Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Realism as an Aff answer to Kritik

Recommended Posts

You'd probably need a card saying that realism implies endless warfare, because to me at least that doesn't seem inherently obvious. The war you get might also not be large enough to set off their internal.

 

Well, I'm reading Mearsheimer's The Great Tragedy of Power Politics right now, and it seems to me that this could easily be argued from it:

 

1. States want power for security.

2. States will not stop until they are hegemons.

3. At some point in time, war may ensue because of the pursuit for this power.

 

I don't think it needs to have endless warfare, just that a war like the DA's could ensue (because let's be honest, even if there's only a chance of there being such a war in the SQUO, it's the same for the DA).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think realism says that war is inevitable. Either way, the other team will still argue that war later is better than war now.

 

There are multiple theories within realism, but I think in offensive realism war is seen as something which can potentially give a state power, getting it closer to being the hegemon.

 

There's no way they'll win that their DA is inevitable with the plan. I suppose there are more effective ways to deal with a DA, but I think you could at least nullify the DA.

 

And if I win the DA is N/U, even if it happens sooner with the plan, I get to weigh the benefits of the plan against the DA and beat it no?

 

I have to admit though, I haven't finished reading Mearsheimer's book, so my opinion on his work could easily be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberal institutionalism, while more desirable than realism, fails to explain international politics as well as realism does. Mearsheimer makes several arguments as to why realism is always more accurate than your view of the world.

 

I fundamentally disagree with this assessment. there are realist states i will conicied this point. Burma, Iran, Russia, China, Israel, Ethiopia, ect, ect, but my point is that liberal institutionalism better explains international politics and leads to higher quality of living and decreased security threats. I have given numerous example from the EU, to the Latin American countries there are clear trends toward increased lib institutionalism the largest barrier however is US realpolitik.

 

First, he argues that international cooperation isn't precluded by a realist view of the world. Nation-states come together all the time in order to maximize their own interests, the best example being counterbalancing a regional hegemon (both World Wars).

 

this is true however if states come together into alliances using a realist framework they inevitable collapse and cause increased security threats see WWI and teh 30 years war for examples. however this analysis does not apply to the EU, nato already provided a counterbalance, the EU was developed out of the functionalist school of IR and sought to increase co-operation between states, taking europe from two world wars to a lasting peace based on collective security as apossed to a balance of power.

 

Second, this cooperation rhetoric is also promoted by leaders of great powers in order to pacify the public. Mearsheimer gives the example of how America's propaganda machine responded to our rapidly changing relations with the Soviet Union.

 

-this needs to be contextualized. changing relations-when? which change?

-great powers are often realist states that play a two level game by which they increase power both abroad and domestically.

-I don't care if the EU is spending a fraction of the money the US is on militatry expenses as a propaganda ploy to pacify the the citizes of each country.

 

Finally, their are "rogue" states and "failed" states that are ostracized from the international community for some reason or another. These states don't follow your framework of liberal institutionalism. Rather, they follow the rules of realism to the letter. Many of these states are examples of stable democracies that backslide into totalitarianism. Mussolini proves that some of the most stable states could potentially backslide.

 

sure the US is one of them. realism calls on states to be rogue actors seeking their own benefit fuck the int-national community, international law and the life and well being of the people both domestically and abroad. the only way to limit the threat possed by rogue and failed states is through international co-op and increasing liberalism

 

At the end of the day, realism is still the most valid way to evaluate international relations.

 

if you look at the US-China-Russia and their proxies yes you're right, but that's only part on the global picture of international politics. additionally these are the three most fucked great powers in the SQ, so why not take a hint from the EU, where they don't have the same security threats as the Big three and have a populiation that is better off acording to nearly every indicator.

 

and it is not valid because it is a tautology- realsim is only valid if you assume others are realist. i believe dziegler point this out above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zar-b

I would look for people who writre realism is bad to find cards that say realist policies make war inevitable. i would also focus on resource wars concidering the topic. for this you could find cards that argue US and china are securitizing remaining oil reserves which will inevitable lead to war. then cross apply solvency. this could be used against a saudi econ DA. then you just have to beat them on the terrorism impact. for this micheal klare has some good cards saying the militarizing energy resevers leads to terrorism, war and bio-power in the article energo-fascism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched an outround at the NDT and the following went down:

 

1. The Neg runs a Cap K (They ran more than that but yeah)

2. The Aff responds with a flurry of answers, one or two are Mearsheimer 95, Realism inevitable, etc.

3. The Neg gets back up and clearly didn't want to get involved in the realism debate, read one defensive card, and basically didn't spend any time on realism in the 2NR.

 

 

 

Ok, but the back story is that the only advantage the Aff ends up going for is "War," or to be more specific, plan prevents war with Russia. Now, of course that's where the Neg does their work, Cap causes war--plan re-entrenches cap so Aff can't solve for war, etc.

 

So, the neg basically just says "realism not responsive" in the 2NR and the Aff doesn't really try to exploit it or sit on it.

 

Anywayz, the way I see it, can't realism answer back "capitalism causes war" or at least change the F/W of the debate significantly? (especially if conceded)

If states are always going to act solely in the own self interest and seek more and more power doesn't that mean that even in a socialist utopia war is still going to happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I watched an outround at the NDT and the following went down:

 

1. The Neg runs a Cap K (They ran more than that but yeah)

2. The Aff responds with a flurry of answers, one or two are Mearsheimer 95, Realism inevitable, etc.

3. The Neg gets back up and clearly didn't want to get involved in the realism debate, read one defensive card, and basically didn't spend any time on realism in the 2NR.

 

 

 

Ok, but the back story is that the only advantage the Aff ends up going for is "War," or to be more specific, plan prevents war with Russia. Now, of course that's where the Neg does their work, Cap causes war--plan re-entrenches cap so Aff can't solve for war, etc.

 

So, the neg basically just says "realism not responsive" in the 2NR and the Aff doesn't really try to exploit it or sit on it.

 

Anywayz, the way I see it, can't realism answer back "capitalism causes war" or at least change the F/W of the debate significantly? (especially if conceded)

If states are always going to act solely in the own self interest and seek more and more power doesn't that mean that even in a socialist utopia war is still going to happen?

 

Well, I think this could be argued if they're relying on Mearsheimer...

 

Mearsheimer himself admits he makes several presumptions to his theory of offensive realism.

 

1. There is no powerful international system which can force states to comply and handle security issues between them.

2. States, particularly strong ones, have the ability to hurt/destroy each other.

3. States can't be certain of other state's intentions.

4. Survival is the primary goal of most states.

5. States are rational.

 

Mearsheimer's conclusion is that states should behave aggressively for their own safety.

 

But, in a world without capitalism, states would not necessarily act "rational", "survival" may not be a state's goal. Because of the different international atmosphere, it could be argued that this relentless pursuit of security would not occur. Also, one could just attack realism as a theory, if you prove one of the above points wrong, realism (Mearsheimer's kind) comes crashing down.

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...