Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jbaker

Round 404: [MILITARY] Team slammin' wagon X (aff) vs. Spike and Murray (neg)

Recommended Posts

Cross-x

 

Does Nasa or the DoD do the plan?

List the warrants for extinction in your falconi evidence.

How and when does a black hole of sufficient size to not instantly evaporate collide with the earth?

Why is the Ottawa Citizen qualified to make scientific predictions?

Your Mitchell evidence seems to indicate space weaponization is bad. How do you solve this evidence?

Who is going to launch a "space pearl harbour"? What does this even mean?

Do you defend that the international community would take U.S. unilateral space weaponization lying down?

You read evidence citing 2004 reports on space weaponization, do you have evidence that this is obamas space foreign policy?

Your IFPa evidence says bmd intercepts terrorist attacks. How?

 

are your advantages premised on your framework?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cross-x

 

Does Nasa or the DoD do the plan?

List the warrants for extinction in your falconi evidence.

How and when does a black hole of sufficient size to not instantly evaporate collide with the earth?

Why is the Ottawa Citizen qualified to make scientific predictions?

Your Mitchell evidence seems to indicate space weaponization is bad. How do you solve this evidence?

Who is going to launch a "space pearl harbour"? What does this even mean?

Do you defend that the international community would take U.S. unilateral space weaponization lying down?

You read evidence citing 2004 reports on space weaponization, do you have evidence that this is obamas space foreign policy?

Your IFPa evidence says bmd intercepts terrorist attacks. How?

 

are your advantages premised on your framework?

 

Does Nasa or the DoD do the plan?

The plan does not specify and the 1AC does not read evidence on the agent of implementation. Neither NASA nor the DOD have the authority to do the entire plan by themselves.

 

 

List the warrants for extinction in your falconi evidence.

This question misses the boat of that evidence - the point isn't that we know how extinction will happen, but that there are so many possible ways for us to die that colonization is the only feasible means of guaranteeing human survival. That said, the impacts are:

lethal pandemics

mass vaccinations ==> mass sterility

ecological collapse from pollution

weather manipulation

chemical/bacteriological/germ warfare

"furious competition in all fields of research initiating some catastrophe which man had no reasonable possibility of predicting"

mass ingestion of food additives

mass irradiation

nuclear waste

 

 

 

How and when does a black hole of sufficient size to not instantly evaporate collide with the earth?

Our evidence is very clear on how a black hole could cause extinction, and the scenario is certainly NOT the black hole literally absorbing the Earth. Black holes can come close to our galaxy or solar system and throw planets off their alignment or orbit, causing massive climate fluctuations or potentially even causing the planet to be flung into the universe.

 

 

Why is the Ottawa Citizen qualified to make scientific predictions?

This article is written by Corey S. Powell, with additional research by Diane Martindale. These people are investigative journalists compiling scientific evidence. I would hardly call them unqualified.

 

 

 

Your Mitchell evidence seems to indicate space weaponization is bad. How do you solve this evidence?

False. Our Mitchell evidence indicates the space wars would be catastrophic and terrible. Our Dolman evidence indicates that US militerization would deter challengers from attempting to create that war. In the SQ other countries perceive US space militerization to be inevitable and will increase their capabilities to meet us. Fast and effective US militerization means that we can lock in space dominance quickly and prevent other countries from even trying to challenge us.

 

 

Who is going to launch a "space pearl harbour"? What does this even mean?

There are many potential attacking states, our evidence is not particularly definitive on who it would be. A "space pearl harbour" would be a surprise attack on US space assets.

 

 

Do you defend that the international community would take U.S. unilateral space weaponization lying down?

What kind of a ridiculous leading question is this? Our Dolman evidence explains the transition and why other countries wouldn't retaliate violently.

 

 

You read evidence citing 2004 reports on space weaponization, do you have evidence that this is obamas space foreign policy?

I don't think we read any cards that use the name Obama. Our IFPA evidence was produced during his administration and contains official policy mandates for Obama. Obviously if you read evidence that Obama will not persue space weaponization we will read evidence to the contrary.

 

 

Your IFPa evidence says bmd intercepts terrorist attacks. How?

Multiple layers of defense systems provide multiple opportunities to destroy attacking missiles regardless of their starting point. Boost phase intercepts, most efficiently conducted by components deployed in space, have the added advantages that the missiles payload may fall back onto the attacking actor. Your generic BMD answers are in no way responsive.

 

 

are your advantages premised on your framework?

This question is not a thing and I won't answer it. Our epistemology contention is a defense of the way in which we came to know our advantages.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan does not specify and the 1AC does not read evidence on the agent of implementation. Neither NASA nor the DOD have the authority to do the entire plan by themselves.

-Stop being shifty. Will your plantext be under the jurisdiction of Nasa? Will Darpa help research the tech? It's not an irrelevant question.

 

 

Who is Corey S. Powell and Diane Martindale? What makes investigative journalists qualified to speak on sensational impacts like gamma rays, when there are complex physics involved and they are not directly acquainted with the subject matter? This seems almost like yellow journalism.

 

"Our Dolman evidence indicates that US militerization would deter challengers from attempting to create that war. In the SQ other countries perceive US space militerization to be inevitable and will increase their capabilities to meet us. Fast and effective US militerization means that we can lock in space dominance quickly and prevent other countries from even trying to challenge us.

 

There are many potential attacking states, our evidence is not particularly definitive on who it would be. A "space pearl harbour" would be a surprise attack on US space assets. "

 

Your Quinn Evidence says that space militarization is a "prisoners dilemna," which according to game theory means that if one state develops space weapons then rational choice theory mandates that states counter weaponize to ensure territorial integrity. Who is the distinct challenger that makes space weaponization a pressing matter??

 

What form of space weapons are developed by the Orion Program?

 

Which space weapons are the air force researching now?

 

What is the nearest timeframe extinction scenario before we get off the rock? What is the time frame for establishing a self sufficient moon base? Mars? Do we go past the solar system? How will colonies support themselves in the event earth is destroyed?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have asked me a ton of speculative questions about things that are not in any of our 1AC evidence. Given that, I will only be responding with what I can derive from our evidence and I will try not to speculate myself.

 

-Stop being shifty. Will your plantext be under the jurisdiction of Nasa? Will Darpa help research the tech? It's not an irrelevant question.

I am not intimidated by your accusations, your charlatan. The plan cannot be under the sole jurisdiction of NASA because NASA doesn’t have control over nuclear weapons or nuclear material. None of the 1AC evidence talks about DARPA, so their involvement is purely speculative. Either way, a PIC out of DARPA is certainly not competitive.

 

 

Who is Corey S. Powell and Diane Martindale? What makes investigative journalists qualified to speak on sensational impacts like gamma rays, when there are complex physics involved and they are not directly acquainted with the subject matter? This seems almost like yellow journalism.

The yellow journalism claim is answered spot-on by our Yudkowsky evidence. You can posture about how absurd and ridiculous our advantages are all day long, but claims like “yellow journalism†are a literary criticism, not a scientific one. The bottom line is that our authors cite scientific materials and in-field experts, that’s what investigative journalism is all about. Until you dispute the warrants to their claim with evidence, your argument is irrelevant.

 

Your Quinn Evidence says that space militarization is a "prisoners dilemna," which according to game theory means that if one state develops space weapons then rational choice theory mandates that states counter weaponize to ensure territorial integrity. Who is the distinct challenger that makes space weaponization a pressing matter??

Congratulations on taking an introductory economics course, but the prisoner’s dilemma in our evidence is a little different because it begins at the point of whether or not a nation should be the FIRST to acquire weapons. You see, every state has an incentive to be the first to weaponize space because if they are left behind while others take initiative, they are in a supremely bad position. The prisoner’s dilemma itself is what leads to weaponization. US weaponization changes the payouts because it would allow the US to credibly threaten challengers, locking in US dominance and preventing wars to topple US leadership.

Oh, and our Doleman evidence is very good at undermining your territory warrant – the weapons are defensive so once the US develops them other countries would not retaliate out of fear territorial occupation.

 

What form of space weapons are developed by the Orion Program?

There aren’t specific weapons that would be developed by Orion, the link evidence we read indicates Orion will be key to quick innovation in space weapons and gives the military increased flexibility in development

 

Which space weapons are the air force researching now?

The only evidence we read on this is the IFPA evidence about global missile defense. I don’t know what other weapons are being researched now.

 

What is the nearest timeframe extinction scenario before we get off the rock?

Apophis will strike the Earth in 2029. I believe that is the only scenario that has a timeframe.

 

What is the time frame for establishing a self sufficient moon base? Mars?

We don’t read evidence on this in the 1AC. The cool thing about Orion is that is lets take any other space colonization measures already kicking around and implement them much faster. Orion is a turbo-charge on the very concept of space colonization. It is a shot of adrenaline, a quick boost to get things moving. But timeframe is irrelevant, it’s try or die.

 

 

Do we go past the solar system?

Our New Scientist in 9 evidence answers this: “Orion design remains one that could be built using existing technology, and some researchers are still coming up with new approaches to nuclear pulse propulsion. Theoretically, a nuclear-bomb-powered ship could reach up to 10 per cent of the speed of light, allowing a journey to the nearest star in about 40 years.â€

 

How will colonies support themselves in the event earth is destroyed?

By being self-sufficient. There are many ways to accomplish this, none of which we read evidence on in the 1AC.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Congratulations on taking an introductory economics course"

 

Thanks I'm all grown up in college now.

 

"every state has an incentive to be the first to weaponize space because if they are left behind while others take initiative, they are in a supremely bad position."

 

If every state has a strong incentive to be first to militarize space, why aren't they already doing so? How does militarization change the payouts against counter mobilization instead of for it, given that weaponization is confined to missile defense in the squo? If the United States took initial steps, wouldn't rational choice/games theory mandate counter militarization? Why should the framework be unilateral instead of multilateral? Who is going to launch a space pearl harbour? Who can even challenge our space program? Is your argument that some undetermined nation at some indeterminate point in the future is going to launch a sneak attack on the U.S. satellite network? Why is that in their best interest? Wouldn't they have to follow such an aggressive move with an invasion of the U.S. mainland or risk nuclear retaliation?

 

Would space weapons developed by the Orion program be offensive or defensive? If defensive, how would they improve the technology or functioning of a missile shield?

 

"US weaponization changes the payouts because it would allow the US to credibly threaten challengers, locking in US dominance"

 

Do you defend U.S. Hegemony is a good thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge this if you need judging. My paradigm from debateresults is below. You should PM me when the debate is over.

 

Good debates should have clash, as well as warranted, impacted arguments. I find that when I ask for cards I am either (A) stealing your cites, (B) there was a disagreement about the evidence, or © there was no warranted clash coming out from either side. I would prefer that teams give comparative, impacted explanations of their evidence in the speeches--I frown upon debaters who rely on extensions of claims coupled with catchphrases like "read the evidence after the round". I am unlikely to evaluate shoddily extended cards, even if the cards are amazing. Some specific points--

 

Topicality: I'll default to competing interpretations absent a different way of adjudication. You can convince me that in-round abuse or different ways of evaluating T are good if warranted. Although I have some critical proclivities, I am fairly sympathetic to affirmative claims that the aff should defend the resolution. On the other hand, negatives tend to do a terrible job of answering kritiks of T--you should probably engage with the substance of the K aff or have good reasons why questions of fairness subsume their argument.

 

Theory: I think I hack for theory more than some other judges. I'll vote on dropped cheapshots if you do a good job in the rebuttal explaining the argument and shutting doors on possible cross-applications that the crafty 2nr/2ar will try to spin. I would appreciate it if you slowed down a little for your theory arguments so I can flow them.

 

Case Debate: Woefully underutilized. Even if you're a "one off" K debater, case takeouts and turns are good to have.

 

DA/CP debate: I am a big fan of PICs as well as advantage CPs on the negative. Of course, I'll evaluate the theoretical concerns that come with these, including fiat abuse, consult good/bad, conditionality, whatever. Disads should have a well explained impact calculus and a strong explanation of the link debate.

 

K debate: While the big picture is very important for these debates, I do prefer a cleaner, more technical K debate that engages responses on the line-by-line so I don't have to intervene. I think these questions usually either come down to a sequencing issue and either (A) a permutation that solves the residual links and alt presses or (B) impact turns and alt presses (usually in conjunction with framework). As a policy aff debating a K, making generic wrong forum claims aren't going to get you anywhere. I think your theory arguments should be specific to the nature of the alternative and how it may be unfair. Keep in mind that I am not well read on every K author, so err on the side of explaning your arguments rather than filling your speeches with jargon. I am familiar with: Marx, Foucault, Butler, second wave feminism, Queer Theory, Nietzsche, Baudrillard. I have a cursory understanding of Lacanian psychoanalysis but I will be the first to admit that I don't understand the intricacies of this debate--if you explain this in a coherent way to me in the debate, I will be fine.

 

Performance/K aff: I've dabbled in both before. They're best when they're at least tangentially related to the resolution, though it's up to you. I will be open to hear framework/theory questions on the negative, but it seems like you will need some arguments (either cards or analysis) to indict the case itself, or you'll have some trouble arguing against the specific "case outweighs fairness"-esque arguments. If you're going for T, you should probably try to win topical version of the aff arguments to mitigate their offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge this if you need judging. My paradigm from debateresults is below. You should PM me when the debate is over.

 

Good debates should have clash, as well as warranted, impacted arguments. I find that when I ask for cards I am either (A) stealing your cites, (B) there was a disagreement about the evidence, or © there was no warranted clash coming out from either side.

 

I'm digging the alternative ways to write "B" and "C."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If every state has a strong incentive to be first to militarize space, why aren't they already doing so?

Who says they aren't? Also, China, etc. This answers "who will launch the pearl harbour" and "who can challenge us"

 

 

How does militarization change the payouts against counter mobilization instead of for it, given that weaponization is confined to missile defense in the squo?

 

If the US has space dominance other countries lose the incentive to challenge the US instead of cooperate becuase the cost of a failed challenge is too great.

 

If the United States took initial steps, wouldn't rational choice/games theory mandate counter militarization?

 

No.

 

Why should the framework be unilateral instead of multilateral?

We don't read 1AC evidence on the distinction. You don't have 1NC evidence on it.

 

 

Is your argument that some undetermined nation at some indeterminate point in the future is going to launch a sneak attack on the U.S. satellite network?

 

No.

 

 

Would space weapons developed by the Orion program be offensive or defensive?

I cannot possibly answer that given the internal link to our argument is development of new type of weapons for space. New = unknown as of now.

 

Do you defend U.S. Hegemony is a good thing?

 

It should not be incredibly difficult for you to win a link to an argument saying US hegemony is bad. However, you might want to be sure the warrants to your impact make sense in a post-plan world.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly forgot this existed over the last few days. Some preliminary questions:

 

Your framework is given a title but no explanation of its function. What is the criterion used by the judges to decide the winner of the round?

 

Given everything you've said, why vote negative?

 

Who does the alt, and what does that accomplish?

 

Which parts of the plan does the criticism criticize?

 

Which part of the 1NC answers our claim that space militerization is inevitable? Which parts answer that the US is already perceived as militerizing space?

 

Your space mil impact says something like "Then the US would have global superpowers" but I'm not finding an impact to that. What's the impact and why is US ULTIMATE HEGEMONY bad?

 

status of the alt?

 

What is the utility of the narratives/stories in the 1NC?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think you're a good judge? You dropped one of my friends in a bubble round, and another one in a break round, BOTH on dumb decisions because you hated their team.

 

 

Jerk.

 

Un-warranted assertion is un-warranted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I should have taken this to Private Message. I am sure that my friends would not have wanted me to do such a thing.

 

That being said, it is not sarcasm, and yes my claim is warranted.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...