CLOWN K

Alt: Debate is bias, it is not fair, people only see

one side of everything, we have to see
EVERYONES perspective, if we continue to be
narrow sides we will not get our full education
and it will eventfully lead to extinction, YES
EXTINCTION, we offer a new world outside of
the plan, we want to see everyone perspective,
we should collect all our evidence and comply
into one card or a collect it into a survey or we
can look at more than one side view (such as
professors and the media) and look at regular
peoples view and north Korea ) So till that
happens let tell jokes so we can tell the
difference between bias and non bias
Framework: If we can prove that everyone is bias
in there own way and that we have to look at all
perspectives and do one of the three options
above, we should win.
Currently, all humans are bias
Peter Baumann, 2015, founded the Baumann Foundation: a think-tank that explores the experience of being
human in the context of cognitive science, evolutionary theory and philosophy. Editor of " Being Human," Being

Human, http://www.beinghuman.org/theme/bias December 17, 201

When someone holds a one-sided point of view, we accuse him or her of being
prejudiced, or having a bias. Human beings on an individual basis are inclined to
interpret situations in biased ways, often based on their cultural norms and beliefs. But there is
another kind of bias, called cognitive bias, that all humans share. Cognitive bias is our tendency
to make systematic decisions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence. Human beings exhibit
particular inherent errors in thinking when we process information. These errors
are the result of genetic predisposition that has arisen over time as humans have

evolved; in fact, you can see many of the same biases that humans display in rats,
birds, and monkeys. Researchers who study decision making theorize that somewhere in our evolutionary past,
many of these biases helped us to survive. For example, the negativity bias causes us to give more weight to negative
experiences than positive ones. In the dangerous environment in which our ancestors lived, avoiding negative outcomes
likely meant life or death; being especially concerned with avoiding the bad made our ancestors more likely to survive.
Other biases may be the result of our brains having limited processing power with

which to analyze information, and therefore taking shortcutscalled heuristics

that sometimes lead us to irrational conclusions. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely puts it thusly:
"We usually think of ourselves as sitting the driver's seat, with ultimate control
over the decisions we made and the direction our life takes; but, alas, this perception has
more to do with our desireswith how we want to view ourselvesthan with reality." Bias affects everything
we do: from deciding how to handle our money, to relating to other people, to even how we form memories of the past.
Though many of these biases were beneficial in the past, these days they sometimes
lead us to make big mistakes. Loss aversion, the cognitive bias that makes us
strongly prefer avoiding losses to acquiring gains, causes many people to make
awful economic decisions. Marketing executives use this to their advantage: you'll sign up for a free trial of a
service and then be loathe to cancel it, avoiding a loss. Though we can't eradicate biasit's far too deeply wired for that
we can try to be aware of it. As we learn more about these biases and where they come from, humans become better
equipped to understand why we do the things we do.

We should look at everyones perspective,

including Horton
By John Darling, A writer for the Mail Tribune, he is a major contributor to the cite.

In the lively, whimsical and thought-provoking style of Dr. Seuss, Crater High School tonight
opens a run of "Seussical the Musical," based on the famed cartoonist's "Horton Hears a
Who" and other stories. The musical pulls in kids in the fourth grade on up, uses '60s
Motown sounds and seeks to make the point that "a person's a person, no matter how
small," says director Rebecca Campbell. The production is the school's first in the Crater
Performing Arts Center since a water main broke in February, closing the school for a week.
The theater itself was not damaged. Rehearsing the song "Oh, the Thinks You Can Think" at
the Performing Arts Center, members of cast and crew fondly recalled growing up with Dr.
Seuss and absorbing the values expressed in his dozens of humorous morality tales. "This
musical's message is to listen to what people have to say and understand them," says
freshman Alex Shadle, who plays the elephant Horton. "I have such deep respect for him. I
never realized till I was older that a lot of the values I hold dear, I took from his books. I loved
every single one of them." The show premiered on Broadway in 2000. It portrayed an
elephant, Horton, protecting tiny Whos living on a speck of dust. Because of his big ears,
only he can hear their fearful cries. Jillian Worley, a seventh-grader at Scenic Middle School,
plays microscopic JoJo, who is sent to military school because she "isn't logical and boring,
but imagines things." This, says Jillian, is a message supporting kids to be themselves, even
if they are nonconformists. It was also a shot at the Cold War of those times 1954, says

Campbell, with the conflict being about how the enemy buttered toast. "It's such a different
way to look at the world," says stage manager Bethany Hutsell, a senior. "He created a whole
new genre of art and literature. He says we have to look at everyone's perspective to get the
full picture that we may not understand from just our perspective." Playing the Cat in the Hat,
junior Shaundra Cook says the musical uses very accessible language, almost all of it sung,
to get across the message of how to be a good person. "You'll laugh and then after you go
home, you think about what it really means," says Shaundra, a player in several Camelot
Theatre productions. "It may look like a child's book, but Dr. Seuss is very intelligent. He
connects his themes to what's going on in history and he tells us to be kind to each other,"
says sophomore Caitlin Rae Campbell, portrayer of tiny Gertrude McFuzz, who falls in love
with the elephant.

This is just one example, no one listened to Hortons opinion just

like no one listens to north korea. Even though Hortons sounded
crazy like north korea we should still listen to them and Horton
could still be right.

Media is Bias and leads to loss of

democracy
Timothy P. Carney is the senior political columnist at The Washington Examiner, and
a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Bia media has serios effect
December 15, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-hastrust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect
UPDATED DECEMBER 21, 2015, 3:01 PM News

media bias is real. It reduces the quality of journalism,

and it fosters distrust among readers and viewers. This is bad for democracy.
Many prevailing biases exist in the U.S. news media. All news outlets are biased toward an
eye-catching narrative. The Washington news media is biased toward Washington-based
solutions. And the political press in the U.S. has an overwhelming leftward tilt, mostly on
social issues, but also on economic matters. Conservatives arent imagining this bias. Its
evident in many ways, including personnel movement. For instance, Bill Keller, after years as
a New York Times columnist taking largely liberal stands, became The Times' executive
editor. Studies consistently show that reporters and editors stand to the left of the American
center. More than 30 former journalists now serve in the Obama administration nothing
comparable happens in G.O.P. administrations. Clustering left-of-center viewpoints in
newsrooms leads to a cloistering, with reporters unfamiliar with conservative

viewpoints. Clustering of left-of-center viewpoints in the newsroom leads to a cloistering,

and thus reporters end up unfamiliar with conservative viewpoints. This shows up in the tone
of daily coverage (for instance, property rights gets put in scare quotes, while abortion

rights doesnt). The problem has flared up this election year. Republican debates are
primarily for a Republican audience, yet the CNBC moderators' challenging of Ben Carson for
his support of ethanol mandates may have been the only question from a clearly conservative
perspective. Most questions challenged the candidates for not supporting more government
spending, regulation, taxes and subsidies. The questions came with liberal premises, making
them irrelevant to the conservative audience. Conservatives are an alien species in many
newsrooms. The resulting slanted (and occasionally hostile) coverage leaves conservatives
rightly distrustful that the news media will cover them fairly. This breeds the perception that
the mainstream media is out to get conservatives, and this perception has truly harmful
consequences. The most crucial role of our press is scrutinizing those in power and those who
want power. Dr. Carson, Donald Trump, Marco Rubio and the others all deserve intense
scrutiny of their policy proposals, their past and their stated beliefs. Dr. Carson has portrayed
the recent news media scrutiny of him as a witch hunt, and (especially when some of it is
unfair) conservative voters believe him. This enables him to dodge accountability. Democracy
needs a trustworthy news media. For conservatives to trust the news media, it needs to better
understand conservatives.

Loss of democracy = extinction

Diamond 95, a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy.
[Larry Diamond, Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives : a report to the
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, December 1995,
http://wwics.si.edu/subsites/ccpdc/pubs/di/di.htm]
This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former
Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily

spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful

international crime syndicates that have made common cause with
authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of
tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons
continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global
ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and
unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the
weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality,
accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.
Now in all seriousness: This DESTROYS my oppenents 1ac there cards are
all bias
We should tell jokes the west of this speech for the fact that everything we
read is BIAS, here are some examples

1. Oh man...words cannot express what happened to me after eating these. The Gummi
Bear "Cleanse". If you are someone that can tolerate the sugar substitute, enjoy. If you
are like the dozens of people that tried my order, RUN!

First of all, for taste I would rate these a 5. So good. Soft, true-to-taste fruit flavors like the
sugar variety...I was a happy camper.

BUT (or should I say BUTT), not long after eating about 20 of these all hell broke loose. I
had a gastrointestinal experience like nothing I've ever imagined. Cramps, sweating,
bloating beyond my worst nightmare.

Then came the, uh, flatulence. Heavens to Hell, the sounds, like trumpets calling the
demons back to Hell...the stench, like a million rotten corpses vomited. I couldn't stand to
stay in one room for fear of succumbing to my own odors.

But wait; there's more. What came out of me felt like someone tried to funnel Niagara
Falls through a coffee straw. I swear my sphincters were screaming. It felt like my delicate
starfish was a gaping maw projectile vomiting a torrential flood of toxic waste. 100%
liquid. Flammable liquid. NAPALM. It was actually a bit humorous (for a nanosecond)as it
was just beyond anything I could imagine possible.

AND IT WENT ON FOR HOURS.

I felt violated when it was over, which I think might have been sometime in the early
morning of the next day. There was stuff coming out of me that I ate at my wedding in
2005.

I am a woman. We poop too. Of course, our poop sparkles and smells like a walk in a
meadow of wildflowers, but still, those were bad bears.

I had FIVE POUNDS of these innocent-looking delicious-tasting HELLBEARS so I told a

friend about what happened to me, thinking it HAD to be some type of sensitivity I had to
the sugar substitute, and in spite of my warnings and graphic descriptions, she decided to
take her chances and take them off my hands.

Silly woman. All of the same for her, and a phone call from her while on the toilet
(because you kinda end up living in the bathroom for a spell) telling me she really wished
she would have listened. I think she was crying.

Her sister was skeptical and suspected that we were exaggerating. She took them to
work, since there was still 99% of a 5 pound bag left. She works for a construction
company, where there are builders, roofers, house painters, landscapers, etc. Lots of
people who generally have limited access to toilets on a given day. I can't imagine where
all of those poor men (and women) pooped that day. I keep envisioning men on roofs,
crossing their legs and trying to decide if they can make it down the ladder, or if they
should just jump.

If you order these, best of luck to you.

PS: When I ordered these, the warnings and disclaimers and legalese were NOT posted.
No disclaimer was there and I felt that I should have known, these Gummi Bears should
say, Gates way to Hell, if you know what I mean.

In all of Seriousness, I love these bears, but that is just my bias opinion

Here are some other example of NON- Bias stuff

If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea then does one enjoy it?

Can a kangaroo jump higher than a house? Of course, a house doesnt jump at
all.

If 4 out of 5 people suffer from diarrhea then does one enjoy it?

Doctor Im sorry but you suffer from a terminal illness and you only have ten to
live
P Ten what? Ten months ten weeks?
D 9

Mama, why do people in our family die so quickly? Mama? MAMA MAAAA!

My girlfriend told me I was one in a million. When I looked through her phone I
knew it was true.

Blocks for Clown K

IMPACT DEFENSE
Democracy is vital to human survival without we all die
Montague co-director Environmental Research Foundation 98 [Peter Montague,
and publisher of Rachaels Environment and Health News, 14 October 1998
http://www.greenleft.org.au/1998/337/20135]
The environmental movement is treading water and slowly drowning. There is abundant
evidence that our efforts -- and they have been formidable, even heroic -- have largely
failed. After 30 years of exceedingly hard work and tremendous sacrifice, we have failed
to stem the tide of environmental deterioration. Make no mistake: our efforts have had a beneficial effect.
Things would be much worse today if our work of the past 30 years had never occurred. However, the question is, Have our efforts been adequate?
Have we succeeded? Have we even come close to stemming the tide of destruction? Has our vision been commensurate with the scale and scope of
the problems we set out to solve? To those questions, if we are honest with ourselves, we must answer No. What, then, are we to do? This article is

. Openness. Open, democratic

decision-making will be an essential component of any successful strategy. After
the Berlin wall fell, we got a glimpse of what had happened to the environment
and the people under the Soviet dictatorship. The Soviets had some of the world's
strictest environmental laws on the books, but without the ability for citizens to
participate in decisions, or blow the whistle on egregious violations, those laws meant
nothing. For the same reason that science cannot find reliable answers without open peer
review, bureaucracies (whether public or private) cannot achieve beneficial results
without active citizen participation in decisions and strong protection for whistleblowers. Errors remain uncorrected, narrow perspectives and selfish motives are
rewarded, and the general welfare will not usually be promoted. The fundamental
importance of democratic decision-making means that our strategies must not
focus on legislative battles. Clearly, we must contend for the full power of
government to be harnessed toward achieving our goals, but this is quite different from focusing our
intended to provoke thought and debate, and certainly is not offered as the last word on anything

efforts on lobbying campaigns to convince legislators to do the right thing from time to time. Lobbying can mobilise people for the short term, but
mobilising is not the same as organising. During the past 30 years, the environmental movement has had some notable successes mobilising people,
but few successes building long-term organisations that people can live their lives around and within (the way many families in the '30s, '40s and '50s
lived their lives around and within their unions' struggles). The focus of our strategies must be on building organisations that involve people and, in
that process, finding new allies. The power to govern would naturally flow from those efforts. This question of democracy is not trivial. It is deep. And it
deeply divides the environmental movement, or rather movements. Many members of the mainstream environmental movement tend to view ordinary
people as the enemy (for example, they love to say, We have met the enemy and he is us.). They fundamentally don't trust people to make good
decisions, so they prefer to leave ordinary people out of the equation. Instead, they scheme with lawyers and experts behind closed doors, then
announce their solution. Then they lobby Congress in hopes that Congress will impose this latest solution on us all. Naturally, such people don't
develop a big following, and their solutions -- even when Congress has been willing to impose them -- have often proven to be expensive,
burdensome and ultimately unsuccessful. Experts. In the modern era,

open democratic decision-making is

essential to survival. Only by informing people, and trusting their decisions, can we
survive as a human society. Our technologies are now too complex and too powerful to be
left solely in the hands of a few experts. If they are allowed to make decisions behind
closed doors, small groups of experts can make fatal errors. One thinks of the old Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) justifying above-ground nuclear weapons testing. In the early
1950s, their atomic fallout was showering the population with strontium-90, a highly
radioactive element that masquerades as calcium when it is taken into the body. Once in the
body, strontium-90 moves into the bones, where it irradiates the bone marrow, causing cancer. The AEC's best and brightest studied this problem in
detail and argued in secret memos that the only way strontium-90 could get into humans would be through cattle grazing on contaminated grass. They
calculated the strontium-90 intake of the cows, and the amount that would end up in the cows' bones. On that basis, the AEC reported to Congress in
1953, The only potential hazard to human beings would be the ingestion of bone splinters which might be intermingled with muscle tissue in
butchering and cutting of the meat. An insignificant amount would enter the body in this fashion. Thus, they concluded, strontium-90 was not
endangering people. The following year, Congress declassified many of the AEC's deliberations. As soon as these memos became public, scientists
and citizens began asking, What about the cows' milk? The AEC scientists had no response. They had neglected to ask whether strontium-90,

Secrecy in government and corporate

decision-making continues to threaten the well-being of everyone on the planet as new
technologies are deployed at an accelerating pace after inadequate consideration of their
mimicking calcium, would contaminate cows' milk, which of course it did.

effects. Open, democratic decision-making is no longer a luxury. In the modern

world, it is a necessity for human survival

AT
Perm 1: The aff can not perm this K, first of all lolzies and god bless
you, second of all, we are saying that we should deny all of whatthe
aff is doing with cards and that it is not right, we are trying to say that
cards are bad unless we see everyones perception of the topic so if
they are trying to say that we can get ride of bias card and have there
case with everyones perception, we win, they basically just consided
to or K, and there whole case falls, so sure let them perm, we win.
Hypocriticail K vs. DA: We are seeing the K, in a new world, we are allowed to do
this, our DA is in thhe world of your aff our K is in a whole new world, we can
choose which world we want at the during the 2nr.

Hypocriticail K vs. K: Again yes this cards are bias so you can basicly
screw those cards, we were just trying to make a point
Education: Ok, this argument just goes in our favor, we are not learning
proper education, we must look at all perceptions
Abuse Cant read disad in 2NC: My opponents stated that we are highly
abusive for reading a disadvantage in our 2NC, but I the 2NC is a
constructive speech so we are allowed to bring up new arguments. Debate
has given advantages to both sides of the debate. The affirmative gets to
have the first and last speech in the round and the negative side gets the
neg block. By not allowing the negative side to use all of the time that they
are allowed to bring up new arguments, this defeats the purpose of
debating because the NEG has no ground. If the NEG has no ground over
the AFF, then it will be impossible for the Negative side to win.
Everyone is bias My opponents stated that everyone is bias so they
concede to our link, because if everyone is bias then their authors are
biased as well. Our framework says that being bias is okay, but not in the
debate setting. My opponents have also failed to disprove our internal
links and have conceded our link all the way to extinction caused by
democracy loss from biases.
AT: Softlap
Solvency - My opponents stated that our K doesnt solve the AFF because
global warming is more important than bias, however, our Trust 8-27
evidence says that warming is slowing and under control so we need to
focus on the bigger problem: bias, because it will cause extinction. We
cannot worry about global warming when its already under control. Our

timeframe is sooner because global warming is slowing but the effects of

bias are going to happen extremely soon.
Offense - Our timeframe is closer so we should prioritize our case over the
AFF because ours will happen sooner. We are already losing democracy
right now. (Read Montague co-director Environmental Research Foundation 98)
Framework - My opponents stated that we are decreasing the educational
purpose of this debate. However, we are increasing it by broadening our
horizons of perspectives among the world. If all of the information in this
debate is from a biased source, we cannot learn anything. Our alternative
increasing the educational purpose of this debate.
Theory- My opponents stated that our alt is vague, but theres nothing
vague about having all sources be unbiased. If anything, my opponents are
vague by not specifying what resources, management reform types, or
what economic incentives that they are going to use in order to solve their
impacts.
Link- My opponents stated that there is no link between our K and their
AFF, but our cards state that EVERYONE is bias and thats the link because
our K and their AFF.
Link Turn- My opponents stated that US-China cooperation will reduce bias,
but there will always be bias in the world no matter what we do. Our
alternative says that we must looks at ALL perceptions in order to reduce
bias. Our opponents case doesnt reduce bias because the authors are still
bias and everyone will still be biased even if the US and China cooperate.
Alternative - My opponents stated that our alternative doesnt solve our
own K, but our alternative says to get perceptions from everyone to
decrease bias so we are decreasing bias which is the current problem right
now so we do solve.
Perm- My opponents stated to do the alternative with their case but that
doesnt work because their evidence is bias and our evidence is not so it
doesnt help at all. That is basically equivalent of saying that inorder to end
obesity we must starve everyone and then force feed them. By doing both,
it doesnt change anything and we still have the bad effects of bias. Unless
my opponents also change all of their evidence to non-biased sources that
look at ALL views/outlooks on the world, which they cannot because they
cant change how they permed our K, then you have to throw out the perm
because it doesnt work and doesnt solve anything because our Ks
purpose is to eliminate the biased focus of the affirmatives case.

Solvency Answers

Alt doesnt solve Global Warming- Everyone is biased in their own way, as we
have shown. All of the cards my opponents stated about global warming were
biased because they were based on the perceptions of how professors think.
Their whole aff doesnt solve our K because its biased.
(If we go for K) Impact Calc:
First on Magnitude: We both lead to extinction so that cancels out
Second of Porbrability, democracy is currently decreasing, we must stop it
from happening, for as of climate change, it is not scientifically proven that
climate chance is made by humans, we can not base the idea of it being
caused by humans. When we know democracy is decreasing.
Last on Timeframe: We win on Time frame, climate chance has been going
on for thousands of years and it is going to take much longer for it to get at
the point that it will kill us. Again, democracy is decreasing now so it is
happening and could kill us NOW
(If we go for DA) Impact Calc:
Ok, loosing heg is one of the worst impacts, we have to be number 1
First on MagnitudeL We both lead ot extinction so that canels out
Second on Probability: Climate change is not scientifically proven that
climate chance is made by humans, we can not base the idea of it being
caused by humans.
Last on Timeframe: We cancel out because it is both when your plan
passes.
Magnitude: Our maginitude is extinction.
Probability: The probability of extinction occurring from loss of democracy is a lot
higher than the probability of extinction occurring from Global Warming because
as we have read in our previous speeches, humans will adapt to their
surroundings so they wont be harmfully affected by climate change and
therefore wont go extinct. My opponents have failed to counter how a loss of
democracy will lead to extinction. So our impacts are substantially more probable
because evidence is always superior to the absence of evidence.
Timeframe: Our timeframe is sooner is because Global Warming is slowing down
and takes centuries to have an effect on the planet.
Due to the fact that our magnitude is much more probable and going to
happen sooner than the AFFs you must vote for the negative side on our
impact calculus.