Jump to content
birdwing7

Space junk

Recommended Posts

Ok....so all non-inherent counterplans are illegit. That = boring debates. Its also unfair as proven before (same standard doesn't apply to aff).

 

In fact, this has the effect of turning all arguments into disads.

 

Also this kills neg. fairness in other ways, because sometimes they have to generate uniqueness (when affs run shady affs that don't have inherent barriers like Iraq or Afghanistan--so they are just speeding up the status quo--not altering it significantly).

 

Note: I don't think these affs are illegit--just that negs might get more flexibility vs. them--esp. if they point out the position it puts them in.

 

Also, I think we've reached the point at which further exchanges aren't particularly valuable.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that we are approaching the point of minimal marginal returns. However, I do have some quick responses.

"Boring debates" - I disagree. To me, allowing alternate agent CP's allows the same shells to come up every single year. My main problem with them is that they're illegitimate, but also, I feel that requiring CP's to deal with alternative USFG actions would us to legitimately compare the advantages of different options, and determine what the best course of action for the government is.

"Unfair" - No, the same standard does in fact hold for the affirmative. If an Affirmative team somehow proves that the USFG would do it better than private companies, the Negative can make the same claim, that the USFG won't actually do the plan, so therefore it would still be good if private companies do the plan. The same standard applies to both teams, but the difference is that the Resolution deals with the USFG, not private companies.

"All arguments -> DA's" - Only if the Negative is dealing with non-USFG actors. If they use the USFG as the agent, then it's a legitimate CP. Also, you could make the argument that all DA's are CP's anyway, the plan text being "the USFG should do nothing."

"Shady affs" - If there's no inherent barrier, then you have a whole stock issue to talk about.

 

As we're nearing the end, I just wanted to say thanks. You're the only poster who has stuck with their arguments and continued to respond, in a mostly genial manner. +Rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I definitely want to get in on this whole CP discussion with Luminite-- I find myself discussing CPs a lot on here and I think it's an interesting subject.

 

I'm going to take it over to your "what makes a legit CP" thread though later on in the day and rehash my thoughts on opportunity cost vs Neg advocacy.

 

In general though, I prescribe to the general theory that the Aff has (not infinite) but about 9 months of working time with the topic before they're forced to present a plantext in September, and that once the Aff reads the plantext, the resolution becomes nearly irrelevant other than to settle a topicality debate. If the plan is topical, then the entirety of the debate is now about whether that aff plan is a good idea or a bad idea. Good idea = Aff win, Bad idea = Neg.

 

To me, a counterplan is the neg's way of showing that the Aff plan is a bad idea by pointing out an action that would be better than the aff plan AND THE AFF PLAN PREVENTS from taking place. (prevents = competes with).

 

Thus the opportunity-cost model of CPs, which to me makes sense, makes conditional CPs make sense, and multiple CPs make sense, as well as preserving burden of proof and presumption, as well as ground and fiat being really clear. When the CP is neg advocacy, this throws a wrench into my ideas of who needs solvency to win, and the dreaded situation where I might have to vote for a bad plan to avoid a worse CP.

 

But i'm short of time at the moment-- I'll put up a full discussion issue on your legit CP thread later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with Teja, although multiple contradictory advocacies is my limit.

 

I think, though, the questions of motives fails to really deal with the should question. If Johnny is already motivated to commit a crime--that entirely begs the question of "should." Should is a duty independent of desire & motives & flights of fancy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birdwing: You say that if private companies got rid of debris, then there'd be no reason for the USFG to do so. This is correct, but it is not what the debate round is about. That simply proves that the CP is mutually exclusive, and any 'net benefit' simply proves that it would be better for private companies to eliminate debris. So, a 'perfect world' scenario is one in which private companies decide to eliminate space debris; I don't disagree. However, we all know that such a world does not exist, so therefore the USFG should choose to eliminate space debris; if it doesn't, then the debris will not magically go away.

Also, birdwing, keep in mind that the inverse of your statement is also true: if the USFG acts, then there is no longer a reason for private companies to act.

 

If the negative wins that the counterplan is mutually exclusive or net beneficial, I think for most judges it is round over. The counterplan does not advocate debris going away "magically". It advocates having private companies do it instead of the USFG. And the net benefit shows why the USFG shouldn't do it.

 

As to your inverse statement, I don't see that it helps you. Any net benefit to private action over government action, provides the reason for private companies to act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TejaVepa: I'm looking forward to discussing your views with you. I will withhold my responses until we get to the CP thread, because I believe that we will be debating non-topicality, as opposed to alternate agents (which applies in this thread, because we are discussing the private companies CP).

 

Birdwing: Put bluntly, you're missing the point. Your arguments about 'net benefit' can successfully prove that private companies should do the plan; that is, if private companies eliminate space debris, then that would be better than the SQ. However, this does not apply in a debate round, because the Negative's goal is not to prove that there is some other actor that could do the plan and have it be better than the USFG; the Negative's goal is to prove that the USFG should not do the plan. The only way to do this, by definition, is to prove that there is some other option that the USFG should do instead, that would be mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan. In the case of DA's, this alternative option is 'do nothing'; i.e. preserve the SQ. Saying that private companies should eliminate space debris has no bearing on whether the USFG should. You keep talking about a 'net benefit', but it doesn't really matter if private companies won't do the plan anyway.

If you still don't understand my point, consider this: in a round where the Aff presents a plan, and the Neg presents a private CP, what are the presented possible courses of action for the USFG? The USFG could do the plan, the USFG could do nothing (SQ), or... what? With a private CP, what are you arguing that the USFG should do?

You are obviously not advocating that the USFG should do the plan; also, the plan text of a private CP will not even mention the USFG, so you can't be advocating that the USFG do some other plan. Thus, the only option that you could possible be advocating would be that the USFG do nothing, to 'let' private companies eliminate space junk. However, this is where the problem with your argument becomes apparent. Let me explain:

First, we must determine what 'should' really means. If Actor X should do Action Y, then that means that, of the list of mutually exclusive possible courses of action for Actor X that includes Action Y, Action Y is the best; it will create the most advantages. So, the Affirmative must prove that, of all possible actions that are mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan, their plan is the best. Now, as I previously stated, regardless of what private companies should do, the private CP must be advocating that the USFG do nothing. So, the question of 'should the USFG do the plan' can be rephrased as 'if the USFG did the plan, would it be better than the alternative (in this case, doing nothing)'. In answering this, we compare the effects of both options. If the plan is enacted, then all of the advantages happen, as well as any DA's presented by the Negative (i.e. the 'net benefit' that you keep mentioning). If the other course, inaction, is taken, then the DA does not happen, but the advantages of the CP don't either. So, as long as the Affirmative can prove that their advantages outweigh the DA, then they win. The point that I have made approximately 4 times now, and that I assume I have been unclear on (because that seems to be the only possible explanation for the fact that you continue to make arguments that completely ignore it), is that the statement 'private companies should do the plan' does not mean 'the USFG should not do the plan'. Even if they are mutually exclusive, such an assertion does not warrant a Negative ballot.

I personally dislike arguments about what is 'good for debate', but you seem to be fond of them. So, imagine this:

Is it 'good for debate' if Negative teams need simply prove that there exists at least one possible action, no matter how unlikely/impossible, that would be better than the plan? Such a mentality would allow any Affirmative plan to be CP'd into the exact same action, just taken by all of the countries in the world working together; this would obviously be superior to (almost) any given plan that only involves the USFG, and would thus ensure a skew toward Negative victory. Surely you cannot be advocating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TejaVepa: I'm looking forward to discussing your views with you. I will withhold my responses until we get to the CP thread, because I believe that we will be debating non-topicality, as opposed to alternate agents (which applies in this thread, because we are discussing the private companies CP).

 

Birdwing: Put bluntly, you're missing the point. Your arguments about 'net benefit' can successfully prove that private companies should do the plan; that is, if private companies eliminate space debris, then that would be better than the SQ. However, this does not apply in a debate round, because the Negative's goal is not to prove that there is some other actor that could do the plan and have it be better than the USFG; the Negative's goal is to prove that the USFG should not do the plan. The only way to do this, by definition, is to prove that there is some other option that the USFG should do instead, that would be mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan. In the case of DA's, this alternative option is 'do nothing'; i.e. preserve the SQ. Saying that private companies should eliminate space debris has no bearing on whether the USFG should. You keep talking about a 'net benefit', but it doesn't really matter if private companies won't do the plan anyway.

If you still don't understand my point, consider this: in a round where the Aff presents a plan, and the Neg presents a private CP, what are the presented possible courses of action for the USFG? The USFG could do the plan, the USFG could do nothing (SQ), or... what? With a private CP, what are you arguing that the USFG should do?

You are obviously not advocating that the USFG should do the plan; also, the plan text of a private CP will not even mention the USFG, so you can't be advocating that the USFG do some other plan. Thus, the only option that you could possible be advocating would be that the USFG do nothing, to 'let' private companies eliminate space junk. However, this is where the problem with your argument becomes apparent. Let me explain:

First, we must determine what 'should' really means. If Actor X should do Action Y, then that means that, of the list of mutually exclusive possible courses of action for Actor X that includes Action Y, Action Y is the best; it will create the most advantages. So, the Affirmative must prove that, of all possible actions that are mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan, their plan is the best. Now, as I previously stated, regardless of what private companies should do, the private CP must be advocating that the USFG do nothing. So, the question of 'should the USFG do the plan' can be rephrased as 'if the USFG did the plan, would it be better than the alternative (in this case, doing nothing)'. In answering this, we compare the effects of both options. If the plan is enacted, then all of the advantages happen, as well as any DA's presented by the Negative (i.e. the 'net benefit' that you keep mentioning). If the other course, inaction, is taken, then the DA does not happen, but the advantages of the CP don't either. So, as long as the Affirmative can prove that their advantages outweigh the DA, then they win. The point that I have made approximately 4 times now, and that I assume I have been unclear on (because that seems to be the only possible explanation for the fact that you continue to make arguments that completely ignore it), is that the statement 'private companies should do the plan' does not mean 'the USFG should not do the plan'. Even if they are mutually exclusive, such an assertion does not warrant a Negative ballot.

I personally dislike arguments about what is 'good for debate', but you seem to be fond of them. So, imagine this:

Is it 'good for debate' if Negative teams need simply prove that there exists at least one possible action, no matter how unlikely/impossible, that would be better than the plan? Such a mentality would allow any Affirmative plan to be CP'd into the exact same action, just taken by all of the countries in the world working together; this would obviously be superior to (almost) any given plan that only involves the USFG, and would thus ensure a skew toward Negative victory. Surely you cannot be advocating this.

 

tl;dr

I assume with no reservations that you, sir, are a douche.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's making a distinction between: sub-optimal opportunity costs & actual opportunity costs.

 

Can the neg. imagine a world (via mechanism or actor) which is better than the aff with regards to the aff harms seems like a very minimalistic test for counterplans.

 

There is a point to be had that imagining opportunity costs which don't exist.

 

It probably gets back to defining:

1) should

2) purpose of debate

3) opportunity costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Birdwing: Put bluntly, you're missing the point. Your arguments about 'net benefit' can successfully prove that private companies should do the plan; that is, if private companies eliminate space debris, then that would be better than the SQ. However, this does not apply in a debate round, because the Negative's goal is not to prove that there is some other actor that could do the plan and have it be better than the USFG; the Negative's goal is to prove that the USFG should not do the plan. The only way to do this, by definition, is to prove that there is some other option that the USFG should do instead, that would be mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan. In the case of DA's, this alternative option is 'do nothing'; i.e. preserve the SQ. Saying that private companies should eliminate space debris has no bearing on whether the USFG should. You keep talking about a 'net benefit', but it doesn't really matter if private companies won't do the plan anyway.

If you still don't understand my point, consider this: in a round where the Aff presents a plan, and the Neg presents a private CP, what are the presented possible courses of action for the USFG? The USFG could do the plan, the USFG could do nothing (SQ), or... what? With a private CP, what are you arguing that the USFG should do?

You are obviously not advocating that the USFG should do the plan; also, the plan text of a private CP will not even mention the USFG, so you can't be advocating that the USFG do some other plan. Thus, the only option that you could possible be advocating would be that the USFG do nothing, to 'let' private companies eliminate space junk. However, this is where the problem with your argument becomes apparent. Let me explain:

First, we must determine what 'should' really means. If Actor X should do Action Y, then that means that, of the list of mutually exclusive possible courses of action for Actor X that includes Action Y, Action Y is the best; it will create the most advantages. So, the Affirmative must prove that, of all possible actions that are mutually exclusive with the Affirmative plan, their plan is the best. Now, as I previously stated, regardless of what private companies should do, the private CP must be advocating that the USFG do nothing. So, the question of 'should the USFG do the plan' can be rephrased as 'if the USFG did the plan, would it be better than the alternative (in this case, doing nothing)'. In answering this, we compare the effects of both options. If the plan is enacted, then all of the advantages happen, as well as any DA's presented by the Negative (i.e. the 'net benefit' that you keep mentioning). If the other course, inaction, is taken, then the DA does not happen, but the advantages of the CP don't either. So, as long as the Affirmative can prove that their advantages outweigh the DA, then they win. The point that I have made approximately 4 times now, and that I assume I have been unclear on (because that seems to be the only possible explanation for the fact that you continue to make arguments that completely ignore it), is that the statement 'private companies should do the plan' does not mean 'the USFG should not do the plan'. Even if they are mutually exclusive, such an assertion does not warrant a Negative ballot.

 

You're right about this: I'm missing your point. First, I said nothing about "good for debate", so I'm ignoring that part of your post.

 

Assuming your view of counterplans (which I think is a distinctly minority view), in light of a private actor counterplan, the USFG should do nothing. Once a private actor solves the problem, there is no reason for the USFG to act, and given the net benefit, it would be better for the USFG not to act. That justifies a negative ballot, in my opinion.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

X Spike: Why? Because I disagree with you? I guess that we don't know if we disagree, because you didn't bother to read my post before responding to it...

 

Nathan: I agree. Just because the Negative can imagine a world that would be better than the plan does not warrant a Negative ballot.

 

Birdwing: I've accepted and stated that I am fully aware that I am of a minority view; that is precisely why I feel obligated to state it. Your parenthetical added nothing.

I truly believe that the theory is clouding the issue. So, I have a question.

If you were to say to yourself "I should buy that sandwich," and I were to say "No, you should let somebody else buy it for you," would you buy the sandwich? Would that convince you that you should not but it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, a debate round has nothing to do with me buying a sandwich. I dislike analogies because I think they generally cloud issues. I think your analogy is so far removed from public policy and debate that it clouds this issue.

 

Second, if I assume someone has the authority to force that guy to buy me a sandwich, it might make sense for me to have him buy it for me. That would depend on the net benefit. Which one of us can better afford the sandwich? Is there some legal or moral (or other) reason why that guy should buy a sandwich for me? If I think there is a risk that my buying a sandwich risks nuclear war, but him buying me the sandwich will not run that risk, I won't buy the sandwich.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I think that I've identified where the core disagreement is. You mentioned 'somebody who has the authority to force that guy to buy me a sandwich'; so, you would only do nothing if you knew that, in such a situation, he would buy you the sandwich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've grown tired of this sandwich analogy. If all you are saying is you don't think the negative should have private actor fiat, that's something about which reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry that you're bored with the analogy, but I feel that it accurately represents the situation. I do not believe that private actor fiat is bad, per se, but that such fiat does not actually prove the Negative position, and that the same holds true for all non-USFG actors. If you don't want to continue discussion, that is your right; thank you for defending your views up until this point. If nobody else wants to take up your mantle, then we can return to other, more closely related aspects of the space debris case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this whole thread adds up to 1 big tl;dr. don't you have homework to do?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I swear, I absolutely hate that phrase... If you don't have the patience to read the posts, I won't think less of you for it, but please just go away. If you actively go out of your way to tell us that you didn't read something, then we don't want you posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Kessler Syndrome is really interesting... In 1978, David Kessler predicted that the first collision signaling the beginning of the collapse would happen in 30-40 years. Then, in 2009 (31 years later) that Iridium satellite crashed into the old Russian Cosmos one... Kessler even predicted that the masses of the objects would be roughly similar to the sizes of these satellites. Theoretically, it could be a problem within the decade... Very cool stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey does anyone know if the space junk is owned by anyone or any corp. like if the usfg leave the left over of a satellite there does that mean the space junk is owned by the usfg or is it just there without anyone wanting to claim it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey does anyone know if the space junk is owned by anyone or any corp. like if the usfg leave the left over of a satellite there does that mean the space junk is owned by the usfg or is it just there without anyone wanting to claim it

 

I would expect space junk would be treated just like any other junk on earth, If a company or gov't wants it they'll go get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, does anyone know where i could find some defense on the Space Debris bad arguments? stuff like it isn't a problem or the debris won't hurt shuttles. it seems like it's really hard to find evidence on this other than an occasional random newspaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done extensive research into space debris, I can tell you that finding stuff like that is going to be somewhat difficult. However, most Negs running DA's/Solvency attacks on debris probably won't know what the heck they're talking about, so you can probably win with a bit of preparation.

 

If you want to win defense on such arguments, point out (with evidence, easy to find) that current spacecraft shielding technology can deal with debris less than 1 cm in diameter, and anything over 10 cm is large enough to be tracked from the surface, meaning that spacecraft can know about it beforehand.

 

You could also point out the Electro Optic Systems, an Australian company, is partnering with the U.S. to have a high-precision, automated space debris tracking system online by 2012. It is unknown how much more debris it will be able to track, but it can help your position.

 

Making such arguments will essentially be arguing against reality, but if you do research on the above and utilize CX time to show that you know about space debris without having the evidence in front of you, you can probably defeat teams that use the Debris Bad argument just because they can.

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any time frames that you find for Space Debris will either be unwarranted or based on a mathematical model which won't have nearly enough data to make it accurate.

 

Instead of saying that debris collusions will occur by X date, you should contend that debris poses a systemic risk of extinction. Then, do analysis saying why one shot risks of extinction are infinitely less likely than systemic ones. This makes winning the probability debate easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...