Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I'm reading: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer,

 

And I know Realism Good/Inevitable is a popular AFF argument to Security Ks.

 

But I'm wondering if there is a way to make Realism Good a K argument?

 

Any ideas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm reading: The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer,

 

And I know Realism Good/Inevitable is a popular AFF argument to Security Ks.

 

But I'm wondering if there is a way to make Realism Good a K argument?

 

Any ideas?

 

Depends on what you mean by realism. Depends if the aff is realist. Also, realism good/inevitable shouldn't be a thing (as a security k answer).

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on what you mean by realism. Depends if the aff is realist. Also, realism good/inevitable shouldn't be a thing (as a security k answer).

I mean is there a way to say your arguments rely on ethics and the USFG but those two can't go together.

 

And I agree, I think that it is an inconsistent and terrible argument against Security Ks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean is there a way to say your arguments rely on ethics and the USFG but those two can't go together.

 

Yes. But that's not realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with a realism good K i could see is that realists downplay the importance of discourse and psychology and emphasize the importance of structural factors in the international system (at least Neorealists do), which means it hard to link it to the aff unless its linked to the material, post-fiat effect of the plan.

 

That being said, i could see a realist K being run similarly to complexity, in that its not radical or anything it just chooses and alternate epistemology to approach IR

 

Yes. But that's not realism.

Really?  I though realists tended to eschew moral values in IR and argue it was a power games and states are inevitably amoral, so the best way to manage violence is to shun moral shenanigans. Liberals tend to more for moral obligation in IR, so i could see a link story there

 

Edit: Also, ARGogate, didn't you say you were working on a K like this?

Edited by feldsy
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. But that's not realism.

IR authors like Meareshimer pretty much say that states only work to gain power as a form of "offensive realism" and they never focus on ethics.  Hence why Realism has a bad reputation of being "pessimistic" or "nihilistic".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with a realism good K i could see is that realists downplay the importance of discourse and psychology and emphasize the importance of structural factors in the international system (at least Neorealists do), which means it hard to link it to the aff unless its linked to the material, post-fiat effect of the plan.

 

That being said, i could see a realist K being run similarly to complexity, in that its not radical or anything it just chooses and alternate epistemology to approach IR

 

I almost think you can frame it as: International Cooperation is just a guise for power gaining which leads to X and Y Impact.  I feel like alot of the AFFs for next year will have to involve some form of Cooperation because oceans are pretty much shared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?  I though realists tended to eschew moral values in IR and argue it was a power games and states are inevitably amoral, so the best way to manage violence is to shun moral shenanigans.

 

It's not really that states are amoral, but that morality doesn't factor into state decisionmaking. Slight distinction, but it means that the USFG can do something moral, just not for an ethical purpose. So things like humanitarian intervention are explained in terms of power or reputation rather than morals. So two problems with the link come up:

 

1. Type of realism: this is a big deal. Neorealism (and Stephen Walt's addendum to it) is just a theoretical description of international politics; it doesn't have any prescriptive power, which is usually centered around offensive and defensive versions of the theory. Consider an aff that facilitated human rights cooperation with China. Offensive realists would argue for aggressive, containment-style military tactics instead of the aff because commitment problems would make any long-term deal with China unsustainable. Defensive realists prefer military rebalancing as a backup strategy, but also would like the aff because it bridges the information gap between the two nations. Therefore, cases can arise where both sides are reading realism cards against each other.

 

2. Realism is a description of the world, not a critique of it. If the US did something ethical, realism would attempt to explain why that happened in terms of competing power (or threat) dynamics. It wouldn't say the the two can't go together.

 

 

I almost think you can frame it as: International Cooperation is just a guise for power gaining which leads to X and Y Impact.  I feel like alot of the AFFs for next year will have to involve some form of Cooperation because oceans are pretty much shared.

 

States do engage in international cooperation to increase their own power. This is a fact. In fact, even liberals define cooperation as any engagement where neither side is worse off, and at least one is usually better off. This is a description of international cooperation, not a criticism of it. As such, you'll have to argue that international cooperation itself is bad, because any alternative that endorsed cooperation would inevitably link to the k. In that place, you're better off just impact turning whatever cooperation mechanism the aff uses.

 

 

Liberals tend to more for moral obligation in IR, so i could see a link story there

 

The problem with this is that liberalism and realism are not mutually exclusive theories. Many elements of the two overlap, meaning that a permutation would be extremely hard for the aff to lose, because they can just shift their definition of liberalism to something more receptive to realist practice. The critique can't also say liberalism bad, because that would put the neg at odds with every peace treaty or international norm, as well as every instance of trade, investment, or economic development.

 

tl;dr there is no realist theory which says that a focus on morals/ethics is bad or that the US can never do something because it's moral, and there definitely is no realist theory that says increasing relative power is bad. Even realist heg bad authors disagree with the methods, not the outcome (sure, it would be nice if the pax Americana lasted forever, but it's not going to, and delusions about hegemony only hurt actual policy).

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really that states are amoral, but that morality doesn't factor into state decisionmaking. Slight distinction, but it means that the USFG can do something moral, just not for an ethical purpose. So things like humanitarian intervention are explained in terms of power or reputation rather than morals. So two problems with the link come up:

 

 

This is a good point that i overlooked.  Thanks for the clarification.

 

Also ARGogate do you know of any good lit by Walt that can be read (preferably for little/no cost).  I read his blog on FP and I've read Alliances in a Unipolar world but I'd like to see some more of is contributions to neorealism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also ARGogate do you know of any good lit by Walt that can be read (preferably for little/no cost).  I read his blog on FP and I've read Alliances in a Unipolar world but I'd like to see some more of is contributions to neorealism

 

There's an old but important paper called "Alliance Formation and the Balance of World Power" (1985). In it, Walt outlines his addendum to neorealism and it's focus on balance of power, which he calls the "balance of threat" theory. The main distinction is a separation of power and threat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you could run a realism K against an aff with an econ good impact. But its terminally defensive. You can make it offensive but at that point you'd just be reading a Schmitt K....

 

 

Instead of reinventing the wheel you should just read a Schmitt K. Its already clarified everything that is hazy in your realism K.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is actually going to make this, especially if ArGogate is going to make that realist K of security he talked about earlier, this seems like an valuable article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone is actually going to make this, especially if ArGogate is going to make that realist K of security he talked about earlier, this seems like an valuable article

 

I just want to point out that this CFR article starts with a blatant factual inaccuracy from a professor at Harvard. It states that the Us has no treaty obligations to Ukraine. Most scholars are stupider than you.

Edited by freewayrickyross

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a dispute whether Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is anything more than a general statement of intent, lacking the rigor of an international treaty and accompanying ratification procedure.

Seems pretty weak for a "treaty obligation" but point taken, I'd say its more bending the facts than breaking them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't watch the whole debate, but the K seems to be a criticism of geopolitical views that try to force any system that isn't grounded in realism (Specifically against Credibility/Multilat in this debate). 

 

 

Oh, and it's Hemanth. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems pretty weak for a "treaty obligation" but point taken, I'd say its more bending the facts than breaking them.  

I think Wikipedia downplays it. The only reason Ukraine gave up its nukes is because we told them we'd protect them from Russia. Put yourself in Ukraine's shoes in 1994. Why would you give up nukes?  Its a guarantee of statehood. If Iraq had actually had nukes we would have never invaded. 

 

Its hilarious to me that these 24 hour news channels haven't mentioned this with their infinite air time. And a professor at Harvard starts a published article in the CFR's journal (this is the cream of the IR intelligentsia crop) with what is either a willful or ignorant effacement of this historical fact.

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...