Sorry for all my questions. Thanks so much for your answers to these posts -- they've been tremendously helpful.
I've been reading a lot about realism and the threat-con K recently, and I'm realizing that I don't understand what makes a critique a critique.
Here's my understanding of how a threat-con K typically works:
A. Link: realism bad because you create enemies when you call them enemies (self-fulfilling prophecies). E.g. moving troops near a supposed adversary turns them into an adversary even if they previously weren't because they have to act defensively.
B. Impact: everyone dies.
C. Alternative: stop viewing countries as categorically "good" or "bad" -- remove "ally" and "enemy" labels.
Here's what I don't get...
How is that not just a disadvantage or a counterplan?
Can't I achieve the same thing by saying:
Disad: calling X country an enemy turns them into an enemy when they're actually not one, which links to everyone dying.
I read the following in William Bennett's 1996 Rostrum article "An Introduction to the 'Kritik'":
But how do you divorce assumptions and policy implications? In a K, we care about the assumption only because of its impact (isn't the format of a K supposed to be link/impact/alternative?)... so how can we say that a K is only about core assumptions?
And by saying that a K doesn't assume the burdens of a DA, isn't that just trying to be lazy about writing what's actually a DA?
Thanks in advance for clarifying. It's a big help.