The Aff frames ethical decision-making as the concern of the sovereign political institution.  By framing ethics as the conjunction of practical action and the political and theoretical justification of the plan, the Aff divests the ballot of any notion of responsibility. 

The claim that the judge has an ethical responsibility to vote Aff is mired in a fundamental paradox.  The more ethics is subordinated to knowledge, theories, and rules, the less the individual agent appears as a responsible actor. 

Thurschwell 01, Assistant Professor of Law @ Cleveland State University, 2001

[Adam, Law/Text/Culture, 2001, 5. L.T.C. 271.]

Derrida addresses the consequences of AND program to guide this decision.

Our argument engages the Aff decision to calculate ethical action.  Our alternative conception of the ballot locates ethical justification for the plan as an leap of faith and represents the condition for the possibility of ethics itself. 

Our alternative captures the 100% of the plan and its pragmatic effects and competes by critiquing their decision to link the justification of the plan to a claim to knowledge, theory, or rule.

Our argument cannot be reduced to a simple call for the rejection of all calculation, knowledge, theories, or rules.  To the contrary, calculation is inevitable and necessary for most of our activities. 

Thurschwell, Professor of Law @ Cleveland State University, 2003

[Cardozo Law Review, March, 2003, 24 Cardozo L. Rev. 1193]

In each case, these motifs  AND the inherent avenir of political justice.

Only the Neg conception of the ballot can give ethical content to the decision to act.  The Aff strips action of its claim to ethics and responsibility – it is irresponsible and anti-ethical to the core. 

Derrida – Director of Studies @ School for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences – 1995

(Gift of Death, trans. David Willis).

To "subordinate responsibility to the  AND for freedom and for decision. 

A) The affirmative attempts to utilize democracy assistance policy to “solve” conflict and “improve” relations. The affirmative attempts to use US policy as an arbitrer to sanitize conflict and purify violence. 

Noorani 05 [Yaseen, Professor of Near East Studies at University of Arizona, Tucson “The Rhetoric of Security,” CR: The New Centennial Review, 5.1]

The U.S. government's rhetoric of global AND are as good as dead.

B.) War is not waged on behalf of friend/enemy distinctions; it is waged on behalf of the absence of them.  Humanitarian warfare cannot have human enemies so a category of inhumanity must be created outside of itself.  Political actions based concretely on ideals of peace have continually produced only more war.  This drive to end war will inevitably produce increasingly violent forms of conflict as wars of annihilation escalate in intensity to apocalypse.

ODYSSEOS, 2004. (Louiza, Department of Politics and International Studies, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of London. “Carl Schmitt and Martin Heidegger on the Line(s) of Cosmopolitanism and the War on Terror.” Conference on the International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt. September 9-11. P.PDF)

Not only does the recurrence AND there is no more resistance.

C.) The alternative is to do the plan not based on the representations of the affirmative but rather because we have an enemy whose interests conflict violently with our own. Rather than suppress that violence we choose to embrace it.  Instead, draw a metaphorical line in the sand, respecting our enemy and engage them only as equals through conventional means.

The affirmative’s call to erase enmity and conflict in lieu of a universal humanity merely renders exclusions invisible and violence and warfare become unlimited.  In a “universal liberal utopia” enmity doesn’t disappear but just becomes “sub-human” against the “universal” order, justifying the cruelest of reprisals.  The alternative works to reject this universal call and recognize and admit that “I have an enemy and I can respect that antagonism of interests.”

RASCH, 2005 (William, Henry H. H. Remak Professor of Germanic Studies at India University. 'Lines in the Sand: Enmity as a Structuring Principle', South Atlantic Quarterly, 104:2, 253-262.)

This, Schmitt’s, is not a AND political nightmares of absolute exclusion.

The impact is extinction – global liberal democratization checks WMD development and makes war less likely.

Diamond ‘95

(Larry, Hoover Institution senior fellow, co-editor of the Journal of Democracy, December, A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and Instruments, Issues and Imperatives,” http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/1.htm)

OTHER THREATS This hardly exhausts AND