Threat Con

[thebutton 3]

What is it? Args against it? ANything would be nice.

[The Incredible Hulk? 2106]

To answer it, realism good, and then in cross-x ask if the alt takes away the armed forces, if yes, read armed forces key to biodiversity and econ, if no, then alt doesnt solve.

 

Topic on it here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=972798&highlight=threat

[Mezriss 478]

It is usually argued like this

Link: The state constructs threats to control the population.

Impact: Turns Case-Threat Construction leads to wars and such, Control impacts

Alternative: Usually something along the lines of rejecting threats constructed by the state. There are others I'm sure.

 

You might also want to check out the Security/Securitization Kritik, its very similar and overlaps in some areas with threat construction.

[Noob 226]

To answer it, realism good, and then in cross-x ask if the alt takes away the armed forces, if yes, read armed forces key to biodiversity and econ, if no, then alt doesnt solve.

 

Topic on it here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=972798&highlight=threat

 

why must the alt take away the armed forces?

[mbv 1082]

It doesn't have to. That's what the "no" is for.

[The Incredible Hulk? 2106]

why must the alt take away the armed forces?

It doesn't, but if they don't then threats will always be constructed if there are armed forces, thus it kills alt solvency.

[Noob 226]

It doesn't have to. That's what the "no" is for.

 

i meant in order to solve...

 

I think its possible for the alt to deconstruct threats but keep the armed forces..

[The Incredible Hulk? 2106]

I don't think so, because what is the purpose of armed forces? To defend against the outside. The idea of a defense against X is a construction of a threat. Armed forces by definition are a reaction against a threat.

[Noob 226]

Acknowledging that their is a chance of something happening is not equivalent to constructing that probability/threat and saying its going to happen.

[thebutton 3]

I don't think so, because what is the purpose of armed forces? To defend against the outside. The idea of a defense against X is a construction of a threat. Armed forces by definition are a reaction against a threat.

 

Is there a card that says that? I mean arguably the threat could be BD loss/ Global Warming etc. From what it sounds like this links to the fact that the 1ac has harms. The thread you linked to at least made it that way, if someone ran it that way what would be the strat against it.

[mbv 1082]

I don't think so, because what is the purpose of armed forces? To defend against the outside. The idea of a defense against X is a construction of a threat. Armed forces by definition are a reaction against a threat.

Every speech is a unique example of threat construction, and thus, a unique chance to reject it.

[thedowned 6]

Every speech is a unique example of threat construction, and thus, a unique chance to reject it.

 

That doesn't change the fact that it's non-unique, your argument is non-responsive. As long as the armed forces existed, threats are still constructed, and unless they prove the threats the 1AC constructs UNIQUELY cause any/all of the implications (which they can't), then it doesn't really matter...

[policyballer 32]

That doesn't change the fact that it's non-unique, your argument is non-responsive. As long as the armed forces existed, threats are still constructed, and unless they prove the threats the 1AC constructs UNIQUELY cause any/all of the implications (which they can't), then it doesn't really matter...

 

mybloodyvalentine is right, i ran it most rounds at berekely, all the 1ac threats, minus most kritikal impacts (aids stigma, racism, classism, things like that) are threat constructs, and rejection is key to shape the future into a place where the alterneative is embraced in politics, and everyday life (shapiro 99). also, k's don't have uniqueness, it is obvious that the alt can't solve every instance of the impact, because they are in the satus quo everywhere, but ccards like round key, ballot key, rejection key, one instance rejection better than not rejecting check back "non-unique" claims. the "non unique" argument is decent if

1.they drop it (any argument the neg team makes usually cancels this arg out

2. you impact it with education (kritiks that link to m ost everything lead to lazy debate<i.e. all K's, but that is irreleveant> which is a voter for education)