Jump to content
SnarkosaurusRex

T definitions for the Oceans topic

Recommended Posts

[This was also posted in the Oceans topic, but 1) that board gets distracted easily, and 2) this should stay more T focused]

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Words to define (new ones, not USFG or substantially:)

 

1) non-military

 

Generic definition from oxford:

 

 

not belonging to, characteristic of, or involving the armed forces; civilian:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nonmilitary

 

Something else to keep in mind is the agency of which would carry out your plan. For instance, if it was the Coast Guard, it wouldn't work because the CG is considered part of the military. (From 1967 to 2002 it was part of the Treasury IIRC). So if the agent is NASA (like launch pads on the oceans or some similar plan) there's a pretty good argument to be made about how it's non-military even if they try to argue that said launch pads could be used for military purposes.

 

Another possible option is looking at what categories of things are considered as non-military. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe discusses non-military confidence building measures, and lays out what categories of things they consider non-military:

http://www.osce.org/cpc/91082

TL; DR it's

Political, Economic, Environmental, Societal, and Cultural

 

There's also some evidence that says that what is considered military and non-military changes depending on if you're at war or not. This could be used to say that since we're not at war with the ocean people (yet) the definition used is doesn't apply.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_il_rule8

 

 

 

2) exploration

 

 

Now exploration has two interesting definitions in the generic sense. The first is exactly what you'd expect (Oxford):

the action of exploring an unfamiliar area

The second is more interesting:

the action of searching an area for natural resources:

 
This means that most energy affs, as long as they can be linked to the oceans, can be run. So Oil (even Cuban if you're boring and uncreative), Natural Gas, Geothermal, or something that requires searching (in this case probably drilling) would be topical. Before you say "HYRDOELECTRIC?!?!?!?!" that would be covered under development.
 
NOAA has an article on Ocean Exploration that also links to examples of what counts:
 
It looks like stuff with coral might be topical-http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/13pulleyridge/welcome.html
which would access advantages like ocean ecosystem and biodiversity.
 
Here's another definition:
P4PzlOC.jpg

 

3) development

 

Oxford defines development [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/development]

*a specified state of growth or advancement:

*a new and refined product or idea:
*an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation:
*the process of converting land to a new purpose by constructing buildings or making use of its resources:
*an area of land with new buildings on it
*Chess the process of bringing one’s pieces into play in the opening phase of a game.
 
Here's where the rest of the energy affs come into play:
So wind power, hydroelectric, etc. can all be done. ADDITIONALLY if you can find a solvency advocate, you could do nuclear reactors and solar power stuff on the ocean.

 
 

 

4) oceans

 

Oxford defines Ocean as a big sea:

a very large expanse of sea, in particular each of the main areas into which the sea is divided geographically:

 
NOAA defines the difference between an OCEAN and a SEA
 
And then we have Merriam Webster's definition:
a :  the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth
 

b :  any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great ocean is divided

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean

 

The 1A definition should be able to interact with the "oceans" must be plural neg argument because the world technically only has one ocean [insert K here about how splitting up the oceans is Eurocentric or whatever].

 
 
Thoughts on T for next year?
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

There's also some evidence that says that what is considered military and non-military changes depending on if you're at war or not. This could be used to say that since we're not at war with the ocean people (yet) the definition used is doesn't apply.

 

EVERY TIME WE COMMIT STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE IT'S LIKE TEN NUCLEAR WARS ACCORDING TO BERUBE 97 SO ACTUALLY WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE "OCEAN PEOPLE" 

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EVERY TIME WE COMMIT STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE IT'S LIKE TEN NUCLEAR WARS ACCORDING TO BERUBE 97 SO ACTUALLY WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE "OCEAN PEOPLE" 

THAT WOULD MEAN THE OCEAN PEOPLE ARE ALL DEAD!

 

At any rate, I'm glad I won't have to have the sea/ocean/gulf/cove T debate.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the military T will be run, as I see many people trying to skirt the boundaries there. 

For what purpose? What great advantages are there to be gained from military affs? (Aside form Coast Guard-Ice breakers aside)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what purpose? What great advantages are there to be gained from military affs? (Aside form Coast Guard-Ice breakers aside)

Just a lot more advantage ground that the neg won't be as used to debating against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what purpose? What great advantages are there to be gained from military affs? (waterways aside)

ftfy

 

Being serious, I think that there will be a lot of dubious solvency mechanisms.  As for advantages...

 

Military k2 prevent South China Sea war

Military k2 prevent russian incursion->Arctic Conflict

Hegemony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you make an argument that "development" affs could be military?

Not if the resolution specifically says non-military development. Even though it's after the 'and/or', the adverb (adjective?) still applies to the word development.

 

You could try making a "this isn't really military" argument I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not if the resolution specifically says non-military development. Even though it's after the 'and/or', the adverb (adjective?) still applies to the word development.

 

You could try making a "this isn't really military" argument I guess.

 

"Non-military" will be an interesting debate. Tons of things can be USED by the military, even if advantages aren't based off military. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[This was also posted in the Oceans topic, but 1) that board gets distracted easily, and 2) this should stay more T focused]

 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Words to define (new ones, not USFG or substantially:)

 

1) non-military

 

Generic definition from oxford:

 

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nonmilitary

 

Something else to keep in mind is the agency of which would carry out your plan. For instance, if it was the Coast Guard, it wouldn't work because the CG is considered part of the military. (From 1967 to 2002 it was part of the Treasury IIRC). So if the agent is NASA (like launch pads on the oceans or some similar plan) there's a pretty good argument to be made about how it's non-military even if they try to argue that said launch pads could be used for military purposes.

 

Another possible option is looking at what categories of things are considered as non-military. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe discusses non-military confidence building measures, and lays out what categories of things they consider non-military:

http://www.osce.org/cpc/91082

TL; DR it's

Political, Economic, Environmental, Societal, and Cultural

 

There's also some evidence that says that what is considered military and non-military changes depending on if you're at war or not. This could be used to say that since we're not at war with the ocean people (yet) the definition used is doesn't apply.

http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_il_rule8

 

 

 

2) exploration

 

 

Now exploration has two interesting definitions in the generic sense. The first is exactly what you'd expect (Oxford):

the action of exploring an unfamiliar area

The second is more interesting:

the action of searching an area for natural resources:

 
This means that most energy affs, as long as they can be linked to the oceans, can be run. So Oil (even Cuban if you're boring and uncreative), Natural Gas, Geothermal, or something that requires searching (in this case probably drilling) would be topical. Before you say "HYRDOELECTRIC?!?!?!?!" that would be covered under development.
 
NOAA has an article on Ocean Exploration that also links to examples of what counts:
 
It looks like stuff with coral might be topical-http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/13pulleyridge/welcome.html
which would access advantages like ocean ecosystem and biodiversity.
 
Here's another definition:
P4PzlOC.jpg

 

3) development

 

Oxford defines development [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/development]

*a specified state of growth or advancement:

*a new and refined product or idea:
*an event constituting a new stage in a changing situation:
*the process of converting land to a new purpose by constructing buildings or making use of its resources:
*an area of land with new buildings on it
*Chess the process of bringing one’s pieces into play in the opening phase of a game.
 
Here's where the rest of the energy affs come into play:
So wind power, hydroelectric, etc. can all be done. ADDITIONALLY if you can find a solvency advocate, you could do nuclear reactors and solar power stuff on the ocean.

 
 

 

4) oceans

 

Oxford defines Ocean as a big sea:

a very large expanse of sea, in particular each of the main areas into which the sea is divided geographically:

 
NOAA defines the difference between an OCEAN and a SEA
 
And then we have Merriam Webster's definition:
a :  the whole body of salt water that covers nearly three fourths of the surface of the earth
 

b :  any of the large bodies of water (as the Atlantic Ocean) into which the great ocean is divided

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ocean

 

The 1A definition should be able to interact with the "oceans" must be plural neg argument because the world technically only has one ocean [insert K here about how splitting up the oceans is Eurocentric or whatever].

 
 
Thoughts on T for next year?

 

Also,  peculiar thought for next year, the Plan Text says "oceans" meaning multiple oceans. So if the affirmative doesn't involve more than one ocean, they're not topical. Just a thought. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also,  peculiar thought for next year, the resolution says "oceans" meaning multiple oceans. So if the affirmative doesn't involve more than one ocean, they're not topical. Just a thought. 

1. If you look in Snarkosaurus Rex's oceans spoiler he addresses that

2. Grammatically, I believe "oceans" is a collective noun or something like that after Earth, so that isn't true.  Like, the rez couldn't say the "Earth's ocean."  The "s" just means you can explore/develop in any of the oceans.

Edited by Trollanator
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. If you look in Snarkosaurus Rex's oceans spoiler he addresses that

2. Grammatically, I believe "oceans" is a collective noun or something like that after Earth, so that isn't true.  Like, the rez couldn't say the "Earth's ocean."  The "s" just means you can explore/develop in any of the oceans.

Yeah that's true, sorry, that makes better grammatical sense.

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...