Table of Contents

Saturday August 6th

Nightly Updates
-Space Mil

- Politics
- Spending

Aff Stuff

-make sure the 1AC has evidence that slowing warming is key


Offense v. Energy:
-Russian oil
-Venezuela oil
-CO2 Ag. (backstopping link)

Major Defense v. Energy:
-can’t solve in short term (long timeframe)
-other polluters; China, India, etc. (need a card on this)
-bias cards

A2 Peak Oil:
-squo will solve – a transition away from fossil fuels = inevitable if renewable energy is cheaper
-peak oil wrong/peak oil doesn’t lead to instability
-Tom Whipple indicts

Heg Advantage:
-heg bad
-competitiveness bad?
-air power bad/forward deployment bad
-straight up defense

Off-Case Positions:
-T – its
-Privates CP
-Security Kritik
-with environmental security links
-links in Consumption K can be applied here
-Ground CP
-Space Mil net benefit
-Japan CP
-heg bad net benefit
-SPS is not SBSP
-PIC out of lunar power (if they say SBSP)
-demonstrations failed + privates fail


Off-Case Positions:
-Jordan says: T!!!
-Politics – SKFA link scenario = based off democrats, so link = strong
-Spending – strong links
-Ban Space Mil CP
-modifies article IV of the OST to ban militarization/weaponization of space
-SKFTA = questionable net benefit
-provides uniqueness for the case turns
-Security K

Offense v. BMD:
-ragged retaliation – as we build up space BMD, Russia would pre-emptively strike
-Chinese militarization – China would use ASATs/cyber weapons
-Iran gives weapons to terrorists
-Cruise missiles – other countries develop cruise missiles if we build space BMD
-but this would apply to ground BMD as well
-predicated off of thesis of the aff

Defense v. BMD:
-interceptor problems mean you can’t fire multiple at the same time (even if they work well otherwise)
-boost phase doesn’t work/doesn’t target close or well enough
-close is not good enough
-NEED: even if actors are rational, any small skirmish --> retaliation//public pressure also means that countries default to use it or lose it
-rational actors might be a neg argument – if countries think their nukes won’t work, they wll probably act more irrationally

A2 Heg:
-military tradeoff – trades off with other modernization
-collapses global nuclear deterrent
-international backlash

Strong Neg Block:
-4 minutes Security K
-9 minutes case

Asteroid Detection

Off-Case Positions:

Case v. Asteroids:
-probability of asteroids hitting earth = very low
-status quo detection solves
-we could still nuke asteroids post-plan

(CO)mmons Neo-Lib Aff
*most of these positions are in the case neg*

Off-Case Positions:
-CP – Bind the US to CIL – share tech with others/space = everyone’s property
-Development PIC
-ILaw Biopower kritik

Case v. Commons:
-neo-lib good
-critical I-Law turns

China Cooperation

Off-Case Positions:
-Extra T
-CP – Cooperate with China
-Mars net benefit
-Tech Transfer DA + Autry cards
-Launches/Disease DA?
-India DA

Asteroid Mining

Off-Case Positions:
- + NASA bad
-NASA Spending Trade-Off DA
-NASA can’t do the mission unless Congress appropriates the funds
-gives you the politics link
-Security K
-read with Consumption link module

Moon Colonization

Off-Case Positions:
-Property Rights CP
-SPS with OST net benefit
-Gender K
-Frontier K

-colonization bad stuff
-LSP can’t solve for energy
-generic stuff


Off-Case Positions:
-T – Substantial
-Environmental Security K
-Coercion K
-Congress just cut the program
-Privatization CP

Friday August 5th


collapse causes war
crashes are bad for environment (poverty is bad for environment)
greatest consumption is on recoveries of economies
no mindset change

Space based BMD

"brilliant pebbles"
check out geocentric orbit - if we do it above the earth 0 it may be impossible to hit it
only 2 ways to nock out systems - lasers or hitting it with stuff
remember - close is not good enough
Remember, there are BOOKS (crazy, huh?) on BMD
Treaty - Peros CP - redefines the OST -may also solve heg
don't forget most of these args are solvency AND turns simultaneously

SCI FI - Bennett

Framework - Fraser
gotta have a plan
gotta be a usfg
gotta vote by endorsing the plan (and not methodology)

Shively ev is pretty good on have to have a plan text
don't make the voting issue fairness, but say its key for debate - DAVID FOSTER WALLACE

for methodology stuff, RPS/ flip coins - they have to have a way to decide this between competing methodologies - for what purpose, etc?

Why should the judge vote for you?
endorsement of option for other - best narrative exploration of the other

Strat options -Bennett/Isaac
1. framework = T
2. uncritical other
3. Sci fi western bias (perhaps this should be as part of the neg block) - post colonialism criticism continues to push western standards
4. other - other
5. anthromorphize schmitt - essentializes the other, etc
6. Schlag distancing

(we then watched the clip)


consult ashtar (hilarity ensues in discussion)

anthropromorphizing - communication prerequestsintelligence

communication is always influences - Robert
requires feedback - any symbol system - inherently two way, presumes intelligence
in the SETI neg - there is stuff about communication is bad because it is anthroprocentristic.

and uncritical acceptance of the bad

Thursday August 4th

Practice round Discussion

Energy DA
QQ Russian Oil DA
JM Russian Space Industry DA (seen as catching up to US, new industry, Russia can't be a part of, space k to diversification)
JM Russian Brain Drain DA

Do we have a DA to Russian space programs?
Red Spread to Russia DA -
Russian Space Malthus DA
No trade off between Russia & US programs, the competition spurs the race and makes it better,

India DA
Space competition link


Space Debris
although conceded nu to say no solvency
maybe we need durability questions on SPS wouldn't be destroyed by UV rays, etc.

1 SPS affs
their solvency cards say govt action key because of the cost
we could CP anchor tenant
maybe CP to have just Japan demonstrate one

Aff answers to Japan, etc CP
do we have any DA?

Aff answers to Ground CP?
we need more work on this other than solvency deficits

SPS/Space mil
perception link - perhaps the UN inspectors saying ok would take this out


Lunar Property Rights
- had no answer to the OST DA

Asteroid Detection
make sure you run substantial T against them since they say they're just one satellite for detection.
they had no answer to "the ones we don't know about won't hurt us"
they have heg/competitiveness advantage - we can turn that
Ken also heard a China CP to detect

we need some defense
we need cards specific to space and brilliant pebbles - kinetic kill vehicles
they don't have much reason why ground based NMD doesn't take out their advantage without losing.
when they say SQ NMD is bad, but still.
combine counter measures and destabilization (shift to cruise missiles) to both take out solvency and be a DA
cards on current MD so thin/underdeveloped that it doesn't get any of these problems would be good (others don't perceive it as a problem)

(wait until tomorrow for full discussion)
Sci Fi
went for T gotta have a plan
the aff said they do have a plan because they read some ev about united federation -
we need more framework stuff
eliminate resolved - define substantially, increase, usfg, by the earths mesosphere

Critical search for Aliens (Buse)
they claim reflective fiat that debaters could be the agent


Oil DA answers - aff/neg - Joel
diversification better, price flux inevit, turn diversitication - transition to alts smooths transition to diversify, nu on the econ of these economies, etc.
Peak Oil - more ev on this. Perhaps nuance this to just say oil prices rise (not necessarily "peak"), effect of speculators,

Russia DA stuff - Jackie
Red Spread, Russian Space Malthus, Brain Drain, etc.

Politics - Neustadt/Jackie
Budget DA

DA to Japan, China, India, ESA CP, etc Space Programs - Sydney

Ground CP DA AFF - Fraser
Bird DA?, Politics links, unable to solve, NIMBY DA, Federalism DA,

Space Mil DA Ans and Neg work - Fraser, Isaac, Jordan

Ozone DA ans - Parisa

SPS solves for reals - Nakisa
- fast, durable, not hurt by space debris, UV rays, microwave disrupts military case turn, ,etc

H1B visa CP, STEM Ed CP ans - Helen
Rate of warming stuff to allow adaptation
Biochar/carbon sequestration CP ans -
biofuels, algae, etc. cp

Lunar based solar power CP ans - Sydney
(with a net benefit of space debris DA),

Nietzsche K ans - Rufus

Bataille K ans - Will

Security K ans - Jared
(reps not key)

JM Nationalism K ans - Zofia
hardt & negri

Cap K ans/ dedev - Will

Militarism K ans - Jared

Satellite Hardening Aff - Noah

Satellite Hardening Neg - Maggie, Jordan, Isaac

Privatization CP ans - Joel
Tax incentives get politics links, spending links, incentive not enuf bc not profitable, foreign privates?

Mining more aff work (including on the ground CP ans) - Conor

T assignment
[development of space definition,

Moon Helium 3 Neg - Nakisa
energy DA links (H3 trades off with oil), solvency stuff, won't mine bc no one can use it on earth, fusion IL defense,

Aerospace Adv CP - Noah

BMD neg - Zofia, Robert, Hannah

Antonucci on k Stuff

How to Win on the K

or 6 things that they do to make the aff irrelevent.Watch for it, K debaters are successful on these tricks for impact calculus

1. Role of the ballot -
Don't think of it strictly as fiat (or worse, pre/post fiat).
The Neg team will say some alternative form of the ballot that should be prioritized.
The neg will say this is just a way of weighing and not exclusion.

Aff teams will often forget to actually weigh their case and thus lose to this.

2. Advantages are caused by the ROOT CAUSE/ Alt solves the aff -
An example of this is the Capitalism arg. So, any neg could say something is caused by Capitalism.
Judges are very eager to hear this in depth relationship/comparison on this stuff so judges will spot you args without cards just because we're eager to have this comparison

3. Try or die -
If a large scale structural system means the whole world is on fire now.
If this is coupled with epistemology or why their aff isn't true (or emergency planning isn't true), then this because a real round winner.
Mode of analysis of how we examine isolated examples of this are bad and prevent us from finding tru solutions and inevit cause extinction

4. Value to Life -
A slightly better version of this is to say value of life determines role of the ballot. We don't function as USFG actors because senate won't impact, but we all should decide our own ethical orientation before it reflects a simulation. So determining the quality of life and how we choose to live it should come first given the way we sign the ballot and the rules of our "simulation."

5. Alt does the Aff -
That means you can't weigh your aff, so that's rough. Often worthwhile to float the alt but declare it and float it int he 1nc so you can answer and swamp it int he block instead of the 2nr that is pressed for time.
Some theoretical defenses of AIK
- substance determines the theory (all reps matter abouve fairness, education is a qualititive good - matters what we learn not just how much)
- theoretically confined to a specific part of debate - its a core consideration for space, etc
- strategic cost/strategic benefit - that should be a part of debate
- debate would then be better bc add-ons and race like forms are not winners, but a few good well defended advantages are the norm
- then defense on the fairness questions
- potential CI that limits the kind of reps AIKs that describe your AIK. (perhaps topic/space based reps are more defensible because one year only. If its a core advantage one, like warming, then they should be able to defend that. It doesn't justify smaller "the" or comma AIKs. This resolves infinite regress, distinction helps with arg resolution)
- only as a K doesn't solve because the entire debate should be about this (we have cards about why this is important)

6. Question methodology and truth claims -
If judges are forced to endorse extinction, they're reluctant. But if K debaters can contest those claims, they are more successful. The neg team says that the way the aff produces truth is wrong - particularly true for Security.

Cutting tot he chase on overviews and going for these may help - or putting them on the case outweighs arg.

How Aff Teams Win

1. Case outweighs -
This is the core that wins the aff most of the K debates.
a. CASE - weighing and impacting it
b. PERM DO BOTH - weighing argument. Some parts may not be mutually exclusive. This may also invoke many of the links, but then its the aff impacts vs. the mitigated links. The aff may prop up marxist ideology somewhat, but not enough to outweigh extinction.
You can further explain this as the classic double bind about how the alt either doesn't solve the residual links or the perm ok.
c. Alt doesn't solve - but it doesn't resolve the case as well - its solvency is small and ours is big.
We should stop both the proximate cause of impacts as well as the root cause - so the permutation resolves things best.

2. Get good at defensive push back against the worst arguments
Especially true for the 1ar, but a one sentence efficient pushing back against the K args above
- can't weigh the aff
- root cause (solving root cause long time and proximate causes still matter)
- no root causes - there are many root causes.
- always value to life - but life still has value - and you can't assign other folks values of life.

- get good at these theory args: theoretically win that they can't exclude your aff and that they don't get to do your aff

- be prepared to argue that the SQ "is pretty dope"
extinction risks are contingent, but not structural. We have a good system, we just need to intelligently navigate our way around these risks. A few reasons why the SQ isn't so bad go a long way to reversing the neg's characterization of the SQ and prevents the try or die.

- especially with security, you should be ready to push back against epistemology claim by defending your epistemology/methodology. You have a way you know/do stuff - be ready to defend it. Good ways to do that are by talking about your specificity/facts, empiricism (ideology is always distorted, but facts are much harder to distort, hence we should decide based on the specific details),

3. Be aggressively ignorant in cx -
in cx say " i don't think this means anything"
" so bataille's cosmology seems to think that the universal is constantly in flux with lots of energy that should be burnt out, etc"
then follow up with
" who is bataille and how does he trump all physicists that have determined universe"

4. Research & DA to the ALT matters -
The above core toolbox may prove more useful since you may not be able to keep up with all of the different type of alts.

A2: Reps are first
1. Extinction level - the fact our aff is about extinction stuff so that matters more.
2. Trick of the literature - everyone has to write it in order to get published. most scientific folks don't respond because they realize its not even close to true. Representations of AIDS is not more important than actually finding a cure.


What is it?
Excess is inevitable. Sacrifice is Good.

best args
1. Case outweighs - even if that eventually happens, our advantages have shorter time frame
2. this cosmology is dumb - energy does not accumulate in objects. That's not how physics works and bataille made this up.
3. Bataille's conclusion is conservative - massing expenditure and waste justifying the privilege of a few. For example, most folks say human sacrifice is bad, but Bataille joined a human sacrifice cult.
4. This is not only descriptive of societies of the past, but we live in a society of waste. Consumerist societies create horrible things - like the ewaste from our computers. So the benefit of their kritik is non-unique (no massive accumulation) and their alt is reprehensible.
5. Kritiks of Bataille - he exoticizes other cultures/noble savage stuff.

Tuesday, August 2


Heg- China arms race response, cyber weapons, miscalculation leads to asats ---> arms race, Heg bad cards
Rouge states- missile

Russia DA:
kills relations
perceived as first strike weapon- hair trigger

Ban Space Mil CP:
BMD ground based links

Solar SAT Neg

Space Mil- US not weaponizing, SPS is dual use, space arms race multi nation, only US Russia war is existential threat
Oil Disad- oil prices are stable, backstopping
K- colonize/ dominate , heg preservation global war, advocate representations

Heg- us heg inevitable, no internal between leadership and sps, no link heg and peace- no heg impact
Warming- SQ solves, japan solves, china will still pollute, SPS can't solve climate change

Missile Defense Neg
Security- destroys sovereignty, alt: against security politics
CP: treaty to prevent placement of weapons in outer space, solves weaponization
Spending DA: costly, collapses econ, econ collapse causes war

Inherency- space weapons not inevitable, concerns do not demand weaponization

Monday, August 1


RS SETI NEG- language, ocular centrism- Sydney

Topicality- mandate travel outside earth's mesoshere- plan doesn't
SETI PIC- seti is anthropocentric, original hierarchy
Fiscal Discipline- economic downturn makes spending on SETI impossible, spending contracts economy, mead impacts
Contact DA- encounter life if we search, contact with ET risks extinction because of disease sharing

Language advantage- focus on rep- subjective- ethical obligation demands calculative thought, still ignore- realism- predictions key to effective policy making- metaphors critical to understanding truth, turns case-

SCI FI- alien is other, prevents action and solvency, more exclusionary

you can k communications which is inherently anthropocentric- intelligence
take T and do ground based
build up contact DA
contact with metaphorical other leads us to unbuild defenses- realism/ heg good
realism inevitable/ realism good
pets/ slaves
culture shock
impacts both ways- tech/ diseases
Language advantage
look into postmodernism
indeterminate- but not so much to prevent communication- anthropocentric
search is all projection

JM China Neg- security- Bennett

Politics Disad- china coop is unpopular- failure to raise debt ceiling destroys econ
T- "its" belonging to- plan text requires offer to China- extratopicality
CP- remove section 1340- sends signal to China- illegal to fund operations
Ozone- launches leads to depletion- uv radiation

Security- necessary and good- realism inevitable, switch causes miscalc, China is a real threat, China's rise will be aggressive, first strike no chance but to fight back

plan is seen as sanctioning, or we bash
tech transfer DA
need space links to politics for CP
solvency- no repeal... but they have fiat
sub another going to space DA
Conditioning going to space on human rights policy
bash china in other areas, plan can't solve that
must ask in cx: china says no, does plan go to space
yes: extratopical to make offer
no: no increase
T- increase, conditional
confusing realism with being realistic

QQ Asteroid Detection Neg- Robert

Politics- spending fights- debt ceiling pass key to stability, mead
ASPEC- no agent, kills CP competition
Security- corrupted empire- reject resistance- genuine pol thought
Space Mil- china militarize now, asymmetric space challenge, us-china space arms race
CP- microsats, hardening and shielding- capabilities provide protection, CP doesn't militarize space

Case: Heg- primacy sustainable, inc spending contracts econ, doesn't cause war, space mil causes conventional deterrence, no relationship between US and peace
Asteriod- low risk, current tech solves prediction and detection,

probability of disaster asteroid
read impact defense on pol- or heg not key to econ
no natural asteroid detection tech- no incentives

CO Commons Neg- David & Rufus

Topicality- development- aff doesn't increase research
Biopower- embrace of international law- maintain global hierarchy- self defeating, method of control- alt: micropoltical strat

Solvency- counterproductive to states, reject plan, plan can't overcome realism- peace favors status quo, denial of human rights, ILAW justifies intervention, perpetual war

Neolib- check environmental degradation, neolib turn, neolib inevitable

developing- easy and winnable pic- patronizing
colonialism net benefit- turns whole case
T- any card they read on law/ space dev assumes effects
doing more development
crit of development
limits outweighs- change meaning of development

the plan doesn't stop private corp from acting
they say yes- biopower link
incorporate elsewhere

Moon Col Neg- Maggie & Jared

K- consumption- resource crisis inevitable- environmental collapse and extinction- alt: reject consumption logic
CP- probability does not violate OST, private venture capital
DA- OST insures compliance, space col prohibited, US violation leads to treaty collapse, consult key to avoid conflict, Russia/ China nuclear terrorism and unauthorized launch
Spending DA- spending col is too expensive, increase spending contracts econ, mead impacts

Asteriods- 1) zero probability 2) prefer prob over mag 3) status quo solves for current collisions 4) reduce existential risk more important
Econ- 1) no uniq 2) brink card is false
Heg- 1) no lack of airpower 2) not feasible propulsion- life support 4) not feasible bc of microgravity
Energy- helium solar power, SPS indicts, energy disad

k applies to energy and colonization- external infinite source... still true?
by product of adv- still put stress on earth for steel or iron
other limits to growth besides energy
read card on lots of spending

BMD Neg- Issac

DA china- china makes reentry vehicles, destabilizes nuclear deterrent because it circumvents BMD
US first strike DA
Russia Relations
CP: airborne laser won't cause china/ russia to freak out- solves rouge and accidental fire

CP china?

CP not to militarize space?
De-alerting with missile shield- DA to aff and CP

Solar Flares Neg- Will

Politics- spending fights kills negotiations, debt ceiling key to prevent econ collapse, mead
CP- increase awareness capabilities
security k- justifies annihilation- alt reject
oil disad- Venezuela
T- substantially- 2.9 increase

Solar plumes- 1) preventative measures are already in place 2) no escalation 3) small impact to solar flares 4) solar flares unlikely 5) blackouts only occur for a few hours 6) flares not powerful enough
Microbes- 1) causality oxygen depletion 2) photoplankton declined on balance 3) doesn't mean we take action- intervening actors
Warming- no spillover, global warming false, enough to convince congress, perception on climate change

Asteroid 2 Neg- Joel

Aliens Neg- Zofia

Legal/ Mining Neg- Nakisa

Militarization Neg- Parisa & Jackie

Saturday, July 30

Neg Strats

Aff: Detect/ Deflect

Answers: ground based detection not possible
if they say "send stuff out" we say ground detection works
sat hardening
China dual use
tech now
On the ground- we can detect now, beaming lasers to deflect without deployment
Russia doing plan
we have already mapped anything catastrophic
international response, not just US

Space Guard: international, independent, awareness program

1) T- meso
anything they do in space is not topical
2) SQ
3) Spend
4) MD bad
5) Heg answers
6) Int'l CP
Security/ Tech K

Aff: Moon colonize

Answers: incentives/ market/ legal allowance CP
energy disad

Aff: Discover- Solar flares- NEED TO BE IN WAVE 3

Answers: CP decentralize grid- ESA CP
On the Ground
International CP- politics- Russia shares
environmental securitization

Other Lab Affs


1) SPS- demonstrate + develop SPS- Res wars- heg aerospace, military, competitiveness
2) Discover- solar flares (econ), microbes, wmg (Will)
3) Moon- colonize- meteors. econ, heg, energy (Maggie & Jared)
4) asteriods- detect and deflect- econ, heg (Robert)
5) Sci-fi


1) SPS- deploy SPS, wmg, hurricanes, heg oil, sats
2) Asteriod mining- heg, PRX. heg, tech nukes and colonization
3)China- coop with PRC- securitization adv (Bennett)
4) asteriod- heg, space leadership, nuke falout and environment (Joel)


1) Aliens- $ + dulp SETI- govt' ty (Zofia)
2) Mining- legal system, regulating res, limited PR, to mine moon, Helium 3, nrg (nakisa)
3) SPS- oil dependence, leadership


1) BMD- implement a BMD- heg, rogue Iran NK (Isaac)
2) Aliens- search for other, sci fi (Syd)


1)militarization- heg, rouge, miscalc, china (Parisa & Jackie)
2) SPS- implement- warming, heg, econ
3)Commons- neolib, oil (David & Rufus)

Jordan, Noah, Helen, Fraser, Connor- all on energy

Friday, July 29

Don't need to include resolutional phrases to make your pan more topical

Strategic Essentialism
- aff cards: link and bad
- neg answer: strategically essentialize
- gender/ sex seperate meanings- set of behaviors

Files due at midnight on Sunday

Aff disclosure is EVERYTHING- 1AC cannot be changed
add ons must be disclosed

Pay attention ---> become a super debater

NEG Positions against SPS

Politics- need impact senarios
Congress says no alt energy, costs
2NC wall- link thumpers- no alt energy passed, seen as resurgence
heavily studied
no link, no impact
impacts: biopower, technotyranny
studies on sociological effects
centralize/ decentralize grid- can we get energy around the world

cheaper electricity- transition
need aff cards- reduce oil dependence
magnify links?
disad: bunch of launches destroys ozone- threshold is easy to answer

Space Mil
definitive brightline
China- doing it unilaterally
just doing is bad
percieved as dual use- even if its not- disrupting communications
political attention triggers link
where we are infinite in some areas we are finite in others

On the Ground
alt energy to military
tax credits?
need cp that solves innovation competitiveness

On the Ground + Launches + Space Mil + Politics
Energy disads, politics as conditional solutions
SQ solve- delay CP

Defense to Warming
too late
energy dependence
peak oil

Timeframe: 2-4 years to develop model, 4 to put more up

India Advantage- Consult
Silver/ Silicon disads

Thursday, July 28

Space Law

gov't recognition of property rights- appropriation of sov- supports establishments of private rights

textual vs functional competition:
textual policies compete because they have different words
languages important for implemention
plan is focus of debate
functional policies compete because they have different actions
CP should be both

US can clarify law without backlash- only refers to US policy/ domestic

2nc: slow down, pause between args- OST customary international law, so violation collapses - if they have impact turn for any ILAW is bad- destroys our ability to do other space ilaw- decreased diplomacy leads to war- we can just isolate the impacts of space law- Moon treaty not important- need no spillover to other ilaw- withdrawing from support of OST weakens US- go for weaponization impacts-

Find a link to all IL- add all impacts

Inevitablity- ASAT tests arent actual violations, dont defend all of OST just article 2 (bans appropriations), violation leads to space race
Militarization doesnt equal weaponization
Arms race now- slow and controlled- but if one breaks out all hell breaks loose

Ebola = good debaters :P

Prove issue involved is questionable/ ambiguous- US asks on interpretive questions- precedent for weapons
contracting gets link- dispute for property rights
even if it clarifies doesn't mean it wont create backlash

any dispute becomes the link
development inevitable?
inevitable mining- use as an excuse to attack them- better us than them
because others mine they negotiate international framework- peaceful converstions- inevitability- question is why we mine as a violation
worse law than if we develop a fw?
need to prove SQ is going slow to develop fw

Energy neg

Russia- econ is based off oil exports, Russia attempting to diversify, plan solves for dependence, crushes Russia econ, price of oil drops, Russia nationalism senario
Backstopping- alt energy, flood market, drop price on oil, we stay dependent on oil instead of switching over- link mult to disads
need answers to dependence kills US economy
Soft power disad
Rare earth answers
Chinese econ DA- REM critical
Venezuela .... fail ?
saudi- relations are very low, econ arg?
Solar- doesn't convert to electicity- heat water and homes

Helen- answers to warming- too late- china, india, momentum- resource wars
Fraser- On the ground CP- heg cards

Consult CP

DA- committed to Russia, unilateral ignores coop, tanks relations
coop on terror, laundry list
perception- prevents us from militarizing

Russia Politics

nationalist backlash --> radical policies
elections- booster for policy shift
reliance on Russia for space rides- stretching Russia space program thin
money they are getting --> new launch site? more commercial sats
we coop with Russia in status quo

Answer to consult cp

Do plan, consult on something else
need a space specific link card or a plan specific link card
Lie perm- consult and do plan- if they say yes no difference, if no case outweighs- only hides our decision
answer: leaks only if they say no- triggers link to net benefit
if they say yes, no risk
take out bind from perm text
no evidence on neg has genuine consultation- just get the country involved
perm do CP- address how neg is competitive
entire plan isnt in CP
find extra words- do all plus plan
dont deal with severence
separation describes it in actuality
perm do plan, consult included normal means
reading heg- leaving it up to Russia makes no sense
russia disad

Space mil Disad

uniqueness? brightline- mil is happening now - potential to be weapons- hardening
once you cross threshold = arms race
econo impact- private dependent- accounts for more than half
tied internationally
arms race- confidence in industry goes down, collapse econ
if US agrees to redefine- kills diplomacy

Lab times:
Friday- night lab 6:30-10:00 Berry 277
Saturday- short lab 1:30-3:00 Carson L01
Sunday- no lab
Monday- 1:30-5:00, just Ken

Wednesday, July 27

On the Ground

If its going to pass now, Obama doesn't need any more political capital- the push gives more momentum
Drop political capital key- save for extension

No one line answers- judge needs flow time
Don't forget hard numbering

2NC: think tags twice as lout, slower, louder- work on consanance

link indicates congresspeople wont pass agenda- claim needs explaination- "disad proves policy makers are dependent on political capital"
No fiat beyond the plan, we assume normal means bc....

Need to answer that disad proves untrue- logical policymakers
Intrinsic arg- impossible burden
Dont get to fiat more than plan
Purpose- focus on the merits of policy- therefore, you cant fiat it out
LImited to passage of the plan

2AC args are different, fiat both happened
political capital backlash wont happen
winners win

China doesn't dump dollars- internal link chains set of actors
Intrinsic- coersion- direct ethical consequence

We speak as USFG- normative- normative resolution

On the neg, debt ceiling proves that USFG is not a logical decision maker
inevitably they vote for debt ceiling passage

the role of USFG- pretend fiat
No power, but you are able to endorse as policy matter

Policy must clash with resolution- China Taiwan senario doesn't clash
Bi Partisan does not mean support- just two sides

Showing Obama is strong on debt ceiling- after aug 2
Best aff strat- going for uniqueness overwhelms link, pc not key

No evidence that it is passing because of political capital- most disads have its going to pass now

Obama has not spent political capital on plan- fiat
Neg has burden to prove- only way to pass is O capital
Neg arg- O won't spend political capital but he will still be blammed with it- destroys political capital

Anything that passes, creates political fallout


2AC: be clear when changing args- make a distinction- analytics bleed into each other- linear risk should be at bottom of solvency deficit args- linear risk needs to be deeper- no specific oil senario- too much question begging- how much we slow is a rate question- if there is a warming impact, assess rate- perception of sats vs balloons- 1AC should be written like the more we do to slow warming, the more we can adapt to slow the harms- a clever cross x can trap you- warrant on last arg should be in tag
Double bind: either CP does lots of launches and links into launches disad , or doesnt do enough launches and doesnt create enough competitiveness
2NC: if tech is ready, you solve linearly better- balloons solve earlier- if CP solves as much as aff, it solves advantages
Net benefit of launch debate and ASPEC- CP functions as case defense
Jobs in space ind - we need smart tech jobs not shuttle ready jobs
Tech spinoff- improving launch sosts
Cant beam to ground- solvency deficit..... no mil applications

Practicality of balloons?
Microwave back
Balloons don't have to be tethered
Pain in the ass?
Zero net benefit- balloon is a reciever
Just because its linear, doesnt mean each incrament is linear
What is the impact to linear risk?- no quantifiable impact
Pressure issues

Space Law


Alt: inherent in what the aff does
discourse- if you don't win reps are first, aff will outweigh the k
harder if reps/ policy is bad- easier to say discussion is bad
the way we discuss/ think about going into space
justifications for going into space- can do SPS under different justifications
weaker to linking it on reps to warming? protecting mother nature
Same impacts as sec k- we created power binary- protecting mother base
conquering is masculine- aggressive- definitional
2AC: just say, case outweighs, nothing in k denies truth claim to advantages we presented
just becaue you say you can weigh, make sure you weigh- put responsbility on them to occupy middle ground
no policy to vote for- assuming private fiat
talk about importance of aff discourse
truth claims
bread winner drives themselves- hummers/ escalades- huge vehicles= masculinity
cant talk about women- gender only in cx
link to offense in arg

victims of GW- people staying at home
k of description of environment?
aff is another gizmo.... ability to fix quickly is masc
the set of behaviors is what is rejected

Tuesday, July 26


Neg: Jared
Aff: Helen
2AC: Need to speak MUCH louder- 6 should be delay not key to leadership- all space leadership should be 1 blurp or write in a row so they can be grouped later

2NC: group delay- private better bc its cheaper, faster- the plan has fiated over much of the B

The aff has engineers which come from private market as well- what is the distinction from aff and CP
CP says do plan with no funding- risk insurance- tax credit
Members of government prefer private- competitive?
Buy back is after the politics disad happens
US doesn't develop the shuttle, they buy it- contracts rides- CP never owns a shuttle
Does CP solve the aff?
Tax credits, nonetheless, means decrease in revenue- loss of revenue= expending money- has to be payed by other taxpowers
CP must win solvency deficit- if US loses revenue then they dont get to capitalize off of money
Taxes are contingent on profits
any spending link- gov is off of money
A deduction reduces the amount of taxable income- a credit reduces the amount of tax
A tax credit = paying less taxes

CP includes private- low shuttle orbit contracts private- they ask for a bid-
CP is status quo- business confidence link arg-
if plan breaks contract, we violate law
plan doesn't break contract

Why does it not create more competition- CP solves better as a result
Plan contracts out additional shuttles

Defensive pics- not topical- not a trivial counterplan
Net benefit- more tech innovation
Enough money for market to be a good investment

Science done on shuttle costs less than someone who is interested in making a profit
Not cost competitive
No profit because of investment costs- less buying rides on private shuttle
CP must win a chance for profits

Why does it incentivize companies to make a good shuttle- wouldn't the companies take all chances to avoid all costs?
Do companies comete for designs?


Neg: Isaac
Aff: Fraser

Heg is in decline now, shift policy to offshore balancing to allow other hegemons to grow, failing to do so results in power vaccuum when US eventually collapses or head on confrontations with growing powers

2AC: number consecutively, groups will fall into place, dont need to continually reference their arguements, analytics are too quick to flow (need more pen time)- slower or more explanation especially with sustainability, slow for arg label

2NC: aff is the choice of whether heg is sustainability- explain no deficit spending means no forward deployment- short term collapse heg, econ forces us to draw down, need long term args bc if aff reads resiliency args you are dead- structural iceberg, need to invest time on US transition, you need to read really powerful evidence for sustainability- aff can just read cant sustain offshore balancing
Vaccuum only exists in a world in which we challenge heg
Competitiveness is zero sum- SQ fosters gradual expansion of leadershihp
Plan precludes rise of the rest
More impact calc in 2NC because crux of heg is that aff contains impacts through heg
China war hurts heg- cant garner heg solves war claims- devestated military
trip wire- forward deployments are always more credible- troop presence- committment
offshore balancing means we still retain committments to foreign nations- generally, rapid deployment strat
Regional balancing does not equal offshore balancing
"spheres of influence"
Impacts inconsistent- links are- we scare people into asymetric responses
China senario answers whether or not other countries securitize- heg creates security dilema
more people who have weapons the less weapons solve
prolif consistent-
horizontal prolif- multipolarity
are we seen as willing to use weapons after heg collapse
China wont fill in - but they militarize- we come to blows with militarization
even if econ collapses we still have largest military-


Neg: Noah
Aff: Sydney
1NC: need to highlight better, shorter cards, tags need to talk about the aff- things that the aff has said
2AC: numbering straight down, policy considerations come first- they havent no linked you- aff outweights, case outweighs because its important to deal with war, doesnt mean representations
Neg arg we shouldnt uncritically accept tech- there are neg cards so there has already been discussion- the aff doesnt engage in critical review
Aff presents plan with expectation to be negated- The aff had active commission by claiming benefits- tech is on balance better and doesnt expand heg control
Neg needs better link analysis - tech is coopted- historical examples
Link is means of control
cant do the plan and cp- plan denies critical examination of tech- you are asking for endorsing of the plan
neg shoud read disad about why sps is bad
how is examining ramifications a kritik?
turns aff tech claims bc it denies the truth of their claim

Monday, July 25


Neg: Nakisa
Aff: Connor

2AC: Double bind: so unpopular, questions the internal link- change cant solve leadership(4) to kills leadership because lack of goal- 7 tag "try or die" needs to be changed (raw military)- 5 should be no link to impact beccause nothing says cuts effect leadship- plan should involve creation of SLS- white house will kill the program- tag to distinguish between congress and prez- appropriations wont be spent- lack of SLS missions kills leadership- 6 should be plan turns disad bc we provide minerals, missions

2NC: Overview at the bottom, organize/ reference your labels and their arguements, explain why disad is immediate and minerals are long term that is a fast enough overview and you wouldnt need to read evidence, arguements seem to blend, outline then fill in- no substantial programs (space posture review, SSS)- last thing funded and no new programs absent the plan- no SLS means no aff ==> we have guaranteed plan- last thing funded, no new program, plan costs alot- slow down on tags

2 NC Shell revised: SLS is vulnerable, last to be funded [unpopular card], massive trade off [card]- money changes support- obama credibility hinges- slush fund card-

Cap K

Neg: Parisa
Aff: Hannah

2AC: perm stuff needs to be near no link stuff, think in terms of packages

2NC: need to reference what the aff is doing, spend extra time when doing link work, better to quote from their evidence, internally impact link arguements, more analysis on 2ac (1) debate, biopower/ security maintains args needs more historically context, link story needs to rely on the mandate of the plan, talk about seti, if cap is prerec and changing one manifestation just perpetuates the problem- alt doesnt take care of cap outside of the plan- describe alt as less of a cp and focus more on the debate- cap collapsing now hard to win- dont have to deal with ouside cap- saying no to the plan you prevent it from happening- prevent cap from going up- we search for us- in a non capitalist state, exploitation occurs through aquisition of political power- both systems are working through allocation of resources

deterrence is by nature a decision to kill


Neg: Rufus
Aff: David
2AC: careful on numbering/ signpost, ellaboration can be in 2ar if you go for them, don't need paragraph- weigh aff impacts then read Owen evidence, evaluate aff impacts they are real, say your case outweighs, unbiased experts, extinction- have very strong analytic arguements, empirics- we cannot know china, what we do know justifies a response,
2NC: needs to be more word efficient- very "paragraphy"- just number, answer author and cross apply link debate perm makes no sense
all of the potentials of when security can be good adds up, can be magnified

politics functions through constructing threats- threat construction exists- others opperate under the assumption that reality is there- doesnt justify a realist response- if we reject realism others take advantage of us-
realism is self interest- empirical proof of threat/ deter action- no generic stuff- turns case shoud be part of arg
objective set of facts- or interpretations create responses- reps are all that matter
alt should be reject security discourse

Sunday, July 24

Nanotech Lecture

Nanotech: small tech, manipulation of atomic,molecular level structures- anything manipulating matter nanometers in size- creating new substances

Currently we have primitive tech
Nanotech helps overcomes barriers

Q: Is there a connection between nanobots and nanotech
A: Nanotech is a broad field- molecular assembler = holy grail of nanotech, robots replicate themselves and can function on their own, we could lose control of the replication process and it could take over the world, MA exists in nature (DNA), can we actually recreate the MA ?- Richard Samali of Rice University: fat and sticky fingers, impossible for you to have dexterity- scientifically, we can't tell if it is possible- solar cells: replacing silicon with new forms of silicon to make more suitabe for application, nanotech now doesnt = molecular assembler

Q: Is nanotech in space useful in terms of advantages?
A: Space exploration is most direct example (different environment on Earth), take materials found on earth and make them applicable to space, better machines/ materials

Q: Can we improve nanotech geographically in space?
A: tech spillovers from advancing nanotech in space, articles exist in terms of research on earth, key to econ/ competitiveness advantage

Q: Development of nanotech has what influence on other areas of science?
A: Nanotech development helps us understand molecular workings in biology, chemistry- spillover in both ways

Q: What are other countries doing regarding nanotech?
A: US is most advanced in terms of research/ applications of nanotech, Japan or Europe are number two but their applications are small scale- China has been rumored to have a secret nano-military program but the program isn't extensive and not close to have MA's \

Q: What are the military benefits of nanotech?
A: Better weapons, bulletproof vests, stronger more capable materials- long term applications include biological weapon engineering, atomic weapons with greater precision, nanoversion of NMD (active shields) = wall to protect agains grey goo

Q: Is nanotech usable as its own weapon or just to make our weapons better
A: Nanotech is not a thing, it is a field a study

Q: Can nanotech explode body cells?
A: The Diamond Age by Neil Stevenson created a FICTIONAL novel about this- it may be possible but not for a long time

Q: Which side provides more regulation?
A: Nanodevelopments don't call for regulations yet so legal regimes don't exist yet- depends what you are trying to govern (environment, property rights, military)- the answer is not the same for all- Internationally environment regulation would be appropriate- Nanodust: structures of nanoproducts will float in the air and its bad to breathe, unknowable consequences- Military: can't be regulated because they are doing research covertly, countries aren't willing to be transparent, we need our nanotech to control production by other countries

Q: What is the best way to attack a nanotech/ MA's aff?
A: CP to develop nanotech for something other than space, other applications, nanotech not key to space, space disads, no impact turn- in a emerging field piggy back type competition is effective

Q: Against a normal aff can you CP and say eventually we can do aff?
A: If you have a net benefit....

Q: Is there a middle road to solve both of the roadblocks to development?
A: Depends how strong property rights are- if a regime has limited protection it wont fully incentivize- linear tradeoff

Q: Is there anything commercially available that involves nanotech?
A: Solar cells, biotech, semi conductors,SQ taking existing structures and making them better

Q: How viable do you think nanotech is to solve warming, hunger, ect.?
A: If you get to molecular assemblers you win- environment: you can remove carbon out of the air, hunger: turn dirt into food, ultra fast transportation, total utopia untill grey goo- absent assemblers impacts are still are accessible

Q: Best answer to DNA arguement?
A: Just because it exists in nature doesn't mean we can build it- making policy decisions about something unlikely is unreasonable

Q: How expensive is nanotech- SQ?
A: Yes- because supply/ demand is low- some grants/ government assistance solve for the lack of demand

Heg Lecture

Heg- we are not responsible to have power, others react in a bad way (anti-americanism, terrorism, breakdown in relations)- more hostility and more problems in multipolar worlds- heg good: meta type args, we can deter, control-

Heg could mean primacy (clearly not today because we don't control everything), or it could mean a lack of challenger

Q: Can heg contain escallation? Hard power/ soft power
A: We can deter (nuclear), strong evidence that we have a first strike capability against Russia and China, we have ability to dictate terms

Q: Read heg adv, neg answers solely defensive, heg is inevitable, but no heg does not solve war- how to kick out ?
A: If you conceed heg is inevitably high, you have no way of manipuating heg debate, you have to win particulars, claim on heg shouldnt be it solves all- must explain why you have a unique senario

Q: Is there evidence supporting for why a multipolar system can exists empirically?
A: I don't think so- Europe maybe- best interpretations support multipolarity is least stable- very few defenders of multipolarity are not realists

Q: If aff reads perception of space leadership- Us incentives solves? US corporation solves?
A: Depends if perception is on industry or government- compelling evidence that states base perception on case to case- not connected to leadership on treaties

*read 2008 Brook's World Out of Bounds- destroys soft power
- soft balancing- anti american perceptions means we lose base rights, people vote against us

If US power declines, we start wars to preserve powers, we would never develop strat for offshore balancing

Offshore balancing: withdraw forces except in very few circumstances, build up nuclear deterrence to stop attacks, give up international involvement
Primacy: control the world, impossible to execute
Selective engagement: Heg, alliances
Isolationism: K heg bad, shouldn't worry about being powerful or deterring, no alliances or exceptions

Q: Counter balancing vs offshore balancing
A: Offshore is strat- counterbalancing refers to states who react to reduce US power and influence in the war, starting a war, or refusing basing rights- if someone reads agains you, you have to say heg sustainable, we wont offshore balance, no uniqueness, heg solves all wars- they say heg unsustainable, no offshore, wars aren't as bad if US isn't involved

Q: Can we offshore balance and have condition that we involve in a war that is very serious
A: Can't make that argument- in our interest to have a head start in conflict, win we would have stopped the war from occuring

Q: Offshore relies less on ground and more on naval- is that true?
A: Offshore means we maintain capability to go back if we want to

Have very strong internal links- assume a world with an incredible air force, they don't assume the impending disaster that would shut down our ability to control

Q: Disjunct between space leadership and troop movements?
A: Space has competitiveness impacts, internal link to heg good, soft power component is internal link, mil applications in space are useful for military (sat)

Q: Internal links to heg for negative?
A: politics disads (spending DA), tradeoff DA

Q: Is there right side to heg turns econ debate
A: Both are true- strong econ key to heg, military developments- heg helps us maintain trade agreements, free flow of goods

Q: If heg is inevitable, can aff still isolate deterrent senarios?
A: yes, bluffing- rest of the world questions our credibility, check it out we arent bluffing

Q: In space mil debate, heg inevitabe gives aff leeway on china asat development
A: Heg inevitable dont refer to asymetric warfare- plenty of articles going both ways- are asymetric cap really a threat to US

I-Law Lecture

Two Sources-
1) Treaty Law- two countries make a contract of what they will or will not do- bilateral or multilateral- cant enforce without Security council, ICJ, specific country
2) Customary ILaw- enough nations that have said something is in violation- we are okay binding countries- nation does something out of a sense of legal obligation (ex. Slavery, genocide, piracy, torture)- self enforcing- International court have to agree based on state practice and judicial decisions
Combination- NPT
- enough nations have signed that courts have developed customary law against prolif
- International legal scholars
Q: Is there documentation
A: No- Roper v Simmons- supreme court rarely recognizes customary law- international law can't dictate US law- UN charter, Article 2(4) Prohibition Against the Use of Force- ICJ decisions
ICJ releases arrests which never happened, nobody to enforce the decisions, no economic power
Q: Difference between ICJ, ICC
A: ICJ- in order to appear you must be a state (diplomatic preceding), ICC- no state parties only private parties
Q: Do countries that inflict genocide go to ICJ or is it private?
A: The countries infront of the ICJ- special commission to prosecute people
Q: If a country rejects customary law what happens?
A: Gov has to make political decision to what is in its best interest- goes to ICJ- Security council can use force or sanction
Q: Genocide justifies intervention- Leader of sudan was tried and was jumping countries
A: Remedy is to stop the act- he wouldn't be committing the genocide in other countries
Q: Are there negotiations behind the scene?
A: Happens more in treaties than in creation of customary law- as more countries recognize it becomes a norm
Q: Can a court rule on a treaty that we haven't signed?
A: A court can rule to abide by an obligation that we have signed but not ratified- self executing/ non self executing
Q:Which has better spillover- when US abides, or when ICJ rules binding?
A: The ICJ is theoretically the strongest voice- advantages access globalized solvency, spillover claim- dont impact turn the advantages but focus on weaknesses being 1) not customary international law 2) just because countries do something doesnt mean its done out of a legal obligation 3) enforcement spillover area, if its not in the best interest of the country it wont do it
Q: Specific authors?
A: law reviews, books on enforcing ILaw- Public International Law
CIL is a good advantage because you can bind countries without having them act, fiat, solvency for a country which ratifies a treaty is alot stronger
Regional customs can trump international customs
OST specific:
Courts decide Article 31, 32 Vienna convention- treaty interpreted object and purpose
A court finding is a better finding than congressional determination
Q:CIL on ocean resources?
A: yes- movement developing similar to endangered species act- property rights governed how far out you have jurisdiction for military purposes
jus cogens- just cause- ability to invade

Saturday, July 23


law can go any direction
interpretation is bade on effects
"legal regime has effect on development"
directionality, effect
SEE: Lexus Nexus

Law can be development... create treaty to do anything... US signs
Creating legal framework vs. creating law
Property rights, safety regulation
unilateral agreement

Bizzzz con DA to mining aff- lack of clarity = confusion
Politics net benefit
Agent courts?

Disad mars/ moon violates IST
weaponization of space

recievers, some sort of receptive device, data must return
necessary and effective
active includes passive- radio sat are topical
search- invisible, challenges states abilities to decide
leap of faith

USFG vs state?
need answer to states CP
challenges state- perpetuation of federal power

Unpopular plan
okay to reject
relationship with gov
spurs discussion

politics, spending, any disad essentially = continuation of biopower

*have good tags so you don't screw yourself in the 2AC after the judge has bought the DA

Aff files due tonight/ tomorrow
SAVE 1AC as special document
doesn't need terminal impact

Neg List

- Elections?
- Debt
International Counterplan- china/ russia
econ net benefit
Spending.... good to go?
Nasa spending trade
Aff answers: uncertain meetings
Space power
soft power- space adventure
science dipomacy
Coersion/ Free Markets
aff-wise needs work
answers to warming reps link/ get off the rock
tech bad k
T.... good to go
On the Ground Cp
asteriod detection/ deflection
black carbon- free market cp
Space weapons good/ bad
China, Russia... heg
need space mil DA
OST impact module
Domestic Space implications
I Law DA- violation of moon treaty
Exploration/ Colonization
Counterforce Capability bad

Neg Assignments:

Noah- Tech K
Rufus- Security K
Nakisha- International CP/ Consult
Will- politics links
Jordan- energy
Helen- answering nanotech
David- space impact d file
Sydney- space mil disad
Hannah- cap k
Jared- consumption k
Conor- politics
Maggie- gender
Bennett- Russia DA/ consult
Isaac- heg good
Joel- aff answers to K
Robert- energy
Zofia- SETI neg
Jackie- space law
Parisa- Cap K

Clash Drills

Tech- 2
Neg: Noah
Aff: Sydney

Security- 1
Neg: Rufus
Aff: David

Cap K-1
Neg: Parisa
Aff: Hannah

Neg: Will
Aff: Bennett

Neg: Nakisa
Aff: Connor

Space Law-
Neg: Jackie
Aff: Joel

Neg: Maggie
Aff: Zofia

Free Market CP-2
Neg: Jared
Aff: Helen

On the Groud
Neg: Jordan
Aff: Robert

Neg: Isaac
Aff: Fraser

Friday, July 22

General Note: We'll be in Carson 101 - basement of the library - for Saturday and Sunday

Mars 1ac

plan text.... resume the rover?
Dont include Europe
Eventual colonization of Mars/ staffed missions via rover

Tech spinoff better then STEM

Job crunch in decades... long term

Announcement = credibility.... short term impact, soft power

needs supportive card

Specific impact- US Russia space coop

refunded space education?
spending tradeoff


Nanotech- plan strat
plan uses nanotech
keeps US ahead of China
we solve faster/ better... solvency 2ac

relations adv = no answer to consult CP

*Joel go to Resar for US-India coop good/bad

Cox quals?

Save time by underlining as you breath- eliminate wasted underlining
No "cripple" in Maser 11

Asteriod Mining 1ac

advantage without obtaining REE's

deflection add on?
blowing up asteriod = bad

Asteriods neg
no refining domestically- ship to China
private companies develop refinery

Moon mining 1ac

Mine Helium-3 on moon
trades off with reliance on fossil fuels- pollution, international turmoil, war

Link between Helium-3 and colonization

Interstellar travel ==> colonization
branch out to support other space exploration

more solvency
card for cost of energy on free market
who buys

Drop Box
be paper friendly!
DDI11 SS [file name]

Outer Space Treaty

Who accepts US interpretation
Applies to violations

Mining will kill OST and saying its okay doesn't stop the impact
Unilateral action necessary

Preemptive way to legalize China mining
T- must win law is a development of space

Ken's Little Game

Plan: US maintain transportation to station 1. Soft Power/ Coop hitching inevitable, 2. More Experimentation
Neg: (less credible), space development T, CP maintain old shuttles, T preventing decrease not increase, generic k, spending trade off, overreliance on airpower==>cant win war, ozone disad , consult Euro space agency, consult Russia, limits bigger space program, spending, politics, fund private sector CP, Inherency: Space shuttles now, experiments on ground with 0G, case on space leadership, russian econ disad, russia relations, CP fund ISS, Russia program money to solve perception, soft power disad

Plan: Increase redundancy make less vulnerable, adv. reduce likelyhood of miscalc from space debris, military capability, discourage chinese ASATS, protect financial centers
Neg: Percevied as agression, not strike, ban ASAT Cp, negotiate with China, tech transfer or transparancy with China, pic redundancy percieved as attack, security, biopower surveillance, space arms race, ozone disad, impossible to do, false sense of security, international multiactor CP, debris mapping, military isnt exploration T, NASA credibility disad, interbranch military funding

Plan: Explore space to discover the existance of life adv. meaning to life, undercuts gov, find life it changes the way we are
Neg: Disad we kill aliens/ we kill them, catch diseases, contact bad, state PIC individual contemplation, encourage/ announce prize, private incentives, gov lies, reps K intelligent life, biopower new forms of life, cap agonistic space, ethics K, SETI with different actor, earth based outerplan search for signals, Russia does plan, natives K, imperialism, aliens are ET perpetuates power of political/ scientific elite, consult CP, gender K pubic/private sphere gendered notion, assigning meaning to life, radical orthodoxy- challenge to religion,
Plan: mandate adv. REM econ, heg
Neg: promote private sector, T- exploration or property rights, pick a place, private sector says no, private sector doing now, China recognize property rights,
Plan: H-3 adv. energy, warming, pollution, envir justice
neg: ground based energy, oil disad, threatens oil, deprives russia of natural gas, exploiting space, surface mining not development, energy prices too low, oil disad, privatization disad, trade off with other alternatives,
Plan: SPS adv. climate, save aerospace,
Neg: disad aerospace reliance, aspec or pic out of agent, on-the- ground Cp, space mil, dual use technology, "silva" disad, security, other countires SQ, consult india, cap, arms race disad, CO2 good?, overstretch disad, capability ==> war, first step to weaponizing, trade off rare earth, states, turf war states,
Plan: Mars
Neg: CP colonize moon, CP increase STEM, cooperate with Eu, CP stop restrictions, disad violating tech transfers

Thursday, July 21

Jackie's 1AC

difference in advantages 2-5?

redundancy, solves economy advantage
- need solvency card, misperception
- other satilites will let us see it is debris
- need more miscalc
Cp solves space debris/ treaty, space mil disad
possible PICs?
Dont need russia attack to win aff, primary part of aff is US overreaction
- CP- dont react until verified hit takes out aff

economic senario
terrorist senario
no russia/ china- make concept accidental war, loss of US capability

Second 1AC

No ISS, just shuttles with "we need to get places"
astronauts dont want to fly on private shuttles- astronaut retention- need stronger access to impact

no guaranteed profit from operation of a shuttle


Property Rights aff

quantifiable solvency deficit- NASA vs. private?
incentivize private companies?
private companies unwilling to take risk b/c of lack of clarity... need a binding interpretation of the law
-clarity will spur private mining

does ownership matter? advantages to clearing up space law?
no seperate aff unless we clear up space law- more reasons other that privatization, private is inevitable, private investment keeps up with treaty, credibility for outer space treaty

need property rights sufficient
failure to estabilsh property rights ==> inaction

mining in space inevitable
lack of clarity means ineffective
percieved as violation of law- weak treaties
US abiding by IL good
T cards- built into inherency/ solvency


rid taboo, government-public discussion?
how does plan change mode of thinking by simply funding SETI?
- act of cancelling ==> denial
- SETI anthropocentric

Obama campaign- suggests ET debate

endorsing- believing in searching
gov policy to search communicates values

motives of cutting SETI? funding problems?

no anthropocentrism, use meaning to life
communication is the only way to discover

endpoint of SETI? we have found signs but no "intelligent" ET life- possibly use life "with an ability to communicate

tech barrier
T- extra terrestrial

Wednesday, July 20

shout out to Jordan for actually using a book

T Clash drills


check out Parisa & Hannah's comment pages

T arguments are easy to win:
- if the aff unlimits or sets bad limits, the neg wins. Start with that at the top.
- they have no definitional basis for the interpretation -


check out Jared's and issac's comment pages

T Increase - ban space weapons

check out Jordan's and Joel's comment pages

T law

check out Maggie's and Robert's comment page

discussed explanations of how in it of itslf it is development to change the law
beyond might help the commercial use -

Legal Aff Discussion

unilateral action is key - the US can recognize private rights
many ways to do the rights - could be to what they collect, could be to a specific substance in an area, or etc

potential advantages would be mining - but then this may end up just being another mining aff


potentional advantages
- nanotech
- carbon hardening
- miscalc
- tech spin off
- reducing prolif/aggression from others
- space powers (base off of us dominance)
- terrorism advantage (SQ they cn jam and attack; later can't)

make redundant system - so not just 1 super satellite but 5-7 prett good satellites to delal with it. so eve if one is down, other 4 can do the work
- miscalc deals with debris
- hardening = justs makes satelites arder to attack
- mix of solvency efforts makes it easier
- makes sese as a strategy - (how safes?)
science makes carbon tools . . .

which satellites to create?

1. Someone is responsible (in each aff group) for writing a 1AC
2. Each person has to be ready to come up with neg args for each aff (we'll list after each 1ac)
3. More fans -

Tuesday July 19

Initial notes about Research from Ken
- use Asteriks between word
- use the "Around" function

ISS group

seems like we have plenty of money, but no shuttles
Astonauts are not staying because there's no way for them to go to space
might have a cooperation advantage because others were mad we lost our shuttle part
maybe Constellation or Orion program -
ISS may have recently gotten more funding

SPS group

NNI - just got 20% increase, but DOD got 17% decrease - but DOD uses it for SPS
DOD/DOE - use nanotech for SPS

- need to have a reason nanotech SPS is better than regular SPS
- perhaps no nanotech advantage, but just nanotech solves different DA impacts

bases are unsustainable atm - SPS keeps bases running more efficiently and keep us more mobile.
SPS k to aerospace industry

- energy independence - is oil the best argument?
- we could say we end the 15% of electricity that is oil based and help the conversion to electric cars, etc

Asteroids group

Moon might be better way to go
China have a moon mining proram, but not much of an asteroid program
hard to get to asteroid
Moon might be launching pad to asteroid

if focus on rare earth - asteroids are way to go.

going to comets for propulsion stuff might be good - then have new source of rocket fuel.

one benefit of the asteroid mining aff is that it might allow it to detect/reflect - maybe we could put it into orbit around the Earth.

asteroids might be better because it avoids the international backlash of moon property stuff

Helium 3 - doesn't take energy to fuse - has no radioactive waste;
it is also used to detect other nuclear waste - it is an a tool to fight prolif


- exploring for aliens we further define our humanity
- active v passive SETI

everything we do on earth is based on anthroprocentric - assumes we are it and controls it - searching for aliens challenges the anthroprocentric idea.
SETI itself, however, assumes Aliens are like us that might be humanlike
- if we did a non-SETI aff, we'd need a govt key warrant

the question of how we define/find life (would it be carbon-based?)

Levinas - respect the other - do we need to find them to respect them?

Maybe we say we never encounter the aliens, just that we find some evidence of aliens

we discussed the acknowledge CP
what is the value to the search if the search has been completed?

the search in it of itself is good should perhaps be the crux of the aff
- civic engagement
- anthroprocentricism
- obligation to others

this world view in SQ may allow us to otherize those who are outside of norm and claim to meet an alien, etc.


Hardening -
EMP vulnerability -

Mars Colonization

exploration - we can use the scientific development to develop SETI further
coop with european space agency - astrobio rover - still doing it - way design rovers - could work independently - but can't do awesome stuff more
could find some of this still
STEM jobs adv potentially


T Clash Drills

neg standard is that the aff standard is BAD for debate.
disclosure on both sides

T of

Plan: experiments zyx in space
Neg - Jared
Aff - Issac

T beyond the mesophere

plan: fund SETI (passive)
Neg - Parisa
Aff - Hannah

T demilitarize

plan: ban ASATs and space weaponization
Neg - Jordan
Aff - Joel

T property rights

plan: recognize property rights and legal framework in space
neg - Robert
aff - Maggie

Monday July 18

Aff Ideas

Mining - Helium 3, etc. (asteroids) - 2
potentially moon -
maybe develops tech for rare earth, helium 3
adv: h3 is good - nuke fusion; sustain further missions for other parts of space, can get to other solar systems, rare earth/plutonium, etc. k to modernizing our nuke force, spurs investment of metals.
China's trying to take on the moon - we should stop them
Prolif - for detection of nuke waste, etc.
- private cp perhaps?
weaponize space - 2
space based lasers/ ASATS and not missle defense?
Increase funding science experiments - ISS - Space Science Program
- 1
ISS - limited amount of astronauts in ISS, many companies are unable - after 120 days astronauts are useless
Science diplomacy -
ISS maybe shouldn't be mandated
Indpt science research may be good
Testing of propulsion of engines - rocket engines stuff in space
- do the experiments need to be done in zero-gravity
- int'l coop
- is this topical?
Hardening Satellites - satellites for detection types of things
Global Imaging Satellites -
weather satellites
- 2
adv: miscalc - china/russia - efense capability
fix satellites we have - more capable of funcitoning or more resistent to attacks
Space Law (could be that the US needs to recognize the private property rights)
- 6
banning militarization and property rights

incentivize private development - Lift export control?
- 0
Weather control-0
Solar Sails - 0
Solar Flare Detection - 0

Mars exploration - Sydney,
SPS - Maggie, Will, Rufus,
Aliens/SETI -Noah, David, Hannah, Trafton,
MINING - Bennet, Connor
Space Law - Jared, Joel, Nakisa
weaponization/ satellites - Zofia, Jackie, Parisa
science - Issac, Helen, Robert,