This card sparked an argument on the Emory team back in the day and I saw a recent discussion of the same issue, so I pose the question:
If the neg reads a security K vs an aff about hegemony, is this an aff answer card or a neg response to realism?
Neufeld 1994 (Mark, Department of Political Studies at Trent University, “Critical Reflections on International Relations”, Beyond Positivsm: Critical Reflections on International Relations, 1994, page 25-26)
Highlighting the links between paradigms and specific socialpolitical agendas is one of the ways in which Stance II adherents demonstrate a clear advance over those of Stance I in terms of reflexivity. The treatment of the realist paradigm in international relations theory serves as a good example. As Smith has argued, because’ international relations theory, as primarily an “American discipline,” has been so closely identified with the foreign policy concerns of the country, it is not surprising that the assumptions of Realism have proven to be so difficult to overcome. This is because the focus of Realism, namely how to maximize power so as to manage international events, fits extraordinarily well with the needs of a hegemonic power. The three key elements of Realism’s account of world politics, the national interest, power maximization and the balance of power, are particularly well suited to the requirements of a foregin policy for the U.S. (Smith, 1987: 198-199) In short, from the perspective of Stance II, realism is understood not as a neutral description of the world as it truly is, but rather as a coping vocabulary of a specific community (e.g., U.S. state managers) designed to address certain problems or to satisfy particular needs and interests. Furthermore, the assessment of realism as a coping vocabulary can be undertaken only in relation to the problems defined and the needs and interests identified. Consequently, the success of realism has, with due respect to Holsti, had less to do with its alleged accuracy in grasping the facts of international politics than with its demonstrated utility for guiding state managers in their activities of state-and nation-building. That is to say, the realist paradigm has validated its truth claims by demonstrating its ability to guide state policymaking.