International Relations.
IR motions reward knowing the three or four schools that fight over every foreign-policy question. Once you can place a motion inside "realist vs liberal vs constructivist," the warrants come fast.
01Core concepts
Realism
States are the primary actors, the international system is anarchic (no global government), and each state pursues its own security. Cooperation is fragile; alliances shift as power shifts. Most foreign-policy hawks reach for realism by default.
Liberalism (in IR)
States cooperate through institutions (UN, WTO, NATO), trade creates mutual interest, and democracies are less likely to fight each other. The "rules-based international order" is a liberal-IR phrase.
Constructivism
Identity and norms shape state behavior, not just material power. Why doesn't Canada arm against the US? Not because they can't; because the relationship's identity-construction makes war unthinkable. Useful for motions about norms (human rights, nuclear non-proliferation).
Hegemony
A single dominant power that sets the rules. Pax Britannica (19th century), Pax Americana (post-1945). "Hegemonic decline" arguments turn on whether US relative power loss leads to instability (realist) or institutional inertia (liberal).
Sovereignty
A state's right to govern its territory without outside interference. Tension point in any humanitarian-intervention motion: do human-rights norms override sovereignty, and who decides?
Security dilemma
When one state's defensive buildup looks offensive to its neighbor, who arms in response, which looks offensive to the first state. Most arms races and pre-war spirals trace through this.
Soft power
Power through attraction rather than coercion: culture, education, alliance value. The reason South Korea's K-pop matters for its security. Coined by Joseph Nye in 1990.
Balance of power vs bandwagoning
When a rising power emerges, smaller states either balance against it (form alliances to constrain it) or bandwagon with it (join its orbit for the spoils). Most current "China rises, what does Vietnam do" motions live here.
02How this shows up in debates
Intervention motions
"THW intervene militarily in [country] to stop a humanitarian crisis." The classic realist-vs-liberal-vs-constructivist three-way. Realist: doesn't serve national interest, don't go. Liberal: international institutions and R2P norms demand it. Constructivist: the norm of non-intervention is itself contested and shifting.
Alliance motions
"THW dissolve NATO." Realist case for: alliance is a relic, antagonizes Russia, drags US into unnecessary wars. Liberal case against: institutions create predictability, dissolving signals weakness, reopens great-power conflict.
Trade-as-foreign-policy motions
"THW use trade sanctions against [authoritarian state]." Sanctions literature is mixed: rarely change regime behavior, often hurt civilians most, sometimes the only non-military tool. Naming the empirical record beats moral framing.
Great-power-competition motions
"THBT the US should accommodate, rather than contain, China." Containment vs engagement is the foreign-policy debate of the next decade. Have a position. Be ready for the security-dilemma cross-application.
03What people get wrong
"The UN is irrelevant."
The UN Security Council is constrained by the P5 veto, yes. But UN agencies (WHO, UNHCR, UNICEF, IAEA) and peacekeeping operations move serious resources and have prevented or shortened many conflicts the council couldn't touch.
"Democracies don't fight each other."
Mostly true since 1945. But there are edge cases, the definition of "democracy" is doing real work, and the mechanism (trade, institutional constraints, shared identity) is contested. Don't cite this as a law; cite it as a strong tendency.
"Sanctions don't work."
Sanctions targeted at specific elites and connected to specific behavioral changes have a moderate success rate (40-50% in some datasets). Broad-population sanctions have a poor record. Specify which kind.
04Self-check quiz
Five questions to check what stuck. Click an option, the right answer and the why appear below. Your best score saves locally so you can come back and beat it.
05Sample motions
THBT the United States should accept the loss of its hegemonic position.
Argue →
THW dissolve NATO.
Argue →
THBT economic interdependence makes war less likely.
Argue →
THW give the UN Security Council the power to override state sovereignty in cases of mass atrocity.
Argue →
THBT non-proliferation is no longer a serious foreign-policy priority.
Argue →
06Where to go deeper
The Tragedy of Great Power Politics
by John Mearsheimer
The strongest single statement of offensive realism. Disagree with it if you want; you should know what you're disagreeing with.
The End of History and the Last Man
by Francis Fukuyama
The famous liberal-IR thesis. Aged unevenly, which is itself useful: the parts that aged badly tell you what realism has to say about the parts that aged well.
A Problem from Hell
by Samantha Power
On the policy machinery of humanitarian intervention and non-intervention. Read this before any genocide-related motion.
Argue a motion on International Relations.
Pick a side. The AI takes the other. Three minutes per speech, judge ballot at the end.
Argue this →