Jump to content

db8 chick

Sign in to follow this  
  • entry
  • comments
  • views

Space Exploration

Sign in to follow this  


Well, I've been working on the research for this year's high school debate topic Resolved: the USFG should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere. Personally, I do not believe that this resolution will work well. First of all, there is no inherent barrier, because this isn't the era of the space race; we have a space program in place. It's called NASA. Granted, we are discontinuing parts of it because of funding. Well, where are we going to get the funding for this space plan? sure every debater can be creative and come up with various taxes like the brick tax or the toilet paper tax.. but doesn't that defeat the purpose? Aren't we tired of the FG pushing more taxes on us? and yet we are teaching our debate students that if we need funding just tax the populace!

Sign in to follow this  


Recommended Comments

NASA exists, yes, but that doesn't mean that there is no inherent barrier. NASA is just an organization, not space exploration/development in and of itself; it simply implements various space activities. Any of the myriad topical actions that NASA isn't pursuing, by definition, have to have some sort of inherent barrier. There may be no barrier to exploration in general, but there are plenty of barriers for plenty of specific possible plans. For example, we haven't colonized Mars yet; this could be because there has not been a need, because of money, technology, et cetera.


From what I've seen, most plans don't implement taxes anymore. Unfortunately, many teams don't know how much their plan costs or where they'll get the money from... but don't be like that. I always specify some government expenditure that I will be eliminating/reducing, in order to re-allocate the money to my plan. Personally, my favorite agency is the Department of Defense, because they're loaded.


Also, what's wrong with taxes... Lol.


Hope that helps.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Taxing toilet paper is no longer creative.


Oh, and if this turns into a political soapboxing thread: tax the rich, end corporate wellfare, and for the love of god, cut defense.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Well, there are a lot of cases that people could do, it just depends on how creative you can be, and I agree with #maccook, cut the Department of Defense, it has PLENTY of money, and in case everyone forgot, resolved last year was cutting military troops from places in the Middle East where troops aren't necessary! Not to mention the other places, like places in Europe where we are really not needed. Cutting the defense budget would probably do America some good!

Share this comment

Link to comment

Correction: Funding specification is for debaters that realize that money doesn't come from nowhere, and that 'normal means' is a horribly ambiguous and debate-killing device. Funding specification is a lot more real-world (Congressional bills without funding are bad), and it proves that you have done your research. Choosing to forgo funding specification is for debaters that want to avoid Spending DA's through the use of cheap tricks that are underhanded and base.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Normal Means may be ambiguous, but there are scenarios where it is brought into necessity. Funding specification may be real world, but it's still obviously neither precise nor accurate. Budgets will invariably be overrun or even underspent. In last year's resolution, there wasn't much need for stating "Normal Means" instead of actually specifying funding due to the fact that there is available, true data on military spending.

On the other hand, in this topic there will be a lot of speculative technology and a lot of technological development. Normal Means is a necessity for this topic due to the fact that there is no way to price something that may not exist yet. I do condemn those who say that because they don't specify spending, they aren't linking to DA's, but Normal Means assumes that there is spending, regardless of ambiguity. In this scenario, it is like a contract agreement. The party who does not write the contract (In this case, the Affirmative Plan) is the party who benefites. i.e. Neg gains the link to spending when normal means is used because of aff ambiguity.

Share this comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...