Jump to content
LSK

Not the greatest topic

Recommended Posts

Yes, environmental ethic was a political movements/consciousness raising position. Launch DAs were ozone/acid rain, space junk...environmental impacts, correct.

 

I think the case with the best answer on the manifest destiny arguments was mission to planet earth/landsats. With that case you could argue that you were learning about the only available resource we had, NOT trying to move out into the atmosphere...so, yeah, I think it's possible with the right case you could run it as a case. Former astronaut Frank White (I think) wrote a lot about this...he called it "The Overview Effect" (which might even be the title of his book.) He talks about seeing the whole Earth as one for the first time from space and having a new appreciation for what we have. Good place to start, I'd guess.

 

The one problem the colonization cases had was the same manifest destiny type arguments mentioned above. You do get out of the disads pretty well, although there can be some timeframe problems unless you have pretty good evidence. However, running manifest destiny as a K would have a lot more impact now than as a disad back then I suspect.

 

Oh yeah, didn't mention it before, but there were some teams running nanotech pretty effectively as well. Heard a good one with a virtual reality story...nano is coming, we need VR to control it effectively. Thus, they got Good nano and Bad nano impacts all at once. That was tough to beat.

 

Edit, one last thing. On the Russia topic I coached a team who ran kick Russia out of the International Space Station. They claimed Russia was holding up development (at the time they were months behind schedule on a module) and that the ISS was key to colonization. They got a lot farther than their skill at that point in time would have predicted.

Edited by robllawrence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what community brightline will be created, but I'm curious if land sat and "mission to earth" style affirmatives (perhaps even some of the affs that Hyland mentioned) will be deemed extra topical.

 

1) As a factual matter--They explore both inside and outside the mesosphere.

2) More specifically, the focus of the exploration is actual inside the mesosphere

3) Consequently, 75% of the advantage comes from exploring inside the mesosphere.

 

The abuse is in round and pretty clear--given the advantage stems from the extra-topical portion of the plan. (also any link turns or link outs on disads or case arguments will even further prove the above)

 

I think its kind of unfortunate, because I think thats the most interesting part of the topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that depends on how you spin "development" if there is a definition that could be spun to include the two sattelite type cases I was referring to, it might be doable. In the tether example, that was about sattelite flight in general - so that one might still be topical. Something tells me that the community will go with earth observations as topical - there'sa fairly wide literature base on it.

 

I am working on getting a few experts to post here - but I will admit that getting, say the former NASA Aministrator, to perhaps share their thoughts on this topic in a forum where people will talk about timecube implications and "spacewhores" (saw that on another post) kind of make me second guess that.

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some T issues on landsats back when as I recall, but it was generally considered topical. There were a few different interpretations that were successful, including "Earth is IN space, it's being explored from beyond the mesosphere." I think you could even claim to say otherwise is...I don't know, "terracentric." We didn't have the development option, but I think that has some merit. I ran the case at camp, but quickly bailed on it afterward.

 

Duane, a few years back I had the opportunity to interview some experts on the topic (I think it was Africa.) I shared some of your concerns about having them post directly. I think what we ended up doing was sending them a series of questions in interview form and having them respond by email, then I "published" their answers on one of my sites, which I had gotten permission in advance to do. I'm sure our new overlords would welcome the free article if you could do it, (I would also be glad to post it with permission.)

 

You would definitely want them to understand a few things...your words will be used by debaters to make arguments, so be careful how you phrase things. Also, just giving them the exact wording of the topic and maybe a list of typical/expected arguments for them to mull over before responding would probably increase the usefulness of their responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to both Duane & Rob above in terms of the option to

spin "development"
I forgot that could be spun that way perhaps.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have a definition of "development" which would have application to NASA. I hope its a term of art, because if it isn't I fear definitions will be ALL over the place.

 

Option I:

I fear though, that a definition of development which is:

1) do something in space

or

2) send something up to space

seems to not only unlimit the resolution, but probably moots exploration.

 

Presumably each part of the resolution serves a purpose should commute unique meaning and purpose.

 

Also, simultaneously, if your definition is that broad, it only serves to prove the "beyond the mesosphere part."

 

Option 2:

Or let me re-frame more simply. Affirmatives like this are both an attempt at development and exploration--and as such should meet both. An attempt to only meet one for this aff is an end run around what you do & extra-topicality. (I think this interp assumes a more nuanced interp of development than "do something"--I'm honestly not sure).

 

Option 3:

I think just defining what the 1) mesosphere is and 2) beyond means and excluding that from consideration & re-iterating the intitial 3 violations should be sufficient.

 

I think if this interp destroys the topic (ie the ability to debate 5+ affs)--I think you might have a viable arg, but I'm not sure thats the case.

 

Two pre-empt counterexamples which hege against this interp:

1) Enabiling activities on the ground. You could contrive an argument about the necessary enabiling activities which happen on the earth--kill all affs under this interp. (this is particularly the case with space militarization like NMD).

2) Satellites explore everywhere. For instance--Hubble or another satelittle might explore almost everywhere in its path (which I'm not entirely sure of--but serves as a generic example).

I think both of these miss where the focus of the exploration or development is. This interp, however does exclude a handful of space militarization affs, although not all of them.

 

At the end of the day, probably for NASA, these distinctions are entirely semantic.

 

It would be great if someone had a policy based definition of development (in the context of space) or space development and could post it.

 

The topic paper I think doesn't have it, because I believe it was tacked on and the online dictionary I looked at was pretty much "growth" or "evolve"--which might as well be "increase something in space" or "do something in space."

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan, I'm not sure I disagree, I think I'll have to sit and contemplate. But my initial thought is this. "And/or" moots the concept of each word has meaning. It presupposes that you only need meet one or the other, and that they may or may not be in conflict with each other. My suspicion is that the phrase exists in the topic precisely because the earlier topic yielded few viable case options. Development expands the topic significantly, but probably, rightfully so.

 

Now...what does development mean? I'm not sure if it includes remote sensing. To be sure, NASA probably doesn't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob: I appreciate the insight, I think I will go in that direction.

 

Nathan: I can probably get someone to explain what development means in terms of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely expect some people to go to the 08-09 backfiles and bring out their old Space Based Solar Power affs.

Kind of related to that, Colleyville Heritage broke an Orion Project (zero-point energy) aff against me on that topic. It could also be very topical on this one as well.

 

I kind of wish I could come back to CX for another year to debate the topic. It seems legit (damn graduation).

 

I'm kind of worried that some people will just be annoying and pull out Ashtar or Wipe-out every round (or some other form of aliens thing). Of course, there are always those fears, which will likely not come true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spending is an entirely real issue with space programs.

 

 

Right, the link will probably be very strong, it's the internal link that will never be there. Does spending too much/economic collapse really lead to "global nuclear war" or "extinction?" It's been empirically denied in history over and over again. I don't think anyone in reality actually believes that a specific plan, or any spending for that matter, would actually lead to the stupid, exaggerated impacts that spending DA's normally claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you looking for links and such - this presentation will be made at the upcoming FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference at the Washington Convention Center, on February 15, in Washington, D.C. The conferenec will also have many panels on the needed technology and policy changes which will necessary to grow future commercial space exploration/use/development.

 

0945 hrs

Room 202A

Keynote Speaker

“Moon/Mars: China’s Prospects for Ownership”

Speaker: Robert T. Bigelow, Founder and President, Bigelow Aerospace, Las Vegas, NV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Will any of the panels be posted to the website in video or transcript form?

 

1) Suborbital vehicles (I think thats extra, but I'm not 100% sure)

2) International Legal issues (i think related to commercial space)

3) making it easier to have commercial space flight (based on GPS & telemetry, and satelitle communication)

4) “NASA Propellant Depots and RLV Study Report” ( what?????)

5) Nasa as customer

6) Common standard adoption

7) DoD/NOOA as the customer. (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration)

8) Business risks of human space flight ***

9) the China panel Duane pointed to above

10) tech that directly inables launch vehicles

 

I would guess this would end up on LaHood's website, given its a keynote:

The Honorable Ray LaHood, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC

 

I would guess that beyond that, many of these panelists have the potential to be affirmative/negative authors next year. Certainly an interesting place for a springboard for further research. Also, the commercialization debate will either be part of an affirmative or will be a counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nathan - yep. We are working with Mr. Bigelow's people to get permission to release the film of his talk to the community. I should know more this week. At a meeting in LA yesterday, representatives of America's major aerospace companies expressed great enthusiasm over the topic and are really anxious to start helping debaters understand the technical and policy implications of it.

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, one of my friends brought this up: Plan Text: The US Federal Government should increase exploration of space.

 

This is how it goes: The USfg sends out a bunch of ships with people on them

They explore SPACE (the unlimited expanse in which everything is located) as in they explore space and not the planets or anything located within space.

 

Unluckily I can't think of any possible advantages for this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, one of my friends brought this up: Plan Text: The US Federal Government should increase exploration of space.

 

This is how it goes: The USfg sends out a bunch of ships with people on them

They explore SPACE (the unlimited expanse in which everything is located) as in they explore space and not the planets or anything located within space.

 

Unluckily I can't think of any possible advantages for this

 

Not topical... Space exploration past the mesosphere is in resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not topical... Space exploration past the mesosphere is in resolution.

 

They send out ships outside of Earth's atmosphere and explore Space.... that's completely topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theres gonna be a lot of procedurals next year.

"exploration" - most affs will fall under violations under here leaving everything non topical to be extra, otherwise it would go under effects.

There would be pretty much grounds for ospec for anything under the "exploration" violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else heard of Popular Science (the magazine)? They have published a bunch of articles on space. EX: Space elevators, space farming, space robots, exoplanet environment terraformation, etc. They also have a bunch of not space articles too.

 

Anyways, all of this can aid in researching for the space topic. There are plenty of ideas out there, and a lot of them are topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...