Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Which security K is better?

Recommended Posts

the second seems to be the better file and has the potential for an alt better than critical self-reflection and rejection (although that's all it goes for). the abbott and burke cards in the shell set things up for some juicy stavrakakis stuff, if you wanna go there. i've never been a fan of rejection alts, especially when it's in an argument where multiple counter-narratives are possible (over-identification, non-killing political science, political interiority, etc.).

Edited by jmc_va
  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since both files are free, you're probably best off starting from the debate round and how you like to win and then working backwards to construct your own file.

My file (#2) uses a rejection alt because I was always a trick-style K debater. I want all my links to uniquely turn the case in a security debate. Example: Indo-Pak war seems likely because of the security mindset but is actually very unlikely, however treating it like a tinderbox will make war inevitable. I loved having tons and tons of links like that because they worked super well with impact defense on the case, alt causes, and solvency deficits. I would weave the case and K together in the 2NR to make the abandonment of the aff preferable to its endorsement. We'd generate some uniqueness claims out of the idea that rejecting the aff is different than accepting the SQ. We also tended to reduce the debate to a simple competing epistemology matrix (both stories are equally likely, but believing in our story is preferable to their story). This gels well with the underlying psychoanalysis that structures our theory. 

Other people love investing in the alt and making net benefits based off a rearticulated international order. That style is viable but more vulnerable to the perm. Its advantage is that you clearly generate UQ to the links but my fear was always that the links didn't assume the inclusion of the alternative so the aff could jettison a bunch of stuff and win on "plan is a good idea in the context of the alt." However, lots of teams have had success with a more IR based alternative so if that fits your style you should go for that. 

Either way, compile your own links doc and learn it intimately. The link is EVERYTHING in the security debate. Everything. You have to characterize the plan and you have to be able to tell coherent stories with high narrative fidelity and narrative consistency. 

Good luck!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this