Skip to content
July 19, 2016 / compassioninpolitics

Answering the Mutua Human Rights K/Savior Victim Savage K

  1. Hardt & Negri link the critiques like this into capitalism (this wouldn’t really be my go to strategy)
  2. Critiques of culture bad.  (some anthropology theory stuff might talk about this)
  3. Post-colonialism bad
  4. Multiculturalism bad
  5. The west is the best.  Its like a ideology tradeoff DA.  (you can make a power vacuum argument, I’m almost sure.  For instance West leaves, some other nation like China or regional power fills the gap).
  6. US Internationalism good or US realism good (either one, but probably not both).  The later is probably the way to go I’m pretty sure.  This goes with the power vacuum argument.
  7. The alternative is almost wholly unclear.  The idea that it could solve the aff is bunk.
  8. Does your aff use human rights?  Does it use western human rights?  Does it use them on people outside the west?
  9. In what ways might you liberate these movements instead of suppress them.
  10. Has US human rights promotion ever been effective in the past?  (probably with US AID or what is known as development assistance).  You might look at our democracy assistance in the past, because in terms of the K its functionally the same thing.
  11. What is the historical tradeoffs this K would cause.  What actions in the past are DAs to the K, it ideology or the alternative?  Are there any historical cases when the US being a savior to the world has been good and that people generally agree on or can you find evidence that this is the case.  (ie successful military interventions).  There are few of these, unfortunately.  There are some you would need to read a card for, but you’re probably on the safe side to read a card.
  12. I’m thinking in many cases the answer to Nayer (or Global/Local) should also answer this.  They are both forms of post-colonialism.  Note the securitization stuff probably won’t, however.

You need to be able to answer the otherization, domination, and hippy dippy liberation claim of the alternative.

This list isn’t supposed to be followed one after the other, but rather pick and choose what you can find.  Also, for instance the impacts of the multi-culturalism bad ideally should also be made in terms of culture, otherization, unity, and empowerment.



Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Jul 19 2016 9:11 pm

    I’m answering questions here:

    I said US realism and US internationalism, but the theories without the US is sufficient.

    Realism is power politics.

    Internationalism is being engaged and active internationally, generally through institutions. (for instance UN & treaties)

    Most all alternatives are vague about the empowerment they provide and how they “solve” the case. This one you kind of have to figure out yourself.

    Also, the K has none of the mechanisms of the aff to solve the case–if movements, say non-western human rights movements could solve the case they would be solving it now. The alternative would sever what makes solvency possible in the first place.

    Also rejecting and re-thinking doesn’t solve the case & the specific problems you outline.

    Also, I would use specific arguments like “hege good” as a DA to their alternative.

    Nayer or Nayar (also called Global/Local) is an argument about hegemonic countries hurting culture. The overlap in the argument is rather significant in terms of how the arguments think about the US and the developing world (the developing world being what you typically call “the third world.”)

    If you go to any generic answers to K’s file, it should have realism good in it.

    Any other questions????

    BTW, what is your aff?????

  2. compassioninpolitics / Jul 23 2016 4:42 am

    If you’re running the K it makes sense to be able to answer Realism.

    1) Jim George is good for that.

    2) Threat Construction, which is out of a book called On Security, (although I don’t think he uses the word realism all that much). Its a critique of national security and security language.

    Its just under $13 for a used copy plus $3.99 shipping.…rds=on security

    3) Reading that Nayar article might be helpful, although its much more complex I think than the Mutua one. I’m sorry I don’t have the title. (if you have a decent backfile, this should be easy to find. Although i would re-read the article to get the insight and to see the argument develop)

    4) Finding some Bleiker evidence in the backfiles would be smart. I think thats how you spell it (its the framework evidence).

    Here is the Jim George book for $2.64 (if you have prime). Shipping and handling is more if you don’t. But $8 for that book is pretty solid.…l/dp/1555874460

    So for about $20 you can get both books. Both are incredibly applicable to debate.

    I can’t believe there isn’t a more recent version.

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: