You are on page 1of 5

AT mao k (no speaking)

1. Theory- read mao k is bad cuz education/fairness. Mao k addresses only

education so make fairness voter issue number one
2. Theory is the first layer of the debate because it controls the internal link to
what arguments can be made in the round, therefore it controls whether the
kritik could be run in the first place.
3. Turn, reading the mao k in the first place is acting as a book worshipper, you
are blindly following what he wrote
4. Perm, no reason we cannot investigate and read cards. Mao only blind says
book worship is bad, never says we cant read cards.

(kinda iffy but if opponent is in double bind. If they answer our theory shell and
argue kritik is a priori they have recognized our right to speak therefore we have the
right to speak, drop the mao k.)
AT Mao k (armed revolution)
1. Theory, there are a bunch of k alt theory shells in the file
Policymaking > kritik framework

A. Interpretation: The negative may only defend a policy making framework for evaluation of impacts

B. violation: The negative defends the kritik framework for evaluation of impacts

1: Real world decision-making.

A: The kritik framework is not consistent with real world decision making because real world
decision makers do not attempt to uproot the entirety of preexisting systems simply because they
think that those systems are bad i.e. capitalism but merely do the best that they possibly can under
a current system.
B: We do not say that a decision is bad because of the way it is worded which marginalizes
others or justifies bad things, but merely because of the implications of making that decision.
Strait and Wallace explain why learning how to make decisions is the only aspect of debate
applicable to our every day lives. they write

The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation or debate, is the key skill.
It is the one thing every single one of us will do every day of our lives besides breathing. Decision-
making transcends boundaries between categories [of] learning like "policy education"' and "kririk
education," it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and
it transcends questions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The
implication for this analysis is that the critical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-
world decision-making arc conductively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed
them. It is the skills we learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our

C. The K prevents us from looking to real world policies, thus preventing our rethinking of thinking in
order to craft meaningful theory about the world
Jarvis, senior lecturer @ University of Australia, 2K
(D.S.L. International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism )

There are, of course, problems with ontologically derived forms of the ory. Postmodemists naturally
dismiss this conception of theory and are not entirely wrong for doing so. Realism is not above criticism,
and structural-realism even more so. 58 But then again, neither is postmodernism! But this is not the point. I
am not here attempting to defend realism against postmodcrnism or to dismiss postmodernism entirely
from the purview of Inter national Relations. Rather, what I am attempting to do is defend the insti-
tution of theory against postmodemism which, in its more virulent forms, aims at its deconstruction and
obliteration. So too am I attempting to defend the ontological aspect of theory against those who would
engage exclusively in epistemological debate. For there to be theory in International Relations,
ontological description must be the first order of things; without first defining the domain of
international politics, identifying those entities and things we wish to explain and understand,
epistemological debate would be altogether pointless. Save for this, the discipline threatens to
transpose itself into philosophy and not International Relations, to be condemned to perpetual
metaphysical reflection but without reference to the social world we are attempting to understand.
Of course, this does not exonerate us from previous mistakes. International Relations, largely because
of the dominance of positivism in the discipline, has, in the past, been apt to ontological description in the
absence of epistemological reflection. Practitioners in the discipline have rarely seen a need to question
the epistemological basis of their scholarship as Thomas Biersteker forcefully acknowledged. 59 Yet, as he
also reminds us, developing theory and generating knowledge requires judi cious use of both
ontological description and epistemological explanation. These are not mutually exclusive
dimensions of theoretical discourse, but the elemental ingredients necessary to the construction of
discourse itself. The exclusive focus upon one dimension to the detriment of the other probably
explains why, according to William Kreml and Charles Kegley, International relations research
today. . . has failed to reach agreement about several fundamental issues. . . (1) the central questions
to be asked, (2) the basic units of analysis (e.g., states or nonstate actors), (3) the levels of analy sis at
which various questions should be explored, (4) the methods by which hypotheses should be tested and
unwarranted inferences prevented, (5) the criteria by which theoretical progress is to be judged, and (6)
how inquiry should be organized in order to generate the knowledge that will lead to international peace,
prosperity, and justice.

The critique ignores the practical side of life. We must be able to

use logic and rationality in order to solve the basic problems of our
Jarvis, senior lecturer @ University of Australia, 2K
(D.S.L. International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism )

To what end these approaches will prove beneficial, however, to what end their concerns and
depictions of current realities prove accurate remains problematic. What does seem obvious, though, is
the continuing desire for understanding, the need to examine, comprehend, and make sense of events
and, consequently, the need for theoretical endeavor. Despite nihilistic despair or charges of
epochal change, most of us will wake up tomorrow confronted by a world much the same as
today, one that experiences the recurring problems of inequality, injustice, war, famine, violence,
and conflict. Various problems will emerge and solutions to them will be sought. These, surely,
cannot be deconstructed as the sub versive postmodernists insist, but only reinscribed as new
questions. And while we might problematize current knowledge and interpretations, question our
faith in science, reason, and logic, or reinscribe questions in new contexts, to suppose these
endeavors contrary to the activity of the ory and the search for meaning and understanding seems
plainly absurd. If we abandon the principles of logic and reason, dump the yardsticks of
objectivity and assessment, and succumb to a blind relativism that privi leges no one narrative or
understanding over another, how do we tackle such problems or assess the merits of one solution
vis--vis another? How do we go about the activity of living, making decisions, engaging in trade,
deciding on social rules or making laws, if objective criteria are not to be employed and reason
and logic abandoned? How would we construct research programs, delimit areas of inquiry or define
problems to be studied if we abandon rationalist tools of inquiry?

The endless questioning necessitated by critiques prevents us from rationally making decisions. This
destroys education because the critical arguments ignore real world application and thus cannot be
utilized outside of rounds. This also links to fairness because if arguments are not grounded in the
real world it will be impossible for debaters to predict the world that will be created in round.
Predictability is key to fairness because one debater is severely disadvantaged if they are not
prepared to make strong arguments that win the ballot.

2: Adjudicability: It is easier to judge debate rounds under the policy making framework than
under the K framework because the policy framework just requires a comparison by the debaters
of costs and benefits and the advancement of competing moral theories for examining policy
action which link back to some operative term in the resolution. However, the K framework does
not provide reasons why discourse that justifies bad things constitutes a neg ballot or how to
adjudicate between competing discourse claims, which destroys fairness as it begs judge
intervention on what discursive impacts are worst.

1. Topic education: the negative changes the debate to a subject matter that is not relevant to the
core topic issue. Because critical arguments can be generically linked to advocacies of
multiple topics, they do not address the specific issues addressed in the resolution. Topic
specific discussion is key for education because debaters then learn from a breadth of
research because they are forced to learn about the different issues surrounding all of the
different topics rather than only develop one advocacy to apply throughout the year. Policy
making also accommodates for depth of research because debaters research in depth to
develop specific plans to run on this topic, and still cover a breadth of issues as they write
different plans for each topic.

2. Attack links, their link to providing the rifles probably wont be too good.