LordAuch 204 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
King of All Cosmos 3387 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 Is there any way for me to become eligible to debate this topic? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjk 198 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 I would've killed a baby right in front of its mother to get a chance to debate this topic in high school. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ankur 2917 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rxg360 12 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 Star Trek aff anyone? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hylanddd 468 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
begy 9 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 A alien DA would be funny as hell on this topic Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
InTheFlesh 101 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lemur 492 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 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. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chaos 2587 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 My thoughts exactly. I want to run Spratlys again. Or maybe spacewhores. Would you mind disclosing the Spratlys scenario? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
X Spike 489 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 At least you've been out of high school , i missed the topic of my dreams by one year. THIS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ankur 2917 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) 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 it abuses the neg like polamalu abusing QBs on sundays Edited January 12, 2011 by Ankur Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chaos 2587 Report post Posted January 12, 2011 That is fantastic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hylanddd 468 Report post Posted January 13, 2011 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheStreet 406 Report post Posted January 16, 2011 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 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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MagicBurrito 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2011 A alien DA would be funny as hell on this topic There already is, ENDI has one on their wiki... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MagicBurrito 0 Report post Posted June 30, 2011 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 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
