Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

 

Feel free to discuss the new topic here

 

Space exploration fires people’s imaginations. The 1969 moon landings rank as one of the highest achievements of modern civilization. There is something uncanny about the human need to explore the universe. Discussing space exploration and development would have the same effect. A topic like this could spark the imagination of potential debaters, and the easy accessibility of materials would make the learning curve on the subject manageable. This is a critical time in the United States space program. The status of the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration is in limbo, especially concerning human spaceflight. The Space Shuttle is retiring in the fall of 2010, with no possible US replacement available before 2015. In addition, NASA has an unclear mandate/direction to explore either the Moon or Mars. This is balanced against NASA’s recent success with robotic exploration, such as the Mars rovers and the Hubble Space Telescope, as well as increased private sector growth. Affirmative cases could include astronomical surveys, setting new goals for human spaceflight, using new probes to examine celestial bodies in our solar system or beyond, and developing space economies. The technological and economic benefits of the space program are well documented. Negative arguments could include the increased militarization of space, the significant cost in money and resources, timeframe arguments and the need to focus more on problems concerning the Earth, such as climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would've killed a baby right in front of its mother to get a chance to debate this topic in high school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there any way for me to become eligible to debate this topic?

 

My thoughts exactly. I want to run Spratlys again. Or maybe spacewhores.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is why I think starting a forum here which would allow experts to engage teh community wouldn't be possible: "...Or maybe spacewhores." Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A alien DA would be funny as hell on this topic

 

That's an interesting idea.

I think an Alien/wipeout mix would be pretty great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an interesting idea.

I think an Alien/wipeout mix would be pretty great.

 

Thats most wipeout debates.....

 

Is there any way for me to become eligible to debate this topic?

 

At least you've been out of high school , i missed the topic of my dreams by one year.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts exactly. I want to run Spratlys again. Or maybe spacewhores.

Would you mind disclosing the Spratlys scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you've been out of high school , i missed the topic of my dreams by one year.

 

THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you mind disclosing the Spratlys scenario?

 

 

easy. the same one i have recycled on at least a half dozen resolutions since 1995. the plan text changes over the years to make it "topical"... but the scenario is still the same.

 

spratlys are an oil rich pile of rocks in the south china sea and are disputed by 6 countries, namely china. mini battles have happened but only because its rich in oil. its really not a position of strategic military or political significance absent the oil. the opposing scenarios is constructed out of the SQ by either china grabbing the islands by force because they want the oil (terminal impact global war/nuke war) or a peaceful negotiation leading to development (terminal impact environmental collapse). to legitimize the opposing scenarios construct, i created a feynman-complexity theory framework. absent the need for oil, no one cares about the spratlys and the SQ continues in political dispute of no relevance.

 

so previous plans involved giving china renewable energy technology as a gift to them. space case would be to develop extraterrestrial energy sources to replace conventional sources (e.g. oil).

 

the key for the resolution/case to prevent the traditional plans of past existing as a successful counterplan against the case comes in the solvency idea of radical innovation. there is a lot of evidence out there suggesting that incremental changes towards green or alternative energy sources is insufficient to meet demand or meet appropriate scale for economic reasons. those authors suggest innovation of a radical divergence from conventional technologies (e.g. space).

 

a) its very specific

B) it abuses the neg like polamalu abusing QBs on sundays

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for debaters in the Long Beach, Calif. area, you'll definitely want to attend the AIAA SPACE 2011 conference at the Long Beach Convention Center, 9/26-29. The conference covers all aspects of Space exploration/law/policy/development/technology/colonization, etc. It will be your chance to hear from all the experts, see some pretty neat exhibits, and get a good understanding of the mechanics of this topic. information at http://www.aiaa.org/events/space Best of all, if you're a student member of AIAA, the conference is free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
easy. the same one i have recycled on at least a half dozen resolutions since 1995. the plan text changes over the years to make it "topical"... but the scenario is still the same.

 

spratlys are an oil rich pile of rocks in the south china sea and are disputed by 6 countries, namely china. mini battles have happened but only because its rich in oil. its really not a position of strategic military or political significance absent the oil. the opposing scenarios is constructed out of the SQ by either china grabbing the islands by force because they want the oil (terminal impact global war/nuke war) or a peaceful negotiation leading to development (terminal impact environmental collapse). to legitimize the opposing scenarios construct, i created a feynman-complexity theory framework. absent the need for oil, no one cares about the spratlys and the SQ continues in political dispute of no relevance.

 

so previous plans involved giving china renewable energy technology as a gift to them. space case would be to develop extraterrestrial energy sources to replace conventional sources (e.g. oil).

 

the key for the resolution/case to prevent the traditional plans of past existing as a successful counterplan against the case comes in the solvency idea of radical innovation. there is a lot of evidence out there suggesting that incremental changes towards green or alternative energy sources is insufficient to meet demand or meet appropriate scale for economic reasons. those authors suggest innovation of a radical divergence from conventional technologies (e.g. space).

 

a) its very specific

B) it abuses the neg like polamalu abusing QBs on sundays

 

text:we as the negative shall pic out of polamalu and replace him with suh...perm is severance...net benefit we will all get past his injury he got this year before the pro bowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

easy. the same one i have recycled on at least a half dozen resolutions since 1995. the plan text changes over the years to make it "topical"... but the scenario is still the same.

 

spratlys are an oil rich pile of rocks in the south china sea and are disputed by 6 countries, namely china. mini battles have happened but only because its rich in oil. its really not a position of strategic military or political significance absent the oil. the opposing scenarios is constructed out of the SQ by either china grabbing the islands by force because they want the oil (terminal impact global war/nuke war) or a peaceful negotiation leading to development (terminal impact environmental collapse). to legitimize the opposing scenarios construct, i created a feynman-complexity theory framework. absent the need for oil, no one cares about the spratlys and the SQ continues in political dispute of no relevance.

 

so previous plans involved giving china renewable energy technology as a gift to them. space case would be to develop extraterrestrial energy sources to replace conventional sources (e.g. oil).

 

the key for the resolution/case to prevent the traditional plans of past existing as a successful counterplan against the case comes in the solvency idea of radical innovation. there is a lot of evidence out there suggesting that incremental changes towards green or alternative energy sources is insufficient to meet demand or meet appropriate scale for economic reasons. those authors suggest innovation of a radical divergence from conventional technologies (e.g. space).

 

a) its very specific

B) it abuses the neg like polamalu abusing QBs on sundays

 

Can you use that as an entire aff, or as an advantage? How exactly would you make it work with the rez this year. I am very interested in running this on the aff, so any help would be greatly appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...