2010+BQ+Answering+the+Security+Kritik

AT: Security K 2.0 - Alternative is plan plus - stopping exercises is part of the alternative.

- North Korea is unique - they constructed us as a threat first - Discuss the history of the discourse and the origins of the problem

- Delineate between "real" and "false" threat con.

- Plan challenges our doctrine about North Korea.

Perm - endorse the plan and be skeptical of unsupported representations - They say our reps are false and we need to reconsider our reps of the ME - but since we can prove that hegemony is able to prevent and deter conflicts, we might have more truthful representations

How do you defend your representations and answer self-fulfilling prophecy arguments? - Historical events - How to prove that a threat is true or false? Neg - Meirsheimer false hasn't happened yet. Aff - Chinese nationalist statements, Japanese and Russian responses, studies and statistics. - Threat construction good - Need some securitization - still some threats so some securitization is needed when threats come? - Need specifics - when securitization has been used and worked and not lead to the impacts, when it might be necessary in the future in other areas. Examples of when the US has used securitization effectively. - Absence of threat construction can only be evaluated when it's too late - ex. Germany in '30s. - Questions of specific scenarios vs. "This place is just dangerous." - Different story for the setting of Asian instability - dispute the negative story.

Permutations - If the neg doesn't make a severance bad on the "do both" perm, then the 1AR/2AR can spin the perm as being the plan absent the representations. - Use arguments on conditionality and other theory arguments to justify the permutations on the counterplan - especially why severance might be justified.

How do you demonstrate the spillover? Important questions about what the alternative is and how it works? - Question about whether securitization can be stopped at this point. - The more the neg tries to use the alt to capture a lot of impacts (via root cause arguments) the tougher it is to uproot them with the alternative. - Raising questions insufficient - but incorporating raising questions with the policy action would be far more effective.

Non-theoretical answers to the floating PIC - Neg wants to have it both ways - sometimes they say that the policy and discourse are interlinked (in order to say that the aff can't sever the discourse) but the AIK wants to divide the plan from the representations. - Aff should say this proves we don't link because the neg concedes the reps CAN be separated from the policy.

Debating Framework and Representations Kritiks - 2AC has to say that the judge should include the plan. - Evidence on representations only kritiks are bad. - Reasons that reps are important is that reps influence policy - if that's true, then the discussion of reps must include a discussion of policy. - Use the "representations important" evidence to demonstrate why it means that we need to look at the overall policy. - Say defend the reps IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PLAN. Discussion of whether we should have bases in a country can't be looked at without the threat con, but the opposite is also true - can't look at threat con without considering why/how the reps are being used. - Adler evidence - combine based on structure and history to supplement representations. - Question of how far the representations extend into the policy impacts - what the role of the 1AC advantages are in influencing the policy.

Judge Choice - Advantages are reasons to vote for the plan - The judge can choose which reasons to vote for the plan at the end of the debate - You need another advantage or addon that doesn't link to go along with this

Impact Turning the K - Alternative makes us vulnerable to future threats - Similar to securitization and threat construction good - Argue that the aff is a specific example of how TC is good - Important to pin down on the alternative in CX - do you reject all instances of securitization? - Impact turns that use defensible sources? - Use examples again - use non-IR examples of why securitization as an ideology might be effective - even in the everyday sense

Ontology First - Neg says "gotta justify your ontology (way of being) first" - This arg is that your approach to the world is bad and you need to justify it before you can know anything about the policy or act in the world - neg says thinking about these things come first - Probably have to read evidence - representations inadequate because of idyllic world of the neg team - gotta make do with what we have and overcome the limitations of our representations - contingently accept things about the world without fundamentally questioning that world - Evaluate the plan as a justification of our ontology - Advantages are disads to the alternative - means not a reason to reject our ontology on face - "we meet" - our answers to the K are a defense of our ontology - Not come prior - just a part of - Perm and link turns are a defense of why you access their form of ontology - Can't eval ontology without empirically evaluating its result

2AC Checklist

- determine whether K is plan-based or representation-based (do we do the thing that they say is bad? - if based on plan, defend what you do is good; if no - if reps only, then choose between (1) reps and plan defense OR (2) reps only defense) - Answering Security with Kritik Aff's - US imperialism is the original cause of the wars the 1AC constructs - Reps middle ground (a) Reps should not be considered independent of policy (b) Read evidence why focusing on representations only is bad (c) multiple permutations - 1. severance - plan minus reps (justified by conditionality); 2. plan plus alt (d) Defense of the representations - winning the truth of the impact (e) Why the alternative fails to change representations

- answer ontology first - answer - your authors are all suspect - answering serial policy failure - (1) defense reps answers implicitly, (2) hold the explanation to specifics