms in Google in order to understand and engage these positions. The conversations and debates will often be hard, but they already are. We believe our role as educators is to welcome hard conversations that question and deconstruct privilege, not reinforce it. There is no neutral ground.
Final Message
Please don’t overlook people of color’s struggles for instances of extinction, war, etc. Our struggles are happening now. They’re being caused by private appropriation. A vote for the aff means you’re not overlooking indigenous harms and contributing to the structural violence. Please help join me in making debate a safe space for other indigenous people.