Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Realism as an Aff answer to Kritik

Recommended Posts

people think that realism answers every kritik, however it does not. Realism good/inevitable answers criticisms that look at notions of security or scenario planning. Realism doesnt answer things like zizek, empire, k's of identity or language.....the person above me is wrong....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what you think.

 

Why would the inevitablity of inter-state competition answer something like CRT or an identity-politics argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realism is a theoretical explanation of how international relations operate - some critiques like constructivism and liberalism have dissenting views of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people think that realism answers every kritik, however it does not. Realism good/inevitable answers criticisms that look at notions of security or scenario planning. Realism doesnt answer things like zizek, empire, k's of identity or language.....the person above me is wrong....

 

Realism could probably answer Empire, but not terribly effectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone explain what realism is and why "realism inevitable" is responsive to kritiks of assumptions and discourse?

Come on dude, you went this long without knowing this? What are they teaching ya? ;)

 

Realism is the theory that states act for their own benefit. It describes nations as inherently egoistic. A micropolitical example would be if I push you then you push me back (but that is an extreme generalization). Obviously it is more complicated than that, especially when you get into specific types of realism like classical and new realism. For more info I am sure wikipedia has some good stuff on it. The most common author that everyone and their grandmother uses for this is Mearsheimer who is like hardcore neocon.

 

It is applicable for critiques of how international politics/issues are framed. The most common example of this is securitization which argues that by producing security threats through our discourse we create our enemies. Realism inev is an answer to the alt because it tries to argue that no matter how hard you try politics ain't going to change. By winning this you can win that the K is essentially pointless because security discourse will be used anyway under this framework of realism. However, by running this you can get into trouble because the neg could argue that the alt deconstructs traditional politics and actually causes the shift away from realism. Plus one could use demo promo as an example of how realism is not inev.

 

Hope this makes sense and I hope that it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus one could use demo promo as an example of how realism is not inev.

 

Except that most past examples of demo promo have also been examples of realism in action (or could at least be argued to be so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that most past examples of demo promo have also been examples of realism in action (or could at least be argued to be so).

Of course this administration had to turn every theory and principle upside down.

 

But the whole mentality of nation-building proves that realism might not be completely inev.

 

However, we debaters can make any argument no matter how ridiculous, so lets let the debaters decide if demo promo is realist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are who teaching him? Who said he had a coach? ;)

Your acting as if I had a coach ;) My coach kind of bailed out of teaching me after the beginning of freshman year. (Maybe because he knew very little about policy debate).

 

Even though we live in Cleveland that does not mean that we shouldn't learn about K lit ;) Come on, that's like K 101 ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
people think that realism answers every kritik, however it does not. Realism good/inevitable answers criticisms that look at notions of security or scenario planning. Realism doesnt answer things like zizek, empire, k's of identity or language.....the person above me is wrong....

 

Actually it could answer Zizek.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
how do u answer a K of normative thought

normative thought good

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
care to explain the warrants to this claim?

 

Zizek says that no alternatives to capitalism can be found as long as we continue to use traditional politics and an alternative can only be found with "authentic politics" ie. radical repolitization of the economy...but as you said "Realism inev is an answer to the alt because it tries to argue that no matter how hard you try politics ain't going to change".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course this administration had to turn every theory and principle upside down.

 

But the whole mentality of nation-building proves that realism might not be completely inev.

 

However, we debaters can make any argument no matter how ridiculous, so lets let the debaters decide if demo promo is realist.

 

It's not just this administration. See: The Cold War. America engaged in nation building in order to fabricate new allies in the battle against communism. I have not heard of a single example of a modern country promoting democracy or building a nation for anything other than its own security and self-interest. It's in the interest of capitalist democracies for more countries to become capitalist democracies: they make better trade partners, and they're not nearly as dangerous war threats.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The most common author that everyone and their grandmother uses for this is Mearsheimer who is like hardcore neocon.

 

Hope this makes sense and I hope that it helps.

 

Mearsheimer is not exactly a neocon - many of his realist theories contradict with neoconservative beliefs. (he doesnt beleive in global hegemons and didnt agree with the war in iraq because of the rational deterrence theory, )

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mearsheimer, and for that matter a majority of the prominent realist thinkers today, are (were) against the Iraq war, and are most certainly not neo-conservatives. If anything, neo-conservativism is much closer to a liberalist tradition, but with nationalist, not internationalist, bases.

 

Bush administration was not governed by realism

 

and as for those who say that Realism answers Zizek cause realism says that the gov. wont change.... well thats just stupid. Why would realists have to write books and articles if realism was inevitable? couldnt they just sit back and be like, yeah, realism sucks and it wouldnt matter. No one is saying that realism is "inevitable", the argument that you are terribly misrepresenting ins one taht says a majority of actions of OTHER states are GENERALLY realist, and if we are in a competitive global arena, we should ASSUME they act in a realist manner and respond accordingly. This does not mean that, say, Zizeks rev is impossible in America.

 

REalism does not make sense as an attack on K alt solvency, it only makes sense as a contextualization of an offensive claim - ie - Rev bad bc cap good bc cap key to state power which key to stability - must use realist fw to evaluate. its basically the Hegemony DA to the K alt. so yeeaahh....

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush administration was not governed by realism

 

Maybe the most misguided, unwarranted, and not true thing I've read on this site.

 

and as for those who say that Realism answers Zizek cause realism says that the gov. wont change.... well thats just stupid. Why would realists have to write books and articles if realism was inevitable? couldnt they just sit back and be like, yeah, realism sucks and it wouldnt matter. No one is saying that realism is "inevitable", the argument that you are terribly misrepresenting ins one taht says a majority of actions of OTHER states are GENERALLY realist, and if we are in a competitive global arena, we should ASSUME they act in a realist manner and respond accordingly. This does not mean that, say, Zizeks rev is impossible in America.

 

While this is a good explanation on why Realism is really an explanation of the way states act and not a classification of how they could potentially act (reason why 'realism good' makes no sense - the cards are never saying that states acting self-interested is good, but rather, that assuming the world acts for its own interest is good), I don't think this denies the arg really. The Zizek scenario mentioned is basically a K of Statism (which is why realism is responsive, unlike most psychoanalytic approaches Zizek talks about), which is why Realism inevitable is functionally an offense takeout - not only will realism trump as there will always be a country that says fuck 'authentic politics', the transition will also never happen because that's just the way states act... it's scripted to never change (a solvency takeout).

 

REalism does not make sense as an attack on K alt solvency, it only makes sense as a contextualization of an offensive claim - ie - Rev bad bc cap good bc cap key to state power which key to stability - must use realist fw to evaluate. its basically the Hegemony DA to the K alt. so yeeaahh....

 

I'm not going to nitpick, but this paragraph seems suspiciously simplified to: "Realism doesn't make sense as a solvency takeout, but it makes the solvency takeout make sense." If states/agencies/people/psyches are inevitably going to be self-interested and protect #1 first, this makes things like otherization/capitalism always happen because they are, by definition, placing #1 first. I think what the previous poster is saying is that 'realism inevitable' functions as a uniqueness takeout to the impact, which means you can't access offense like solvency, and then any chance of 'realism good' is the offense... Even if we buy your arg that this is just saying why assuming the world realist is good, I don't know why the arg "the world will always assume the world is realist" is functionally any different, or doesn't take out solvency to the alt, in the same exact function as "realism will always happen." States never assume the world will act realist and do radical alternatives at the same time... if you assume the world is realist, your actions will alter and respond in kind - through realism.

Edited by dziegler
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a few things

 

lil a. Mearsheimer is a bad author to read; rather, most realism inevitable authors won't get you offense. They don't assume a predictive world of a radical change like the critique OR the alternative won't be defended in the same impact framework as realism arguments.

 

lil b. realism is not responsive to the Ziz. two reasons: 1. you argue that realism is a structural necessity for nations and they will use it for personal gain. The negative will laugh and go 'thanks for the new link - we aren't pragmatic change and the bartleby ethics the alternative assumes we just choose not too. 2. you argue realism against zizeks critique of multiculturalism and the negative laughs and goes 'not responsive - our argument is a criticism of ideological constraints inclusion and how it propels violence against those who don't fit within our definition of who should be included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe the most misguided, unwarranted, and not true thing I've read on this site.

 

and this wasnt? please, explain how they were? why did a majority of realist thinkers object to the iraq war? i think you need to do the explaining here son...

 

and as to what im saying before, realism inevitable is an explanation of OTHER states' actions: realism is the prescription for our action based upon what they are going to do. just saying Realism inevitable, so no transition from cap makes NO SENSE. if you contextualize it in a way that integrates the actions of other states, or like a hege DA turning the alt, then it does. But just saying realism doesnt mean we cant have a revolution here. realism is an evaluative framework for world politics. in debate, its best placed just like that, as a framework argument. its not a solvency turn on its own, but merely a way to contextualize other arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and this wasnt? please, explain how they were? why did a majority of realist thinkers object to the iraq war? i think you need to do the explaining here son...

 

derek is right - you obviously haven't read very much of the literature. what you saw on some camp's a2 realism block doesn't mean much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...