Jump to content
Zuul

Big affs

Recommended Posts

People ran space elevators on the TI topic, the space topic, and the oceans topic :( It's so old.

Edited by tommy949

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the evidence I could find says ready in 15 years, and cost $20 billion for two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Yeah I remembered that right after I posted my comment.

 

Maybe find a way to use an actor besides the USCG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the evidence I could find says ready in 15 years, and cost $20 billion for two.

 

I'm curious, but I'm pretty sure those authors are dreaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, but I'm pretty sure those authors are dreaming.

No matter SPACE ELEVATORS 2014!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space elevators would have THE BEST advantages on the oceans topic. Definitely the most unique. Sure costs an issue, but it's not like the spending DA will somehow become relevant. The issue of needing to develop in two oceans is resolved by the kent evidence, which says there are two oceanic locations. Possible advantages:

Space colonization

Sps

Space weapons

Earth monitoring

Military space tech

Geo engineering

Space leadership

Basically all space topic advantages.

 

Yes, your big debate will be feasibility. Obviously no aff is perfect and has flaws. But I think it's more than possible to win that US R&D resolves tech issues AND that it's scientifically possible.

 

Also, anyone that says that space elevators doesn't sound FUN must have a black hole for a soul. It's not like it's abusive. There are a SHITTON of arguments against it. Just as a general note to Squirreloid, you are OVERLY PESSIMISTIC and dismissive of arguments without understanding how they could affect the debate. This isn't just true here, but also on other forums. Keep an open mind to the topic, or else it will end up like this year with little aff innovation.

Edited by ktg9616
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space elevators would have THE BEST advantages on the oceans topic. Definitely the most unique. Sure costs an issue, but it's not like the spending DA will somehow become relevant. The issue of needing to develop in two oceans is resolved by the kent evidence, which says there are two oceanic locations. Possible advantages:

Space colonization

Sps

Space weapons

Earth monitoring

Military space tech

Geo engineering

Space leadership

Basically all space topic advantages.

 

Yes, your big debate will be feasibility. Obviously no aff is perfect and has flaws. But I think it's more than possible to win that US R&D resolves tech issues AND that it's scientifically possible.

 

Also, anyone that says that space elevators doesn't sound FUN must have a black hole for a soul. It's not like it's abusive. There are a SHITTON of arguments against it. Just as a general note to Squirreloid, you are OVERLY PESSIMISTIC and dismissive of arguments without understanding how they could affect the debate. This isn't just true here, but also on other forums. Keep an open mind to the topic, or else it will end up like this year with little aff innovation.

Yeah for sure, I am excited, I talked to my partner and he agreed that we should run space elevators so I guess I know what I am running next year. Thanks again for the card about space elevators in oceans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People ran space elevators on the TI topic, the space topic, and the oceans topic :( It's so old.

SAY THAT TO MY FACE NOT ONLINE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the evidence I could find says ready in 15 years, and cost $20 billion for two.

What, only $20 billion? I mean, my TI aff cost $500B! Just link-turn the shit out of spending disads, it's fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What, only $20 billion? I mean, my TI aff cost $500B! Just link-turn the shit out of spending disads, it's fun!

Challenge accepted

 

Carbon nanotube fiber can't solve and a Space elevator would cost 13.6 kazillion zillion dollars, yes you heard that right.

 

 Jeffrey Kluger 11’ Award winning writer for Time magazines Science and Space section“An Elevator to Space? Better Take the Stairsâ€

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2099830,00.html) SI

Neat, huh — but not so neat when it comes to space elevators. Since the lower regions of the cable are moving slower than the higher ones, a rising car will lag behind the orbiting anchor, causing a drag on the cable that could destabilize the entire assembly. For Newtonian reasons so complex they'd make your head hurt, you can dampen this effect by moving your orbital anchor higher, up to 62,000 miles (100,000 km) above the ground, which puts us a wee bit further still from the 11 in. (28 cm) of nanotube we've got so far. (See photos from the Saturn mission.) Add to these a few other wrinkles — the requirement that you build your earth-based anchor somewhere on the equator and preferably at sea, so you can maneuver it out of the way of storms, as well as manipulate the cable so it can dodge incoming space debris. In addition, the orbiting anchor would have to be exceedingly heavy to remain stable in so high an orbit, which means building massive rockets that don't yet exist to launch it in the first place. In the alternative, say theorists, we could also capture an asteroid and simply haul it into place. (Um, O.K., pardner, let us know when you've got that baby lassoed.) Finally, warn international auditors, even if you could get a working space elevator built, the price tag would be an estimated $13.6 kazillion zillion — or €10.05 kazillion zillion at today's close. There's nothing at all wrong with puzzling out how a space elevator could get built. The puzzling part is a critical stage of all invention and inspiration. Go just one or two centuries back and almost any complex technology we accept as routine today — the Internet, air travel, probes to the outer planets, flat-screen TV — was also the stuff of fabulists. But imagining is not the same as building, and puzzling is a long, long way from patenting. So go for it, Google, and best of luck. Just don't call us till you're done.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Challenge accepted

 

Carbon nanotube fiber can't solve and a Space elevator would cost 13.6 kazillion zillion dollars, yes you heard that right.

 

 Jeffrey Kluger 11’ Award winning writer for Time magazines Science and Space section“An Elevator to Space? Better Take the Stairsâ€

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2099830,00.html) SI

Neat, huh — but not so neat when it comes to space elevators. Since the lower regions of the cable are moving slower than the higher ones, a rising car will lag behind the orbiting anchor, causing a drag on the cable that could destabilize the entire assembly. For Newtonian reasons so complex they'd make your head hurt, you can dampen this effect by moving your orbital anchor higher, up to 62,000 miles (100,000 km) above the ground, which puts us a wee bit further still from the 11 in. (28 cm) of nanotube we've got so far. (See photos from the Saturn mission.) Add to these a few other wrinkles — the requirement that you build your earth-based anchor somewhere on the equator and preferably at sea, so you can maneuver it out of the way of storms, as well as manipulate the cable so it can dodge incoming space debris. In addition, the orbiting anchor would have to be exceedingly heavy to remain stable in so high an orbit, which means building massive rockets that don't yet exist to launch it in the first place. In the alternative, say theorists, we could also capture an asteroid and simply haul it into place. (Um, O.K., pardner, let us know when you've got that baby lassoed.) Finally, warn international auditors, even if you could get a working space elevator built, the price tag would be an estimated $13.6 kazillion zillion — or €10.05 kazillion zillion at today's close. There's nothing at all wrong with puzzling out how a space elevator could get built. The puzzling part is a critical stage of all invention and inspiration. Go just one or two centuries back and almost any complex technology we accept as routine today — the Internet, air travel, probes to the outer planets, flat-screen TV — was also the stuff of fabulists. But imagining is not the same as building, and puzzling is a long, long way from patenting. So go for it, Google, and best of luck. Just don't call us till you're done.

We can take out a loan right?

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll offer you 37% interest compounded continuously.

Dang, thats tempting can we make it 35%?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

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.

Develop reserved nonfishing areas of the ocean in biodiversity hotspots and nesting grounds? It might have to be some pretty large areas to solve for fish migration and such, but it may be viable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno about you guys but there is no way I am not writing a Deleuzian Piracy aff

Ra Ra Fight the Power

Edited by Bow2Baudrillard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hoping or affs that faciliate military development... so, developing arctic ports (Arctic war), oceanic trade agreements in East Asia (Asia pivot). There are probably a number of non-military trade, infrastructure, and territorial affs that qualify as non-military but still access deterrence advantages by improving naval capabilities, and naval power impacts tend to be incredibly good. I'm not sure what the definitions the topic terms are but passing UNCLOS is a possible aff, with advantages like...maybe I-law, naval conflict, etc.

 

I won't be debating on this topic next year, but I think they made a good choice and I look forward to seeing what affs people release. I think UNCLOS, some trade/oceanic development/shipping lanes affs, and then some affs with very specific advantage scenarios (Arctic ports - some people suggested icebreakers, which is probably less topical - with arctic war, etc.) will be popular. I think there will be cool room for K affs, too... maybe some libertarian/privatization seasteading aff (you can probably access some interesting advantages with these - like, technology internal links to science leadership, econ, etc... along with more kritikal advantages dealing with libertarianism, coercion, biopower/governmental competitiveness, etc.), some anthro affs, border affs, etc. I don' think there will be one "big" aff because this is a large topic and the literature base will contain many different internal links to many different impact scenarios (Latin America is a big topic too, but aff ground was somewhat limited by the inability to garner high-magnitude impacts, as essentially all of these impacts take place outside of the immediate purview of the topic, and it's sort of difficult to establish strong internal links from a Latin America aff to a Russia war scenario... less so for oceans).

 

So, yeah... I'd expect I-law, trade, localized (Semi)military affs on the policy side, then some interesting k-affs.  Neg ground might be difficult to garner on this topic - process counterplans will probably be common (I think a lot of the best aff ground will be insulated from advantage counterplans... South China Sea war aff would probably be very good. Like, define development to include legal structures, plantext to negotiate redlines and conflict norms with China in the South China Sea, advantages are like Spratley Islands/Taiwan war, maybe energy or econ scenarios... possibly a China rise good advantage with internal links to Eurasian/Asian war?).

Edited by Stirner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dang, thats tempting can we make it 35%?

r3oqRuP.gif

Hah! Every attempt to negotiate only raises the price-38%.

 

Don't think you can go somewhere else either--I'm the only bookie in town with the funding necessary.

 

 

Oh, and I'll need your firstborn as collateral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

r3oqRuP.gif

Hah! Every attempt to negotiate only raises the price-38%.

 

Don't think you can go somewhere else either--I'm the only bookie in town with the funding necessary.

 

 

Oh, and I'll need your firstborn as collateral.

Ha thinking I will have a child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...