Skip to content
April 19, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

My strategic thoughts on the non-violence critique in policy debate

I think you could run it consistently with:
1. Nayer/Nayar (global/local)
2. Kappler
3. Fear bad–government scenario planning (Threat Construction, Realism K, etc…)

If you wanted more link arguments or mini-scenarios….

There are also a number of big militarism impacts in old files from the UN Peacekeeping topic….and I’m sure others.

Wink has some pretty decent cards on this topic.

BTW, my guess is most teams will say:
1. realism & people seek power & people are selfish (look at biology)
2. hege good–checks rogue states/your transition = power vacuums (china & the axis of evil fills the gaps)
3. non-violence doesn’t solve (specific instances have failed)
4. Violence and military good for stopping particular types of violence (rape, terrorism, etc..) although they may stray from this, because it doesn’t seem to justify their aff that much–it only slightly pokes holes in your theory.


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: