Jump to content
Zuul

Big affs

Recommended Posts

Dolphins and icebreakers will be fairly common, and I would be surprised if exploring the Mariana Trench isn't a novice case.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icebreakers seemed to do fine against the T-military debate last year, I don't know why that would change next year.

 

The resolution mandates non-military. There is literally no counterinterpretation.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The resolution mandates non-military. There is literally no counterinterpretation.

Yeah the interp was that TI had to be non military

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dolphins and icebreakers will be fairly common, and I would be surprised if exploring the Mariana Trench isn't a novice case.

 

What would the dolphin plan even do?  This year's Dolphins! aff has no inherency.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the interp was that TI had to be non military

 

Well, there were cards that said TI included military, and people read them because the resolution just mandated investment in TI; this rez mandates specifically non-military explonation/development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wanting to do an overfishing aff but I have no idea what we would develop to prevent overfishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is military about constructing waterways?

Icebreakers are run by the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD...that's like fiating that the USFG economic engages Panama on this topic. It's blatantly not following a word or list in the resolution. It's different when you're debating whether icebreakers fall under a certain categorical definition like exploration or development. It's not really debatable when "non-military" is in the resolution.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore drilling in various places; tidal energy development; Ratify Law of the Sea; lots of picky little development or exploration plans for teams to cut their T-Substantial block on; probably a few teams bringing back megaports from two years ago (dubious but plausible topicality); lots of environmentalist K affs.  Since far right Ks seem to be nonexistent these days, probably not the "Build Sealand/Build Rapture" K Affs I'm thinking of.  Floating space launch platforms might be something worth researching.  On Neg, expect a year of Spending DAs, Midterms DAs, and environmentalist Ks.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offshore drilling in various places; tidal energy development; Ratify Law of the Sea; lots of picky little development or exploration plans for teams to cut their T-Substantial block on; probably a few teams bringing back megaports from two years ago (dubious but plausible topicality); lots of environmentalist K affs.  Since far right Ks seem to be nonexistent these days, probably not the "Build Sealand/Build Rapture" K Affs I'm thinking of.  Floating space launch platforms might be something worth researching.  On Neg, expect a year of Spending DAs, Midterms DAs, and environmentalist Ks.

That launchpads seems like a cool idea.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be the person that reuses old affs...but....

 

GO SPACE ELEVATORS. 

 

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its nonmilitary development of the Earth's oceans by developing an ocean-tethered space elevator.

 

 

 

Space elevators fail unless tethered to oceanic stations.

Kent 07 -  Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. “Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access†April 2007

Dr. Edwards has completed exhaustive comparisons of possible ground sites around the globe. His study takes into account latitude (distance from the equator), freedom of movement, lightening, storms, shipping lanes and flight routes, military protection, safety and recovery zones, international airport locations, service and staffing, and environmental issues. 67 A tether hanging down from space would not necessarily have to terminate its grounded end exactly on the equator. Edwards argues that by moving the tether away from the equator, many locations open up and the elevator will be out of the way of many LEO satellites that regularly cross the equator, helping to lessen the chance of collision. 68 Since there will be some need to move the tether around to avoid orbital collisions, a floating liftport is envisioned. Large oceangoing structures are routinely used for a variety of purposes around the world and probably pose the least risk for any space elevator plans. Moving the tether around means you need a lot of open ocean to work with. 69 Examination of historical lightening and storm data on the earth’s surface rules out many areas of interest for placement of the liftport. Taking into account shipping lanes and flight routes, relatively close location to military protection, good airport, and personnel for staffing needs along with enough open ocean to allow for safety and recovery zones should something fall from the elevator at lower attitudes leaves two basic areas for location of the ground station. These are in the Pacific Ocean west of South America and in the Indian Ocean west of Australia. 70

Edited by ktg9616
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be the person that reuses old affs...but....

 

GO SPACE ELEVATORS. 

 

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its nonmilitary development of the Earth's oceans by developing an ocean-tethered space elevator.

 

 

 

Space elevators fail unless tethered to oceanic stations.

Kent 07 -  Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. “Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access†April 2007

Dr. Edwards has completed exhaustive comparisons of possible ground sites around the globe. His study takes into account latitude (distance from the equator), freedom of movement, lightening, storms, shipping lanes and flight routes, military protection, safety and recovery zones, international airport locations, service and staffing, and environmental issues. 67 A tether hanging down from space would not necessarily have to terminate its grounded end exactly on the equator. Edwards argues that by moving the tether away from the equator, many locations open up and the elevator will be out of the way of many LEO satellites that regularly cross the equator, helping to lessen the chance of collision. 68 Since there will be some need to move the tether around to avoid orbital collisions, a floating liftport is envisioned. Large oceangoing structures are routinely used for a variety of purposes around the world and probably pose the least risk for any space elevator plans. Moving the tether around means you need a lot of open ocean to work with. 69 Examination of historical lightening and storm data on the earth’s surface rules out many areas of interest for placement of the liftport. Taking into account shipping lanes and flight routes, relatively close location to military protection, good airport, and personnel for staffing needs along with enough open ocean to allow for safety and recovery zones should something fall from the elevator at lower attitudes leaves two basic areas for location of the ground station. These are in the Pacific Ocean west of South America and in the Indian Ocean west of Australia. 70

Oooooh thats fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure there's several interesting science cases which could be written by someone at least vaguely familiar with current ecological literature

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the relevant T debates (where there is literature supporting both sides) are whether or not:

science/research counts as exploration/development

conservation counts as development

ports on land (or other ocean-serving structures) count as ocean development

shipping counts as development

salvage counts as development

waste management counts as development

 

The big-stick core of the topic aff (like SPS, HSR, and Lift the Cuban Embargo respectively for the past three debate topics) is going to be offshore oil drilling. Many other energy affirmatives will be common as well (in particular OTEC)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icebreakers are run by the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD...that's like fiating that the USFG economic engages Panama on this topic. It's blatantly not following a word or list in the resolution. It's different when you're debating whether icebreakers fall under a certain categorical definition like exploration or development. It's not really debatable when "non-military" is in the resolution.

It looks like the Coast Guard fell under the DoT before 9/11:

"Coast Guard. The United States Coast Guard was originally established as the Revenue Cutter Service in 1790. In 1915, it was reformed as the United States Coast Guard, under the Treasury Department. In 1967, the Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of Transportation. Legislation passed in 2002 transferred the Coast Guard to the Department of Homeland Security. In peacetime, the Coast Guard is primarily concerned with law enforcement, boating safety, sea rescue, and illegal immigration control. However, the President of the United States can transfer part or all of the Coast Guard to the Department of the Navy in times of conflict. The Coast Guard consists of ships, boats, aircraft and shore stations that conduct a variety of missions. The Coast Guard is the smallest military service, with about 7,000 officers and 29,000 enlisted on active duty. The Coast Guard is also supported by the Coast Guard Reserves, and a volunteer "Coast Guard Auxiliary" in times of need."

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/military101.htm

 

I'm sure that someone could have tried (not necessarily successfully) to argue that it was non-military.

Damn Al-Qaeda stealing affirmative ground! Can we run abuse on terrorists?

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the relevant T debates (where there is literature supporting both sides) are whether or not:

science/research counts as exploration/development

 

 

It obviously depends on what the science is.  Huge swaths of the ocean have never been surveyed, so that's pretty much on-face exploration.  Yet another trip to a cold seep or vent?  Might have a basis for T.  (Potential areas of scientific investigation are of course vast, some are going to be obviously exploration, some are not, and some are going to be debatable)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to be the person that reuses old affs...but....

 

GO SPACE ELEVATORS. 

 

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its nonmilitary development of the Earth's oceans by developing an ocean-tethered space elevator.

 

 

 

Space elevators fail unless tethered to oceanic stations.

Kent 07 -  Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. “Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access†April 2007

Dr. Edwards has completed exhaustive comparisons of possible ground sites around the globe. His study takes into account latitude (distance from the equator), freedom of movement, lightening, storms, shipping lanes and flight routes, military protection, safety and recovery zones, international airport locations, service and staffing, and environmental issues. 67 A tether hanging down from space would not necessarily have to terminate its grounded end exactly on the equator. Edwards argues that by moving the tether away from the equator, many locations open up and the elevator will be out of the way of many LEO satellites that regularly cross the equator, helping to lessen the chance of collision. 68 Since there will be some need to move the tether around to avoid orbital collisions, a floating liftport is envisioned. Large oceangoing structures are routinely used for a variety of purposes around the world and probably pose the least risk for any space elevator plans. Moving the tether around means you need a lot of open ocean to work with. 69 Examination of historical lightening and storm data on the earth’s surface rules out many areas of interest for placement of the liftport. Taking into account shipping lanes and flight routes, relatively close location to military protection, good airport, and personnel for staffing needs along with enough open ocean to allow for safety and recovery zones should something fall from the elevator at lower attitudes leaves two basic areas for location of the ground station. These are in the Pacific Ocean west of South America and in the Indian Ocean west of Australia. 70

Because of this card I am considering space elevators, is it a decent aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, the resolution specifies oceans, so you'll need to build two.  And space elevators are going to be expensive.  Actually legitimate spending links incoming - this is the kind of spending that could bankrupt large countries. 

 

The technology is also speculative - we don't actually have a viable material for the elevator shaft that we can make anywhere close to long enough.  (Carbon nanotube technology is nowhere close).  How legitimate do you think R+D affs are, especially when we can't prove the materials science will be feasible this century.  Serious timeframe issues.

 

Also, I have a hard time taking an author seriously who continuously mispells "lightning" as "lightening".  The former is the product of electrical storms, the latter is the process of becoming lighter...

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...