Jump to content
RyeZOAM

Round 470: [Space] Dedevin (Aff) Vs. Thefrozenone (Neg)

Recommended Posts

i know it's kindof short, but is 2000/1300 ok?

 

i'll post the 1AC when we have at least 1 judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll judge, I'm tab. I enjoy debates that get in depth and are unique, this includes everything from making strong analytics on regular disads to running complicated and unique arguments. I particularly enjoy K debates. I'm well versed in Heideggerian thought (which includes Spanos), Deleuze and Guattari, Hardt and Negri, and to a lesser extent Baudrillard, but I'll get anything so long you do a good job explaining the K. Disads and CP are expected, the more in depth you get, the better. Low threshold on theory, T is fine, I think teams should get their K (assuming it's something regular), so I'd prefer you actually answer kritiks/K affs than read FW. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Specifically, what does the plan do/result in

i mandate in my plantext that SBSP is developed (beyond the mes) for DoD use, with a lovely budget of 1 quadrillion dollars. i don't claim to solve for going to space, and i'd argue that the economy collapses before the project actually happens.

What part of the USfg does the aff

Normal means. i'm not gonna agent-spike out of any of your DAs or CPs. the process would probably be congress approving the budget for the DoD (since the objective is to get SBSP for the military)

Does the US even have a quadrillion dollars

we'd just deficit spend. george w bush empirically proves this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you're saying.

I judged (and picked up multiple times) a good team from Shawnee Mission East at the Jenks tournament. They were much more sophisticated than reading a DeDev aff where the internal link is "the government spends a billion dollars!"

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an embarrassment to Shawnee Mission East. I thought that they were good after the Jenks tournament...

 

if you're talking about Liam, he didn't write it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I judged (and picked up multiple times) a good team from Shawnee Mission East at the Jenks tournament. They were much more sophisticated than reading a DeDev aff where the internal link is "the government spends a billion dollars!"

 

Cool story, bro. Not sure why you feel the need to call us "an embarrassment" to our district for posting a dedev 1AC on a CX vdebate.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I judged (and picked up multiple times) a good team from Shawnee Mission East at the Jenks tournament. They were much more sophisticated than reading a DeDev aff where the internal link is "the government spends a billion dollars!"

 

*1 million billion. it's quite a difference when you think about it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I judged (and picked up multiple times) a good team from Shawnee Mission East at the Jenks tournament. They were much more sophisticated than reading a DeDev aff where the internal link is "the government spends a billion dollars!"

 

1) SME hasn't attended the Jenks tournament (we did debate them in a bid round at Heritage)

2) Mason doesn't go to SME

3) The Shawnee Mission South team is very respectable and can read a dedev aff if they want

 

This probably came off much more abrasive than I intended so sorry about that

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's cool. i'll figure it out later. i'll start with these:

 

1. how do we violate "beyond" if we mandate development beyond the mes? is meeting this interp dependent on solving for going to space?

 

2. why does nuclear war happen? like, what causes people to come to the conclusion that nuclear war would probably be a cool idea?

 

3. (assuming we win that transition causes global dedevelopement) how does proliferation happen?

 

4. ok, your Fan '11 link on the China DA literally says that it's against the OST to put nuclear weapons in space. i get that you're going for a perception link here, but where in that card does it list a single treaty that SBSP openly violates?

 

5. what specifically are the NB's to the PIC? because i get the feeling that the tradeoff DA isn't one of them :P

 

6. how does advocating the collapse of the state link to a biopower k? Specifically, what about the justification for the aff is militaristic?

 

7. on the oil/russia DA: where in your Morse & Richard '2 does it say that SBSP would scare Saudi Arabia? especially when we don't claim that we replace any massive amount of fuel?

 

8. why would Russia flip it's shit and nuke everyone? that seems kindof dumb of a world leader.

 

9. how is Dedev impirically denied?

 

10. what part of the case does debris turn?

 

11. why won't states go to war over water, a vital resource to our survival, but states like Russia will go slap happy over nuking everyone?

 

12. what argument does your Sabathier & Faith, ’11 make?

 

i think that's all i need

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) SME hasn't attended the Jenks tournament (we did debate them in a bid round at Heritage)

2) Mason doesn't go to SME

3) The Shawnee Mission South team is very respectable and can read a dedev aff if they want

 

This probably came off much more abrasive than I intended so sorry about that

I was wrong in seeing that he his from Shawnee Mission South as opposed to East. And I did misspeak earlier regarding Jenks and Heritage Hall, I got those two mix up. I still do in fact believe that you're stupid for reading not only a DeDev aff, but a really dumb DeDev aff at that. Shawnee Mission East = awesome, Shawnee Mission South = real dumb. Thanks Michael for pointing that out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

epic 400th post

 

1. how do we violate "beyond" if we mandate development beyond the mes? is meeting this interp dependent on solving for going to space?

you only meet that interpretation effectually

 

2. why does nuclear war happen? like, what causes people to come to the conclusion that nuclear war would probably be a cool idea?

depends on the DA scenario

russia da is based on non-state actors

space mil da is based on nations who see their national interests threatened by US military expansion into space which can threaten commercial interests

budget da is based on miscalc

 

3. (assuming we win that transition causes global dedevelopement) how does proliferation happen?

DA probably happens faster than the case can solve

ngo's can probably still access fissile material

de-development doesn't mean that countries don't exist anymore. it probably just means that autarky is more likely and globalization is reversed

 

4. ok, your Fan '11 link on the China DA literally says that it's against the OST to put nuclear weapons in space. i get that you're going for a perception link here, but where in that card does it list a single treaty that SBSP openly violates?

dual-use nature of ssp means it's percieved as violating the OST provision on weapons of mass destruction

 

5. what specifically are the NB's to the PIC? because i get the feeling that the tradeoff DA isn't one of them :P

space mil

 

6. how does advocating the collapse of the state link to a biopower k? Specifically, what about the justification for the aff is militaristic?

the idea that we need to make sure our future settlements sustainable all relies on a biopolitical vision of communities and norms which is reinforced from space

the card says that satellite technology is inherently based on preserving disciplinary notions of power over populations

 

7. on the oil/russia DA: where in your Morse & Richard '2 does it say that SBSP would scare Saudi Arabia? especially when we don't claim that we replace any massive amount of fuel?

it says alternative energy investments

plan links because it competes with fossil fuels

 

8. why would Russia flip it's shit and nuke everyone? that seems kindof dumb of a world leader.

the argument is that instability cause rioting/internal wars where terrorist groups could procure nukes.

 

9. how is Dedev impirically denied?

do i make this argument?

 

10. what part of the case does debris turn?

biodiversity maybe

 

11. why won't states go to war over water, a vital resource to our survival, but states like Russia will go slap happy over nuking everyone?

1. it costs more to go to war over water than it does to just find ways to get more water

2. co-operation is more likely than competition- states have mutual incentives for de-escalation

3. none of this applies to russia because we make the argument that non-state actors are involved. mad probably doesn't check

 

12. what argument does your Sabathier & Faith, ’11 make?

your warrant for why ssp is inevitable cites china. sabathier says china's space program isn't at the stage it needs to be for further development

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the role of the ballot?

 

 

oh also, how does debris turn Bio D?

 

after that i should be good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is the role of the ballot?

To determine the desireability of your approach to space before evaluating the merits/veracity of your specific policy option

 

oh also, how does debris turn Bio D?

It would probably destroy the ozone layer as well

 

after that i should be good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally zero risk of us launching into sapce – IF the US were to spend one quadrillion dollars tomorrow, the economy would collapse for NASA or any other space agency can actually do anything in space. You should vote aff on 100% risk of defense.

 

 

What does this argument mean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally zero risk of us launching into sapce – IF the US were to spend one quadrillion dollars tomorrow, the economy would collapse for NASA or any other space agency can actually do anything in space. You should vote aff on 100% risk of defense.

 

 

What does this argument mean

 

basically, the chances of us implementing a fully functional SBSP system post-plan is incredibly low, as well as any risk of triggering the DA's.

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...