Skip to content
February 10, 2011 / compassioninpolitics

Debating Global/Local Critique (aka Nayer) on the Military Pressence Topic

Part I: Debating Global/Local (aka Nayer)

I hope these tips help for debating global/local on the negative (there are also some tips–particularly asking hard cross ex questions about the alternative’s ability to solve case too)

I don’t understand how this argument could work outside of REALLY good link arguments in the block. (or reading links on the case–ie various forms of shift).

If they are winning–they are likely winning on framework–and not the argument proper. If they win scenario planning/simulations bad OR reps come first, you’re probably behind in the debate already.

The Four Key Link Areas:
1) “We” vs. I
2) Roleplaying
3) “Security”
4) “the new” (revolutions bad)

Three link areas that are almost link turns on this resolution (they can also be links depending on the justifications the affirmative gives):
5) the West
6) “Development” (generally of the top-down variety)
Also, if you are claiming hege or even democracy as an advantage–the link turn or link out strategy is probably a non-starter.
7) Globalization/Neoliberalism/Capitalism
(note: 6 and 7 are fairly similar for the purposes here)

Explanation of the 6 possible links:
The first two are probably the best as applied to this topic. Calling on the USFG to act or acting through the US federal government is an act of “we” instead of I. Two problems:

1) We does violence to the “I” (organizations, group politics, government action all do violence to the “I'”) This is kind of like an essentialism or multi-dimensionality argument in drag.
2) We aren’t the USFG & assuming we are asks the wrong questions. (roleplaying the USFG = bad)
3) Security discourse–you’re using security oriented rhetoric, which is the root cause of the problem in the first place (this is the realism K or threat construction in drag)
4) Revolutions bad. They don’t use this language–but they talk about speaking of “new world orders” (aka like the plan or solvency) are getting it all wrong.

5 & 6] Imperialism/the West = bad
a) Arguably if you have a moral obligation or rights argument, they could use the “westernization” style argument against you (especially with Mutua evidence)
b) obviously if you are claiming hege good–thats a link here. (ie you’re not only justifying the overall hege of the US, but you’re claiming your aff defends it)

If they are smart they will probably be making a shift argument which articulates that the aff can’t be a net reduction in militarism–it just shifts elsewhere (ie the troops go somewhere else or the USFG will just use other weapons–although the later only applies to certain cases). A smart team will also point out that even if the troops are shifted to home they are doing the work of militarism & imperialism just under a new guise.

Are you trying to run it or trying to answer it?
I suggest getting it from the open case list if its there. I don’t remember offhand if any camp put it out this year. You might also familarize yourself with Kappler, which has been run with this argument in the past.

Part II. Debating Global/Local (aka Nayer)

I have trouble wrapping my mind around how Nayer could be an effective PIK that solved any part of the aff. I’ve coached kids to run it as such with a decent degree of success, but thats because most teams don’t use cross ex to effectively interrogate the alternative or how it could possibly solve the affirmative.

The alternative is the preformance of resistance, rather than narrate state policies let us examine the violence observable in our own lives.
Nayar 99
For instance, there is no way that alternative solves the case–a) agent b) the alternative is primarily reflective c) not pro-active (given the anti-revolution bent). Marquette’s articulation seems a little more robust (they essentially have 4 alternatives cards). I think they would say aff is asking the wrong questions & pursuing the wrong means to solve any form of violence.

“The global”–I would say global economic institutions (WTO), multilateral organizations (UN), international law, and probably the global economy itself (capitalism, neoliberalism, technology).

He/she would probably say that the military was part of that system–and I think it wouldn’t be all that much of a jump to say that ideologies which drive those (the engines if you will) are part and parcel of the global. Arguably, this is me filling in the dots a bit–but I think given his/her seeming representational/rhetorical/ideological focus–its not too far off. (his/her focus on culture also betrays this internal link).

For instance, is it possible to say the opposite–that ideologies which give rise to those institutions & behind those institution aren’t part of the global. I think you would be hard pressed to say they weren’t.

If you’ll notice this is me reading probably either Foucault or Hardt & Negri on Nayar (probably more H & N). However, there are some places where he doesn’t fill in the gaps–so I think there is a certain flexibility when articulating the position.

Four strategic focuses as I see it for strategy:
1) Framework (Impact turns this with K the K as a link.)
2) Link turn (aka we decrease the military/security apparatus)
3) Connection to the ballot (debate, education, etc).
4) Probably the impact turn & realism debate

Part III. Global/Local Critique (aka Nayer)

I think like 80%-95% of K debates this is a framework debate (at least ones where the K team is clued in). Win that and the role of the ballot and you should be over half way home. If they don’t get framework right, the other doesn’t matter.

I think if you frame the alternative as “we’re the only ones who can solve the root cause of violence” I think that helps a bit. I think thats one of the advantages of having a half dozen Kappeler cards in addition to the K cards.

A couple of times we ran it with an actomania argument–that the need to act (aka rorty, the perm, the aff) gets us in problems more times than not (aka turn). I think you can frame this as asking the wrong question–we need to give up on solving the worlds problems. Right the claim “you don’t solve the case” is pretty irrelevant when they don’t either & only make it worse. The only hope of solving violence is via the a) individual b) not “securitizing” things. Their argument is hubris writ large.

I would outline such that there are 4 parts to the K. Link, Impact/Implication, Alternative, Role of the Ballot (unless you are running it with multiple other arguments, including disads). [Marquettes outline is decent]

I think you have to throw down on the link turn, because it sounds like a viable argument when it really isnt.

The only way you can access the aff harms is by making the alternative be about imaging a world where everyone all did the alternative (there seems to be some tension with the argument). There **may** be ways around this–but I think primarily rhetorically. [I would ask Marquette].

The answer to the perm for every critique is always (with some explanation for each):
1) we win framework = game over & your perm is a link to that framework (or rather that framework guts your “harms”, etc)
2) cross original link
3) turns case
4) read more links (or cross apply my links on the link turn debate). If they are reading hegemony good thats a link in itself. And the justifications about the japan alliance are ultimately about economic or military power.
5) specific answers to the perm (aka gotta act, rorty, boggs)

Two other perm issues to address that each get their own sheet of paper:
1) Remember to answer any double bind arguments
2) Remember to answer any perf. con good arguments

The so called “link turns”:
1) we are the “i”
2) we remove SQ violence (or we solve for the other, we protect culture). Our aff is nonviolence or antiviolence.
3) we decrease imperialism/violence (also capitalism/militarism)
4) must reclaim biopower/must reclaim security/we gotta use the state (I believe there is a lot of this from years past in relation to reclaiming “security”). Campbell writes the biopower argument here.

Obviously the realism debate:
1) Realism inevitable.
2) Realism checks war.
3) Critiques of realism = violence.
4) the west is the best & hege good.
5) threats exist (even if not objectively) & underestimating threats bad

I think the tendency is to overdo the impact debate, but its really just a matter of how their way of relating to problems is fundamentally flawed. Its a method argument. Its like approaching life on earth if there was zero G or trying to cure cancer with a bandaid–its wrong at its core.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: