A) The Affirmative is located in the ivory tower: their abstract discussions of the

world that could be deflects attention from actually making real-world changes:
Nayar 1999 [Jayan, Ph.D from the University of Cambridge, Fall, School of Law, University of
Warwick Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems “Orders of Inhumanity”]

Located within a site of privilege, and charged to reflect upon the grand questions of
world-order and the human condition as the third Christian Millennium dawns, we are tempted to turn the mind to
the task of abstract imaginings of "what could be" of our "world," and "how should we organize"
our "humanity." Perhaps such contemplations are a necessary antidote to cynicism and skepticism regarding any possibility of human
betterment, a necessary revitalization of critical and creative energies to check the complacencies of the state of things as they are. n1
However, imagining  [*601]  possibilities of abstractions--"world-order," "international society," "the global village," "the family of
humankind," etc.--does carry with it a risk. The "total" view that is the take-off point for discourses on
preferred "world-order" futures risks deflection as the abstracted projections it provokes
might entail little consequence for the faces and the names of the humanity on whose behalf we
might speak. So, what do we do?

B) Link: the discussion of the case in the ivory tower creates an illusion of reality
that diverts attention from practical solutions to problems:
Baudrillard 1995 [Jean, April 19, "Radical Thought", http://www.ctheory.net/articles.aspx?
id=67]

All this defines the insoluble relationship between thought and the real. A certain type of thought
is an accomplice of the real. It starts with the hypothesis that there is a real reference to an idea
and that there is a possible "ideation" of reality. This is no doubt a comforting perspective, one
which is based on meaning and deciphering. This is also a polarity, similar to that used by ready-made dialectical and philosophical
solutions. The other thought, on the contrary, is ex-centric from the real. It is an "ex-centering"2 of the real world and, consequently, it
is alien to a dialectic which always plays on adversarial poles. It is even alien to critical thought which always refers to an ideal of the
It is an illusion, that is to say a
real. To some extent, this thought is not even a denial of the concept of reality.
"game"3 played with desire (which this thought puts "into play"), just like metaphor is a "game"
played with truth. This radical thought comes neither from a philosophical doubt nor from a utopian transference4 (which
always supposes an ideal transformation of the real). Nor does it stem from an ideal transcendence. It is the "putting into play"5 of this
world, the material and immanent illusion of this so-called "real" world - it is a non-critical, non-dialectical thought. So, this thought
is an incompatibility between thought and
appears to be coming from somewhere else. In any case, there
the real. Between thought and the real, there is no necessary or natural transition. Not an
"alternation,"6 not an alternative either: only an "alterity"7 keeps them under pressure8. Only fracture, distance and alienation safeguard the singularity of this thought, the
singularity of being a singular event, similar in a sense to the singularity of the world through which it is made into an event. Things probably did not always happen this way.
One may dream of a happy conjunction of idea and reality, in the shadow of the Enlightenment and of modernity, in the heroic ages of critical thought. But that thought, which
operated against a form of illusion - superstitious, religious, or ideological - is substantially over. And even if that thought had survived its catastrophic secularization in all the
political systems of the 20th century, the ideal and almost necessary relationship between concept and reality would in any case have been destroyed today. That thought
disappeared under the pressure of a gigantic simulation, a technical and mental one, under the pressure of a precession of models to the benefit of an autonomy of the virtual, from
now on liberated from the real, and of a simultaneous autonomy of the real that today functions for and by itself - motu propio - in a delirious perspective, infinitely self-referential.
Expelled, so to speak, from its own frame, from its own principle, pushed toward its extraneity, the real has become an extreme phenomenon. So, we no longer can think of it as
real. But we can think of it as "ex-orbitated," as if it was seen from another world - as an illusion then. Let's ponder over what could be a stupefying experience: the discovery of
another real world, different from ours. Ours, one day, was discovered. The objectivity of this world was discovered, just like America was discovered, more or less at the same
period. But what was discovered can never be created again. That's how reality was discovered, and is still created (or the alternate version: this is how reality was created, which
In
is still being discovered). Why wouldn't there be as many real worlds as there are imaginary ones? Why would there be only one real world? Why such a mode of exception ?

reality, the notion of a real world existing among all other possible worlds is unimaginable. It is
unthinkable, except perhaps as a dangerous superstition. We must stay away from that, just as
critical thought once stayed away (in the name of the real!) from religious superstition. Thinkers,
give it another try!
The Alternative is to take pragmatic actions in the real world: only this solves the
harms the affirmative identifies while ignoring their intellectual blinders:
Baudrillard 1994 (Jean, French Cultural Theorist, sociologist and philosopher, "No Reprieve For
Sarejevo" September 28)
The problem lies indeed in the nature of our reality. We have got only one , and it must be
preserved. Even if it is by the use of the most heinous of all paroles: " One must do something.
One cannot remain idle." Yet, to do something for the sole reason that one cannot do nothing
never has been a valid principle for action, nor for liberty. At the most it is an excuse for one's own
powerlessness and a token of self-pity. The people of Sarajevo are not bothered by such questions. Being where they are, they are in
the absolute need to do what they do, to do the right thing. They harbour no illusion about the outcome and do not indulge in self-pity.
This is what it means to be really existing, to exist within reality. And this reality has nothing to do with the so-called objective reality
of their plight, which should not exist, and which we do so much deplore. This reality exits as such - it is the stark reality of action and
destiny. This is why they are alive, while we are dead. This is why we feel the need to salvage the reality of war in our own eyes and
to impose this reality (to be pitiable) upon those who suffer from it, but do not really believe in it, despite the fact they are in the midst
of war and utter distress. Susan Sontag herself confesses in her diaries that the Bosnians do not really believe in the suffering which
surrounds them. They end up finding the whole situation unreal, senseless, and unexplainable. It is hell, but hell of what may be
termed a hyperreal kind, made even more hyperreal by the harassment of the media and the humanitarian agencies, because it renders
the attitude of the world towards them even less unfathomable. Thus, they live in a kind of ghost-like war - which is fortunate, because
otherwise, they would never have been able to stand up to it. These are not my words, by the way: they say it so. But then Susan
Sontag, hailing herself from New York, must know better than them what reality is, since she has chosen them to incarnate it. Or
maybe it is simply because reality is what she, and with her all the Western world, is lacking the most. To reconstitute reality,
one needs to head to where blood flows. All these "corridors", opened by us to funnel our foodstuffs and our
"culture" are in fact our lifelines along which we suck their moral strength and the energy of their
distress. Yet another unequal exchange. And to those who have found in a radical delusion of reality (and this includes the belief in
political rationality, which supposedly rules us, and which very much constitutes the principle of European reality) a kind of
alternative courage, that is to survive a senseless situation, to these people Susan Sontag comes to convince them of the "reality" of
their suffering, by making something cultural and something theatrical out of it, so that it can be useful as a referent within the theatre
of western values, including "solidarity". But Susan Sontag herself is not the issue. She is merely a societal instance of what has
toothless intellectuals swap their distress with the misery of the
become the general situation whereby
poor, both of them sustaining each other, both of them locked in a perverse agreement.
 Ivory Tower Kritik Overview
The Affirmative remains trapped in an illusion—extend our Nayar evidence: they
identify problems in a round of debate instead of engaging them in the real world.
Our two pieces of Baudrillard evidence says this deflects attention from real world
solutions, causing us to remain trapped in the ivory tower. Our alternative engages
in pragmatic solutions in the real world without remaining trapped by the blinders
of the Affirmative advocacy. A couple of arguments at the top:

A) FIAT is an illusion: They have no reason to believe that affirming the

B) They are the “toothless intellectuals” that Baudrillard attacks: they discuss
problems in the ivory tower but don’t take real world activity to solve them
—meaning the harms they outline are perpetuated on a grand scale. Only
shattering the illusion with the alternative has any chance of actually solving
the harms they outline—that’s our second Baudrillard card. Now, the line-
by-line…
The affirmative acts as an Ivory Tower intellectual, reducing us to a
seminar-room warrior instead of engaging in actual solutions to
problems.
Farmer and Gastineau 2002 (Paul and Nicole, “LEGAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
INTERVENTION FOR HEALTH: Rethinking Health and Human Rights: Time for a Paradigm Shift”
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics Winter ln)

A few years ago, the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and his colleagues pulled together a
compendium of testimonies from those the French term "the excluded" in order to bring into relief la
misere du monde. Bourdieu and colleagues qualified their claims for the role of scholarship in
addressing this misery: "To subject to scrutiny the mechanisms which render life painful, even
untenable, is not to neutralize them; to bring to light contradictions is not to resolve them." n23 It is
precisely such humility that is needed, and rarely exhibited, in academic commentary on human rights.
It is difficult merely to study human rights abuses. We know with certainty that rights are being abused
at this very moment. And the fact that we can study, rather than endure, these abuses is a reminder that
we too are implicated in and benefit from the increasingly global structures that determine, to an
important extent, the nature and distribution of assaults on dignity. Ivory-tower engagement with
health and human rights can, often enough, reduce us to seminar-room warriors. At worst, we
stand revealed as the hypocrites that our critics in many parts of the world have not hesitated to call us.
Anthropologists have long been familiar with these critiques; specialists in international health,
including AIDS researchers, have recently had a crash course. It is possible, usually, to drown out the
voices of those demanding that we stop studying them, even when they go to great lengths to make sure
we get the message. But social scientists with more acute hearing have documented a rich trove of
graffiti, songs, demonstrations, tracts, and broadsides on the subject . A hit record album in Haiti was
called International Organizations. The title cut includes the following lines: "International
organizations  [*659]  are not on our side. They're there to help the thieves rob and devour...
International health stays on the sidelines of our struggle."

Academic discourse blinds us from understanding the world we live

Nicholas D. Kristof (''On the Road, You and Me,'' column, March 21) describes his aspirations for an
American education system that encourages university students to venture into the developing world
and to experience firsthand the vast, multicultural world in which we live. Having graduated a semester
early from New York University to work at a women's shelter in Calca, Peru, and having done a
semester abroad in Ghana during my time in university, I couldn't agree more. Our academic discourse
is so often abstracted to a level of theory that the real world remains unknown. We are being educated to
be the leaders of a world we do not adequately know or understand.