Card File Explanation - LD January/February Nuclear Arsenals

By: Samantha McLoughlin

The latest card file we released was for the January-February 2020 LD topic: Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Click [here] for the link. And as always, please feel free to Facebook message GirlsDebate with any questions.

A lot of the K cards under both the AFF and NEG headings could be used on either side, depending on whether they are incorporated into a fem aff or a fem K.

THE AFF

Under the “Framing” header, the Acheson 18 card discusses the way that anti-nuclear feminist perspectives are consistently devalued as emotional or weak. This card can be leveraged as a framing card that calls for the judge to refuse the patriarchal assumptions that underly the nuclear industry and instead embrace the feminist analysis of the aff. It could also be an epistemological indict against evidence that highlights the gendered nature of objections to the aff and the psychological bias against feminized perspectives that the judge should check back against.

Under the “Hegemonic Masculinity” header, there are cards that discuss the way that nuclear weapons have been both symbolically and literally linked with hegemonic masculinity. The Cohn et al 05 talks about the way that nuclear weapons have become tied to masculine notions of war-making and aggression, juxtaposed against an undesirable feminized peace. They emphasize that this process of gendering is not natural, but social. This card could be utilized as contention offense with a case that forwarded a feminist theory of international relations. The CFFP 7/10 makes a similar argument, contextualized to the nuclear industry. It talks about the way toxic competition culture is used to promote nuclear weapons as a way of upholding the masculinity of the state while emasculating those constructed as the enemy. The Acheson 18 card critiques a traditional view of international relations (often used to support deterrence theory) for its focus on nuclear weapons as tools of “strategy” and “protection” rather than on humanitarian and gendered consequences. The Fenton 19 card also isolates the gendered humanitarian impacts of nuclearism, specifically gender minorities who were affected by Hiroshima, and the indigenous people affected by nuclear testing. Additionally, this card argues that nuclear weapons are predicated on a culture that values masculinity over feminized traits. The Fihn 18 card also establishes the link between masculinity and nuclear weapons, drawing on specific examples from both cultural phenomena (such as films) and previous foreign conflicts.

Under the “Nuke War = Gendered” header, there are cards that discuss the gendered nature and impacts of nuclear war. These cards could either be used as impact cards for a more consequentialist fem case, or to argue that any analysis of nuclear war is incomplete and flawed without an understanding of gender. The Dimmon 16 card discusses the way that radiation uniquely affects women through psychological trauma. The second Dimmon 16 card highlights how the displacement caused by nuclear war would exacerbate existing gender discrimination and disproportionately harm gender minorities. The Cohn and Ruddick 04 card is an impact framing card that criticizes the tendency to use objective language to abstract away from the material impacts of nuclear catastrophe. The use of objective language, which is considered more masculine, in nuclear discourse is used to filter out feminist critiques of nuclear weapons – this card could be leveraged in the impact weighing debate to check back against the judge’s innate biases against “subjective” or “feminine” language. The Fihn 18 card describes the unique effect of nuclear radiation on women, and, following that, advocates for a feminist foreign policy in the context of nuclear weapons.

THE NEG

Under the “Deterrence Good” header, the Peach 04 card argues that maintaining nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes is consistent with a feminist foreign policy. First, the card claims that purely antiwar feminists overlook the strategic, real world necessity of nuclear weapons to deter mass war and violence. Second, the card points out that nuclear deterrence allows some nations to resist domination by more powerful nations, a goal consistent with feminist aims of minimizing oppression.

Under the “Link – Horizontal Nonprolif” header, the Cohn et a. 05 card could be used as a link card for a Fem K against affs that attempt to prevent “unsafe” nations from maintaining nuclear arsenals (likely affs this could link to include Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, etc.). Horizontal nonproliferation is the attempt to prevent nuclear weapons from spreading past a certain few “responsible” countries (i.e. usually Western countries such as the US, UK, etc.). This card critiques horizontal nonproliferation efforts as reifying and relying upon binaries such as “rational/irrational”.

Under the “Link – Liberal Inclusion” header, the Dalaqua 19 card critiques attempts to deconstruct masculinity simply by the inclusion of gender minorities in national security discussions because such an additive approach to reform is unable to contest the patriarchal structure of national security decision-making. This could be read against affs that focus on the identity of the debater, as it can be spun as a link to attempts to resolve toxic masculinity at the level of the individual.

Under the “Link – “Masculine Policy Space” header, the Hurlburt et al 19 card criticizes linguistic analysis that links “nuclear weapons” with “masculinity”. A focus on language obscures the fact that historical women have made progress in gaining influence in policy spaces, and create a self-fulfilling prophecy of gendered exclusion

Under the “Framing” header, the Fihn 18 card gives examples of feminist movements that have been specifically successful in the context of anti-nuclear movements. This card should be utilized to show the necessity of gendered analysis in order to make anti-nuclear movements successful (which would make the K a pre-requisite to the aff).

Under the “Alt” header, there are cards that outline solvency to various alts that could be read with a fem K. The Hurlburt et al 19 card advocates a more overarching approach to resolving gendered violence that goes beyond individual policies towards holding the entire state accountable. The Harvey 14 makes a spillover solvency claim that feminist anti-nuclear movements are able to solve militarism internationally by tracing the interconnected webs of patriarchy, racism, and other forms of oppression globally. The second Harvey 14 card proposes an alternative of embracing emotionality. Instead of trying to adhere to purely objective descriptions of nuclear war, we should instead embrace the feminized emotions of grief and anger and use them to fuel our movements. The Fihn 18 card describes how feminist foreign policy is able to create education and civically engagement activists.