Security K

Branch of study called security science o Look at how we construct security threats o Studies the way we pay attention to different security threats
o

During cold war: We had tons of threats

o After Cold War: Things that were not security issues suddenly became security issues because we had all these standing nukes o Interesting thing happens when something is a security threat o Homeland security: Concerned about shampoo, liquids, immigrants o Used to be military to respond to threats o Disease security threat o Poverty is a security threat o Immigration is a threat o How do you resopond? You bomb it Self-fulfilling prophecy

o By predicting it you make it true o Disease: Disease is a security threat Was not a threat in the past Then we called them security threats You respond to them by militarizing something When you militarize something it perceives the military threat and threatens back We dont threaten disease, we threaten the people there. Not just security threats, there are people there too. Because of the way this cycle works, you create this cycle of security and insecurity o You secure when you feel insecure, you move from treating something with medicens to weapons, causes it to do what you said o Process happens just by a name o Security threats are real, they do exist Asteroid is not going to get worse, there are some things you should fear. Cycles of (in)security o Cannot exist without one another o Sosorian Emeatics

o First answer to something is a security based reason because of insecurity o Weaponize/ nuke it o Military industrial context o Places make their money selling bombs, what happens is different companies realize they have a chance to get more toys o They understand cycles, they use them o Differenciate between science and regular people, experts trusted more People will say we are the experts, trust us, you will not understand, but you should know you will be scared

Will take over by becoming the people we trust

Crushes debate about stuff Guide us to militarization Broken arrow solves o First: No early warning system unless you vote aff o Even if the Alt is capable of solving securitization, it does not put a satellite in a venus like orbit, so it cannot use any deflection, so they wont see astronught soon enough o Take time because more gentle and a lot more deadly
o

Even if they solve security they sovle adv 2, broken arrow, cannot solve advantage 1, they cannot solve adv 1 because no detection systems

o They cannot do whole plan, if you do some of that then we go for perm, because then alt is not a reason to reject the plan o You also need to read framework, reason to go for this is to win that you get your plan and case advantages Cannot make them go away because rather talk about something else o Only 1 way to win is if they can get their K impacts to outweigh aff impacts, where things get complicated, now they make ontology and epistemology framework arguments o Epistimology: How we know things, sight/ vision being one
o

Ontology: Study of being, metaphysics of being, describes gravity and logic, Things that we can know about existence prior to existence Micheal Dillan Julien Reed James Derderian Michal Shapiro

David Campell Say security is ontological Why not important If you dont know what you are, no idea what to do

 Use that to win the debate, say that their K comes first

Should answer whether the viewpoint is ok before asking what we should do Win that your plan matters, you get to weigh your case, they dont put satellites, desecuritizing our thinking, plan less security than Squo, we can win a perm perhaps because they go together

Whether or not security is a good idea depends on whether or not it works They have conceded our Floyd evidence, the best framework is on a case by case bases, the only framework. The only case presented is the affirmative, we have won that in the case of the affirmative securiatization is good, security is good even if it is bad in other cases We are not responsible for those That is something we can permute, we will always defend our plan

Even if they win securitization it is a good idea, but when combined with instances of bad security, voting affirmative is the only acceptable option

Zizek says philosophers are useless for asteroids Gives you a chance to say the following in the 1AR:

o Extend Zizek, even ZIZEK THINKS THIS IS A REAL THREAT, ZIZEK FOUND A WAY TO SAY THE MATRIX WAS A TOOL OF CAPITALIST IMPRESSIONS
o

Alternative: Dont listen to philosophers: Prefer our solvency over their alternative efforts, Super mega philosopher made an argument for the affirmative. Prefer solvency over alternative Dillan or Dardarian: Booth 2005 Hyd Price 2001: exclusive focus on discourse ignore emperical facts, consider both is best

o o

o Copenhagen School Better alt than the status quo from which we should be judged Bundle evidence in rebuttles, link your piece of evidence and have story in your head No philosophy, thats ZIZEK EVIDENCE! o You exclude empirically insights of true threats o Case by case only legitimate lense of security You make arguments, your evidence is your crew
o

When people talk about spin idea of you can spin something different, talk about what the argument IS, have evidence do work for you after that. Cut evidence, not arguments