Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
Foreign Aff
Foreign Aff .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1AC (1/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1AC (2/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
1AC (3/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1AC (4/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
1AC (5/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
1AC (6/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
1AC (7/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
1AC (8/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
1AC (9/10) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
1AC (10/10) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11
AT Not the Role of the Ballot .................................................................................................................................................... 12
AT Language Doesn’t Matter .................................................................................................................................................... 13
1

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
Contention One is Watch Your Language:
1AC (1/10)
The language we use to communicate shapes international relations. Attention to each word is crucial to solvency and moves toward developing a more peaceful world, Hill ‘02
(Reverend Cheryl Lynn Wofford, B.M.E., Central Methodist College (1982); M.Div., Southern Methodist University (1987); J.D., Oklahoma City University School of Law
(2001). Hill received a Master of Divinity degree from Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University and is currently a clergy elder of the United Methodist Church,
27 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 297, Spring, Lexis)
Language shapes the world.
chosen for communication reveal hostility to world neighbors
.
A worldview is a perspective; it is a way of perceiving the world.
Language is a methodological tool for creating a worldview.
1
Jurisprudence
International communications shape the nature of international relationships. Words much about the nature of relationships. Terminology communicates hospitality or is a worldview seen from a legal perspective
.
Lawyers are trained to pay careful attention to language.
Interpretation of statutory language in the law requires attention to each word, especially words that might seem insignificant because of their length.
Most lawyers realize that words like "and,"
" or," "if," "unless," and "only" are of definitive importance in the language of law. Similarly
, in creating a worldview, words like
" she," "he," "we,"
" us," and "them" take on significant meaning. Assumptions created by these terms about the self and the other have a great impact on creating connotations of hospitality or hostility. Recognizing inherent bias within a language can enrich a perspective
.
This essay will, from a bias that values a hospitable worldview, show how terms like "we," "us," "our," "them," and "those" set up cultural dichotomies that create tension in international and transnational relationships
.
This essay will show how terms like
"foreigner,"
" foreign
," and "alien
" are based on exclusive concepts of the enemy or the dangerous other
.
Inclusive terms define the positive nature of relationships between peoples. otherness, yet they are preferred because they lack a negative, chosen to communicate a relationship of danger and distrust.
Terms like "neighbor fearful, or dangerous
" and "guest
" communicate connotation
.
Exclusive words may be appropriately
Harmony in international relationships depends upon the ability to communicate cooperation and trust
.
Awareness of how language influences relationships can contribute to the development of a more peaceful world. [*300]
Representation is inextricably bound to the discourse that we use- discourse enables actions to take place, Doty ’96,
(Roxanne, Associate Professor of Political Science – Arizona State U., Imperial Encounters, p. 5-6)
This study beings with the premise that representation is an inherent and important aspect of global political life and therefore
a critical and legitimate area of inquiry. International relations are inextricably bound up with discursive practices that put into circulation representations that are taken as “truth.” The goal of analyzing these practices is not to reveal essential truths that have been obscured, but rather to examine how certain representations underlies the production of knowledge and identities and how these representations make various courses of action possible.
As Said (1979: 21) notes, there is no such thing as a delivered presence, but there is a re-presence, or representation. Such an assertion does not deny the existence of the material world, but rather suggest that material objects and subjects are constituted as such within discourse. So, for example, when U.S. troops march into
Grenada, this is certainly “real,” though the march of troops across a piece of geographic space is in itself singularly uninteresting and socially irrelevant outside of the representations that produce meaning. It is only when “American” is attached to the troops and “Grenada” to the geographic space that meaning is created. What the physical behavior itself is, though, is still far from certain until discursive practices constitute it an “invasion,” a “show of force,” a “training exercise,” a “rescue,” and so on
. What is “really” going on in such a situation is inextricably linked to the discourse within which it is located
. To attempt a neat separation between discursive and nondiscursive practices, understanding the former as purely linguistic, assumes a series of dichotomies
—thought/reality, appearance/essence, mind/matter, word/world, subjective/objective
—that a critical genealogy calls into question.
Against this, the perspective taken here affirms the material and performative character of discourse.6 In suggesting that global politics, and specifically the aspect that has to do with relations between the North and the South, is linked to representational practices I am suggesting that the issues and concerns that constitute these relations occur within a “reality” whose content has for the most part been defined by the representational practices of the “first world.”
Focusing on discursive practices enables one to examine how the processes that
produce “truth” and “knowledge” world and how they are articulated with the exercise of political, military, and economic power.
2

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (2/10)
Realism is a result of postures taken by states. Changes in the meanings behind the practices changes the reality of international affairs.
Alexander Wendt. “Anarchy is What States Make of It.” International Organization 46, 2, Spring 1992. 406-407
Self-help security systems evolve from cycles of interaction in which each party acts in ways that the other feels are threatening to the self , creating expectations that the other is not to be trusted. Competitive or egoistic identities are caused by such insecurity; if the other is threatening, the self is forced to "mirror" such behavior in its conception of the self's relationship to that other.55
Being treated as an object for the gratification of others precludes the positive identification with others necessary for collective security; conversely, being treated by others in ways that are empathic with respect to the security of the self permits such identification.
'
Competitive systems of interaction are prone to security “dilemmas,” in which the efforts of actors to enhance their security unilaterally threatens the security of the others, perpetuating distrust and alienation.
The forms of identity and interest that constitute such dilemmas, however, are themselves ongoing effects of, not exogenous to, the interaction: identities are produced in and through “situated activity.”
We do not begin our relationship with the aliens in a security dilemma: security dilemmas are not given by anarchy or nature .
Of course, once institutionalized, such dilemmas may be hard to change (I return to this below), but the point remains: identities and interests are constituted by collective meanings that are already in process.
As Sheldon Stryker emphasizes
: “ The social process is one of constructing and reconstructing self and social relationships.” If states find themselves in a self-help system, it is because their practices made it that way. Changing the practices will change the intersubjective knowledge that constitutes the system .
3

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (3/10)
Contention Two is Enemies, Enemies, Enemies:
Use of the term ‘foreign’ causes policy failure --- it unconsciously motivates a U.S. position of hostility and reluctance to cooperate with other nations, Hill ‘02
Hill ’02 (Reverend Cheryl Lynn Wofford, B.M.E., Central Methodist College (1982); M.Div., Southern Methodist University (1987); J.D., Oklahoma City
University School of Law (2001). Hill received a Master of Divinity degree from Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University and is currently a clergy elder of the United Methodist Church, 27 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 297, Spring, Lexis)
Many people
use the term "foreign" without realizing its negative connotations. Developing an awareness of the negative impact of the term "foreign" to describe world neighbors will help to inspire more people to evaluate the effectiveness of language in international relationships.
D . The Advantage of Naming Others as Friends Rather Than as Foes Christine
Chinkin recognizes that the building of strategies for the development of greater world peace has not been given enough attention in international discourse.
146
One method of achieving greater peace among nations is through recognizing the advantage in naming others with words that communicate a sense of community rather than a sense of hostility.
Words like "neighbors
" and "friends
" have more positive and peaceful connotations than words like
"enemies, "
"foreigners,"
"aliens," and "foes
."
William
Polk expresses a desire to help
"broaden the concept of foreign note
affairs." 147
Since the word "foreign" has a historical use with roots in the United States Constitution
148
and with its use pervasive in the language of law, even Polk, who recognizes the importance of getting along [*340] with neighbors,
149
uses the historical and masculine phrase "foreign affairs." This phrase, however, is composed of two words that have negative connotations
;
"foreign" can carry a connotation of the dangerous other, and "affair" can carry a connotation of inappropriate sexual relationships with an identified or secret other
.
The use of terms with positive connotations will foster greater respect and cooperation among nations.
In a critique of United States relationships on the international level, Leon V. Sigal recognizes the importance of cooperation: The trouble with American foreign note policy since the end of the Cold War is that the
United States has been unwilling to use military force, or so the prevailing orthodoxy goes
. American influence abroad is said to have waned because its threats are no longer credible. Yet that orthodoxy ignores a nother
source of foreign note policy failure--American unwillingness to cooperate with strangers.
. . .
. . . Cooperation works.
150
Sigal criticizes the United States' policies in dealing with neighboring nations, especially North Korea. Sigal recognizes that too often neighboring countries are treated as enemies rather than as friends, resulting in a reluctance of the United States to cooperate with other countries.
A foreign note policy establishment that emphasizes military might to the detriment of other ends and means of American engagement in the world may feed isolationism. The establishment must be more willing to try cooperation. Cooperation means talking with strangers and listening to what they [?] have to say. It means making promises, not just threats. Cooperation is often thought of as the norm with allies, not foes.
151
[*341]
When language patterns create an assumption that neighbors are friends rather than enemies, relationships among nations may change
. Rather than the term "neighbor" indicating a proximate entity, it refers to nations as members of a global neighborhood
. When language is used as a method in constructing more hospitable relationships within international law, a more egalitarian global society will begin to emerge.
This is a vision inspired by feminist method. Such a vision has been generally advanced by Margarita Chant
Papandreou: The feminist movement has a vision. We [?] understand, first of all, that we [?] have but one earth, shared by one humanity. This globe is home to all--all people, all life, all laughter, all love, all music, all art. We [?] will make it a woman's world, not in the sense of control, or power, or dominance, but in the sense of the revolutionary vision that we [?] have--a revolution of the human spirit. Those values that we [?] call women-centered values--caring and gentleness, equality, justice, dignity, compassion--will be diffused throughout society. . . .
152
4

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (4/10)
Other countries perceive the term ‘foreign’ as hostile and will backlash regardless of U.S. intentions --- fixing hostile language empirically improves relations
Hill ‘02
(Reverend Cheryl Lynn Wofford, B.M.E., Central Methodist College (1982); M.Div., Southern Methodist University (1987); J.D., Oklahoma City
University School of Law (2001). Hill received a Master of Divinity degree from Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University and is currently a clergy elder of the United Methodist Church, 27 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 297, Spring, Lexis)
The widespread use of the term "transnational law" within international jurisprudence illustrates that although creating new terminology is not easy
, changing language styles is possible when it improves communication. When language misleads through unintended negative connotation, change in language is needed
.
Robin Teske demonstrates an awareness that language has an effect on power relationships in international jurisprudence. In discussing power, one of the key concepts in the field of international relations, I want to begin by saying that I think
ass umptions matter.
How we
[?] define policies we our [?] basic terms
, suggest, with the our [?] basic concepts
, has a lot to do with the kind of theory we
[?] build, with the kind of kind of world we
[?] inherit
. 157 [*343]
Feminist perspectives and methods can enhance word-coining of hospitable terminology in international communication. Christopher C. Joyner and George E. Little have applied feminist methodologies to international environmental law. Joyner and Little suggest that "although the feminist perspective of international jurisprudence has existed for only a short while, it has already carved out a large imprint on international debate" and that "other issue-areas of international law merit similar scholarly attention
." 158
The word-coining of new terms proposed here concerns the revision of terms that create insider and outsider groups
.
These groups are often unintentionally created through implicit inference or through explicit terms
.
Terms like "foreign
,"
"foreigner," and "alien
" create the implicit insider status of the speaker or author while creating an outsider status for the antecedent group. Insider groups may not be aware of the effect of such language, but outsider groups often experience this language as creating an environment that is more hostile than hospitable
.
Particular fields of legal study offer distinct possibilities for creating a hospitable worldview in international communications.
International relationships will improve when international legal scholars build a strategy for reconstructing language to reflect hospitality in referring to people, entities
, and property beyond national frontiers
.
In an effort to inspire the needed reconstruction, a model strategic plan follows.
5

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (5/10)
The Solution is not to try to get behind language or access the truth in our terms. Rather, we have to reconceptualize the problem while already inside the domain of language. Rorty 82 - Professor of Philosophy at Stanford
[Richard, “Consequences of Pragmatism,” http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm
]
This Davidsonian way of looking at language lets us avoid hypostatising Language in the way in which the Cartesian epistemological tradition, and particularly the idealist tradition which built upon Kant, hypostatised Thought. For it lets us see language not as a tertium quid between Subject and Object, nor as a medium in which we try to form pictures of reality, but as part of the behaviour of human beings. On this view
, the activity of uttering sentences is one of the things people do in order to cope with their environment .
The Deweyan notion of language as tool rather than picture is right as far as it goes.
But we must be careful not to phrase this analogy so as to suggest that one can separate the tool, Language, from its users and inquire as to its "adequacy" to achieve our purposes. The latter suggestion presupposes that there is some way of breaking out of language in order to compare it with something else. But there is no way to think about either the world or our purposes except by using our language. One can use language to criticise and enlarge itself ,
as one can exercise one's body to develop and strengthen and enlarge it
, but one cannot see language-as-a-whole in relation to something else to which it applies, or for which it is a means to an end .
The arts and the sciences, and philosophy as their self-reflection and integration, constitute such a process. of enlargement and strengthening. But Philosophy, the attempt to say "how language relates to the world" by saying what makes certain sentences true, or certain actions or attitudes good or rational, is, on this view, impossible
. It is the impossible attempt to step outside our skins-the traditions, linguistic and other, within which we do our thinking and self-criticism-and compare ourselves with something absolute .
This Platonic urge to escape from the finitude of one's time and place, the "merely conventional" and contingent aspects of one's life, is responsible for the original Platonic distinction between two kinds of true sentence. By attacking this latter distinction, the holistic "pragmaticising" strain in analytic philosophy has helped us see how the metaphysical urge -common to fuzzy
Whiteheadians and razor-sharp "scientific realists"-works. It has helped us be sceptical about the idea that some particular science (say physics) or some particular literary genre (say Romantic poetry, or transcendental philosophy) gives us that species of true sentence which is not just a true sentence, but rather a piece of Truth itself. Such sentences may be very useful indeed, but there is not going to be a Philosophical explanation of this utility. That explanation, like the original justification of the assertion of the sentence, will be a parochial matter-a comparison of the sentence with alternative sentences formulated in the same or in other vocabularies. But such comparisons are the business of, for example, the physicist or the poet, or perhaps of the philosopher - not of the Philosopher, the outside expert on the utility, or function, or metaphysical status of Language or of Thought. The
Wittgenstein-Sellars-Quine-Davidson attack on distinctions between classes of sentences is the special contribution of analytic philosophy to the anti-Platonist insistence on the ubiquity of language. This insistence characterises both pragmatism and recent "Continental" philosophising. Here are some examples: Man makes the word, and the word means nothing which the man has not made it mean, and that only to some other man. But since man can think only by means of words or other external symbols, these might turn around and say: You mean nothing which we have not taught you, and then only so far as you address some word as the interpretant of your thought. . . . . . . the word or sign which man uses is the man himself Thus my language is the sum-total of myself; for the man is the thought. (Peirce) Peirce goes very far in the direction that I have called the de-construction of the transcendental signified, which, at one time or another, would place a reassuring end to the reference from sign to sign. (Derrida) . . . psychological nominalism, according to which all awareness of sorts, resemblances, facts, etc., in short all awareness of abstract entities-indeed, all awareness even of particulars-is a linguistic affair. (Sellars)
It is only in language that one can mean something by something
. (Wittgenstein)
Human experience is essentially linguistic .
(Gadamer) . . . man is in the process of perishing as the being of language continues to shine ever brighter upon our horizon. (Foucault) Speaking about language turns language almost inevitably into an object . . . and then its reality vanishes. (Heidegger) This chorus should not, however, lead us to think that something new and exciting has recently been discovered about Language-e.g., that it is more prevalent than had previously been thought. The authors cited are making only negative points. They are saying that attempts to get back behind language to something which "grounds" it, or which it "expresses," or to which it might hope to be "adequate," have not, worked. The ubiquity of language is a matter of language moving into the vacancies left by the failure of all the various candidates for the position of "natural starting-points" of thought, starting-points which are prior to and independent of the way some culture speaks or spoke
.
6

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (6/10)
Therefore, we must reconceptualize policy objectives in terms of global issues rather than issues of foreign and domestic policy. Global threats including war, violence, and oppression make extinction inevitable --- only a transition to international solidarity by rejecting ‘foreign’ thinking can enable survival, Francis ‘07
(Diana, former President, International Fellowship of Reconciliation, “Ethical Foreign Policy”, Committee for Conflict Transformation Support, Review 33,
February, http://www.c-r.org/ccts/ccts33/francis.htm
)
Ethical policy on international affairs
In the first place, international affairs’.
I believe that
I would change the words and focus, from ‘ethical foreign policy’ to ‘ethical policy on the word ‘foreign’ is so locked into the notion of national interest that it blocks thinking about ethics and perpetuates the idea that a nation can
, ethically and successfully, separate its own wellbeing from that of others
. do not agree with these assumptions. I believe that the nature of our ethical understanding is fundamental to our human dignity
, wellbeing and fulfilment and that
I humanity rather than nation needs to be at the heart of our approach to the ethics of international relations. I also believe that the big threats we currently face, as humankind, are international o r global in nature and call for an international philosophical, relational and political response
, which is based on and informs our responses at the personal level
.
Formulating ‘ethical policy on international affairs’ means applying ourselves to engagement with matters of mutual interest and influence, and recognition of international responsibility
.
An international approach
to policy is needed to address the problems of climate change, war and endemic violence, inequality and poverty
(with all their effects on human wellbeing), oppression and discrimination
.
These problems cannot be addressed by the policy or action of any nation alone and solutions cannot be imposed. (Imposition itself is part of the problem.) They will require the coordinated efforts of all people and a reduction in the sense of separation that currently plays such a dominant role in the way we think about who we are and what we do. Ethical policy on international affairs will be grounded in the notion of an international community. This too will be a community of the imagination, but one with an ethical basis that could take us beyond the old self-interest. International politics and dialogue Unfortunately, the phrase ‘the international community’ is mainly used by a few powerful countries to refer to themselves, implying that they act on behalf of all right minded governments, rather than in their own interests. To reclaim the term will be extremely difficult, taking us far from the current reality of the domination by the few over the many. A radical change of will be needed and it is hard to see how the current structures are going to allow that. But it must be attempted.
A global conversation is needed that will start a movement of ideas
.
And it should begin at home. The simple maxim of ‘do as you would be done by’ might be the most effective starting point for this conversation, engaging the heart and imagination as well as the head. Global ethics can also be embodied in experimental action, which can communicate more than mere words about the ethos of human responsibility and the ways in which it can be expressed. Such action is the most effective counter to engrained theories and assumptions, and enables the realisation that there are indeed other ways of doing things. In our field of conflict transformation we encounter this kind of action. It is our job not only to assist it where we can but also to make it known, so that it makes its own contribution to transforming the way we do international politics. Those of us who work with people in different countries, experimenting with them in creative ways of addressing violent conflict, and learning from and with them as we go, should be able to play a very specific role in developing transformative theory and building bridges between activists in different places. Then local activists need to connect to and strengthen the already existing and growing international movements for change. In this way they will not only strengthen their own understanding and influence; they will also exemplify the global co-operation for the common good that they are seeking to promote. Thirdly, it is vital to remember that politicians are also ‘ordinary people’ and susceptible to change, and that the systems within which they operate, which may present seeminglyintractable obstacles, are in fact created by human beings and can therefore be changed or replaced by them. Creating broad movements that are both cohesive and un-bureaucratic, and that avoid quarrels and division, is, to say the least, a challenge. But experience of local activism has shown me that surprising coalitions are possible, and new international movements give hope. And I believe that human nature gives our species not only the potential to destroy our planet needed to survive and to live creatively together. Time will tell, and but also the our effort can make a difference
. moral, social and intellectual capacity to do what is
7

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (7/10)
Don’t say no empirics because there are. This is especially true in the context of Iran --- the etymology of the word ‘foreign’ endows it with a normative character that makes perpetual U.S.-
Iranian enmity inevitable, Meynagh ‘07
(Seyyed Javad Miri, Iranian Author and Religious Expert, “Iranian Foreign Policy in the Contemporary Era”, Baztab, 8-18, http://en.baztab.com/content/?cid=4259 )
In analyzing the contemporary state of affairs in Iran
Iran as an island in terms of Foreign Policy we need to understand the nature of global politics which Iranian policy is part of it as well as constructed in terms of global ebbs and flows
.
In other words
, we cannot study unto [its
]her self but as part of the world system which has shaped the history of modern
Iran as we know it today. In achieving such an understanding we need to study the nature of power relations which exist within contemporary system that envelops the global order and within that order we may be able to define the features of
Iranian policy vis-
୶ is other players in the hierarchy of global politics. I have firstly given a conceptual definition of what I take as ?Foreign Policy? within contemporary world system and afterwards attempted to give a very brief overview of modern history of Iran which has been marked by many defeats and scared by outside interventions. Having established the grounds I have argued that foreign policy is a tool for geopolitical navigation and Iran due to the nature of her 1979 revolution that is of antisystemic character is in opposing front to what may be called the Western Hegemonic Order or American Monopolarity since 1989. This leads us to a discussion over the nature of the external threats that Iran may perceive which are not detached from the debates on Systemic and Antisystemic movements, which Wallerstein has aptly explained and I have tried to incorporate it within my discussion very briefly by relating the Wallersteinian arguments to the model proposed by Iranian Revolution. In this essay it has been argued that the grandest challenge to Iran is related to its antisystemic nature of its government which puts Iran in a loggerhead collision with the current world?s solo hegemon, i.e. United States of America. 2. Foreign Policy: A conceptual makeover As all other concepts within social science discourses it is difficult to give a clear-cut definition, which would be acceptable by all scholars within the fields of social sciences. However this complexity should not deter us from finding a workable definition that would ultimately assist us in assessing the problem at hand.
A linguistic comparison between three languages of English, Persian and
Swedish would enable us to shed some light on the nature of the concept of
?
Foreign Policy
? in Anglo-American context. In Swedish we use the term
?Utrikespolitik? which simply means to conduct political relations ?outside? one?s won country or ?Rike?. In Persian we emplo y the term ?Siyast Khareji? which practically means a political plan vis-
୶ is countries which lie ?without? or ?Kharej? one?s orbit of influence. However in English we use the term ?
Foreign
? policy
which
etymologically does not refer only to countries outside one’s own country but actually endows a normative character upon the nature of those countries which lie outside borders of our own reign. one?s own country
In other words by considering them as
?
Foe-Reign
? or enemies who reign over outside the
, by deconstructing the term out that in Anglo-American political tradition the countries which
, for instance, lie without
?
Foreign
? into
?
Foe
? and
?
Reign
? we
England are not only
?
outside
? the territory of England shall soon are
?
Foes
? or
?
Enemies
? of our Reign too. The political consequences of this outlook would certainly be different than the Swedish one as the Anglo-American approach would entail that one should eithe r subjugate or contain the reign of the foes in one way or another
.
This find but they viewpoint has been very dominant in England and America and all the Core countries (such as France, Germany, and even Japan) which, coincidentally, are the major countries which make up the core states of the modern world system. In brief, the nature of contemporary world system is based on the idea of ?Enmity? between states and the policies designed within this system is about how to check and balance the other from rising.
8

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (8/10)
Contention Three is Please Respect the Women:
The term ‘foreign’ creates and maintains fear of ‘otherness’ in society --- this is translated along gendered lines, reinforcing societal discrimination, Stienstra ‘01
( Deborah, U Winnepeg, Recasting Foreign Policy Analysis Using a Gender Analysis, Handbook of Global Social Policy, Ed.
Nagel and Robb, p. 68)
Campbell suggests that we also consider the ways in which our identities, as individuals, collectivities, states
, and world orders
, have been gendered as a result of our practices of exclusion and creation of difference or otherness
.
This questions encourages us not only to look at the constitution of meaning, but at how our identities or subjectivities are constructed. Campbell suggests, as many postmodern authors do, that there can be no one transcendent truth or complex of identities. Our job as scholars in this approach is to illuminate the construction and maintenance of these. The example of foreign policy related to domestic workers is an excellent example of how the “other” is constructed around class and “racial” lines. It also illustrates how we use the term “foreign” to create and maintain a sense of fear about the “other” in our societies. The policies that have been put into place to address
“foreign” domestic workers create and maintain disparities between and among women and reinforce gender disparities
.
This risks planetary destruction
Sandra L.
Bem
, professor of psychology at Cornell University, 19
93
, The Lenses of Gender:
Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality, p.195
In addition to the humanist and feminist arguments against gender polarization, there is an overarching moral argument that fuses the antihumanist and antifeminist aspects of gender polarization. The essence of this moral argument is that by polarizing human values and human experiences into the
masculine and the feminine, gender polarization not only helps to keep the culture in the grip of males themselves; it also keeps the
culture in the grip of highly polarized masculine values
. The moral problem here is that these highly polarized masculine values so emphasize making
war over keeping the peace
, taking risks over giving care
, and even mastering nature over harmonizing with nature that when allowed to dominate societal and even global decision making, they create the danger that humans will destroy not just each other in massive numbers but the planet .
9

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (9/10)
Contention Four is You Are What You Justify:
The negative’s support of sanctions to achieve foreign policy objectives only upholds this structure of dominance because it justifies policies in the name of foreign policy objectives. Not defending sanctions that attempt to achieve foreign policy objectives means that the negative is not defending what it is bound to by the text of the resolution at which point I can defend those sanctions too, and you can vote affirmative anyways since the negative doesn't have a topical counter-advocacy.
10

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
1AC (10/10)
Finally, while I hope for a substantive debate, there are a few arguments that need to be preempted.
My interpretation is that the affirmative gets to criticize the assumptions behind one word in the resolution. This is best:
A.
Terminal defense—it sets a finite and predictable limit on the number of assumptions that can be criticized.
B.
This interpretation forces the negative to defend the ground that they were given by the resolution, which proves that this is core affirmative ground because it is necessary to affirm the resolution.
1.
My advocacy is most educational. Language of foreignness is of crucial importance because it shapes worldviews that impact the world. That’s the Hill evidence in contention one.
2.
Strategic Cost- The negative gets additional advantages in topicality debates by including resolutional words, so you should have to deal with the reciprocal costs of letting the aff criticize a specific word in the resolution.
3.
Solvency Advocates Check- the 1AC Hill evidence says that we can replace the word
‘foreign’ with alternative terms in legislation – and it’s a crucial issue for legal precision because this is a forum in which students’ language is shaped. Legal precision outweighs- it has a real world impact because debate is the best pre-law training there is.
4.
The aff makes the debate about the neg—it forces you to justify why achieving foreign policy objectives are a good thing, the aff doesn’t even question your solvency, which means all you have to do is when that your framing of the world is good. You should love debates on your turf-learn to defend it.
5.
Best policy option—criticizing words in the resolution is crucial to determine the desirability of doing what the negative advocates vis-à-vis alternatives. It’s key to real world education because it is the method of logical policymaking.
6.
No ground loss- you can defend the term, make solvency deficit arguments, or impact turn the construction of otherness.
7.
My advocacy is most consistent with the resolution- all we have before the round is the text of the resolution, which means that we have the ability to prep and understand the assumptions of the resolution pre-round. This aff is more predictable than country specific negs on this topic because at least you can derive this aff from the text of the resolution, which is not true of country specific negs.
8.
The aff increases the depth and breadth of knowledge. By forcing critical thinking about new approaches to the topic, my case improves educational benefits by diving into the literature on the reasons why the term ‘foreign’ is a term that carries a negative connotation. Education is valuable because it is the goal of debate.
11

Northland
Roberts
Foreign Aff
TOC
AT Not the Role of the Ballot
The ballot expresses the judge’s endorsement of the language of the negativecase. The arguments of the negative case should not be reasons to vote negative if the language used is inherently bad, since speech is the way by which we construct identity and moral norms. Judith Howard1 writes :
At the most basic level, the point is simply that people actively produce identity through their talk. Many studies
(generally ethnographic)
analyze identity work through everyday interaction. Identity talk is organized around two sets of norms, one concerning respect for situated identities and a commitment to basic moral precepts, and the second concerning ways in which people deal with failure to endorse these basic moral precepts, through denials of responsibility
and other attributional tactics (Hunt et al 1994).
Identity work is a micro-level performance of social
(dis)order
Language denotes adherence to or deviation from moral norms and practices, which is crucial to understanding the resolution as a statement of value. Additionally, language is important to understanding the world since people attach meanings to symbols like words. Howard continues:
The basic premise of symbolic interaction is that people attach symbolic meaning to objects, behaviors, themselves, and other people, and they develop and transmit these meanings through interaction. People behave toward objects on the basis not of their concrete properties, but of the meanings these objects have for them. Because meanings develop through interaction, language plays a central part
(see discussion below).
Identities locate a person in social space by virtue of the relationships that these identities imply, and are, themselves, symbols whose meanings vary across actors and situations.
Thus, the ballot’s role in assessing the resolution must take into account the meanings and moral norms attached to language. Language is the means by which we access the truth of the resolution and form moral norms. Without an evaluation of the language of the NC, the ballot is a vacuous statement of preference. Thus, if I demonstrate that the language of the negative case is reprehensible or incorrect, you negate.
1 Howard, Judith A. “Social Psychology of Identities.” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (2000): 367-393.
12

Northland
Roberts
AT Language Doesn’t Matter
Foreign Aff
TOC
Language generates expectations of the other and influences behavior, Hill ‘02
(Reverend Cheryl Lynn Wofford, B.M.E., Central Methodist College (1982); M.Div., Southern Methodist University (1987); J.D., Oklahoma City
University School of Law (2001). Hill received a Master of Divinity degree from Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University and is currently a clergy elder of the United Methodist Church, 27 Okla. City U.L. Rev. 297, Spring, Lexis)
Language is a method that has been used to achieve a more inclusive worldview. Many feminists
, people who discern that male-centered societies devalue women and create a hostile environment for women by overvaluing the power of men, recognize the importance of thoughts, images, and symbols in creating a worldview
.
Anne Streaty Wimberly and Edward Powell Wimberly created a workbook to help people in the United [*322] Methodist Church realize the importance of language in multicultural relationships
. "
Language has shaping qualities. We
[?] cannot escape the influence of language.
Language conveys the images we [?] develop of ourselves [?]. It shapes our [?] relationships with one another. It shapes life stories. Through language we [?] learn about images and expectations of one another."
74
Thoughts, images and symbols are communicated through language
.
"Language is power
, in ways more literal than most people think.
When we
[?] speak, we
[?] exercise the power of language to transform reality
." 75
Language converts ideas
, thought
.
Languages images, and symbols into communication. Language itself is largely symbolic
, and it is an imperfect way to communicate serve to organize thought and create categories of ideas that can be communicated from one person to another. "Categories are supremely important in controlling the behavior of human beings."
76
13