Jump to content
queenofdisaster

Good affs with space advantages?

Recommended Posts

After losing to T twice (it was a pretty untopical aff, not gonna lie, but it was still pretty good), I decided to stop running Common Core (education surveillance).

 

Being a novice and all the lovely jazz, my brother helps me, and says that I should find an aff that I believed in (not that I didn't believe in education reform, but it's pretty embarrassing to drop to T or something stupid like a gender DA) and I'm realllly into space. 

 

Please give me a recommendation for a policy aff that isn't just, econ, heg, warming, tyranny, race, etc. K Affs scare the hell out of me, and I can't run them in my district.

Thank you in advance!

 

Edit: General science advantages (I guess that also includes arctic/ocean exploration) are cool, too, if space advantages are too "meh,' and hard to find. 

sorry for the trouble! 

Edited by queenofdisaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain that, please? How is that topical? Isn't that more of an infrastructure thing?

 

The joke is that it's been arguably (poorly) topical since 2011.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The joke is that it's been arguably (poorly) topical since 2011.

Ohhh, I see! :) 

Well, since I've seen the icebreakers aff and this, I've seriously considered using that as my aff (as in, sticking the NSA and other intelligence agencies on an icebreaker and sailing them into the arctic), but the extra T would kill me. Sticking the NSA on a space elevator? Not a bad idea.

 

Thank you! I was kind of confused for a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could run an encryption affirmative with a cloud computing advantage that solves for space situational awareness. You could also run a tech sector advantage, which could talk about how the tech sector is key to further space exploration and development.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After losing to T twice (it was a pretty untopical aff, not gonna lie, but it was still pretty good), I decided to stop running Common Core (education surveillance).

 

Being a novice and all the lovely jazz, my brother helps me, and says that I should find an aff that I believed in (not that I didn't believe in education reform, but it's pretty embarrassing to drop to T or something stupid like a gender DA) and I'm realllly into space. 

 

Please give me a recommendation for a policy aff that isn't just, econ, heg, warming, tyranny, race, etc. K Affs scare the hell out of me, and I can't run them in my district.

Thank you in advance!

 

You should be able to win common core is surveillance.  That's not even questionable topicality - it flat out is.  All you should have to do is quote some of the administrative cheerleaders of common core to make that obvious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to win common core is surveillance.  That's not even questionable topicality - it flat out is.  All you should have to do is quote some of the administrative cheerleaders of common core to make that obvious.

If you're running the OpenEv Common Core Aff without modification, that may be why; if you go out and look for better evidence, you can create a Common Core Aff that's not even extra-topical--that has multiple policy harms scenarios all linked to surveillance.

 

In any case, I can't think of any space Aff on this topic that would be more topical than Common Core. If you want to PM me more details on how you're losing to T, I'll offer more detailed suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to win common core is surveillance.  That's not even questionable topicality - it flat out is.  All you should have to do is quote some of the administrative cheerleaders of common core to make that obvious.

The T-"Domestic Surveillance" about it being intel gathering to respond to a potential threat probably excludes this, and it's a really good card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The T-"Domestic Surveillance" about it being intel gathering to respond to a potential threat probably excludes this, and it's a really good card

Which one? The ones I'm looking at (e.g., Jackson '09 and Small '08) are specific to homeland security and intelligence gathering. The Small '08 card says that domestic surveillance is limited to "actions that would seek to abridge a civil liberty," which any decent Common Core Aff should be able to meet. It also defines "intelligence" as "information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs"; again, an easy definition to meet with a Common Core Aff. The Jackson '09 card in turn (tag: "The plan is not intelligence gathering because its purpose is not identifying and disrupting a future security threat") refers only to domestic intelligence, not domestic surveillance, along with being narrowly focused on homeland security. Then, there's plenty of Common Core literature talking about the dangers it poses through surveillance conducted by the Federal Government (that explicitly calls it "surveillance"). Literature checks abuse; prefer contextual definitions; Neg overlimits the topic, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which one? The ones I'm looking at (e.g., Jackson '09 and Small '08) are specific to homeland security and intelligence gathering. The Small '08 card says that domestic surveillance is limited to "actions that would seek to abridge a civil liberty," which any decent Common Core Aff should be able to meet. It also defines "intelligence" as "information that meets the stated or understood needs of policy makers and has been collected, processed and narrowed to meet those needs"; again, an easy definition to meet with a Common Core Aff. The Jackson '09 card in turn (tag: "The plan is not intelligence gathering because its purpose is not identifying and disrupting a future security threat") refers only to domestic intelligence, not domestic surveillance, along with being narrowly focused on homeland security. Then, there's plenty of Common Core literature talking about the dangers it poses through surveillance conducted by the Federal Government (that explicitly calls it "surveillance"). Literature checks abuse; prefer contextual definitions; Neg overlimits the topic, etc.

The Ritter 15 evidence that contextualizes the latter potion of Small 08's argument, which is vastly mischaracterized by the evidence put out by camps and is very underlimiting. It talks about the surveillance of domestic targeting of potential threats to security. 

 

Also, I think this card is really stellar and easy to win; welfare surveillance, export surveillance, common core, etc. all bypass the original intentions of the topic lol. And I don't even defend a plan text but some of these affs are even more obscure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ritter 15 evidence that contextualizes the latter potion of Small 08's argument, which is vastly mischaracterized by the evidence put out by camps and is very underlimiting. It talks about the surveillance of domestic targeting of potential threats to security. 

 

Also, I think this card is really stellar and easy to win; welfare surveillance, export surveillance, common core, etc. all bypass the original intentions of the topic lol. And I don't even defend a plan text but some of these affs are even more obscure.

 

Interpretive jiggery-pokery. I'll grant that the Ritter card makes a clearer argument, but again the card is in the specific context of discussing national security issues. As for "original intent," the resolution drafters know perfectly well how to limit a topic to a particular area, and have done it before. If they wanted to limit the topic to national security, the topic would have been "Resolved: The USFG should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance in the area of national security." Finally, this is a good place for a default to reasonability argument; it's extraordinarily unfair to punish an Aff with a loss because some obscure unpublished SSRN article defines "domestic surveillance" as a term of art, while the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "domestic surveillance" includes government surveillance unrelated to national security issues. Notably, by Ritter's definition, even surveillance of potential domestic terrorists wouldn't qualify! (he limits it to preventing threats from foreign nations and foreign terrorist groups).

 

Seriously, when one of the first articles to pop up on Google for "common core" and "surveillance" is titled "Common Core is the Most Dangerous Domestic Spying Program," that T fight should be plenty winnable for Aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being from GBN, I know all there is to know about space elevators. When I signed up to do debate Freshman year, I knew that someday I would be a master of all things space elevator.

So the plan:

The USFG should build a space elevator to destroy satellites that do surveillance of X.

Edited by Brev
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretive jiggery-pokery. I'll grant that the Ritter card makes a clearer argument, but again the card is in the specific context of discussing national security issues. As for "original intent," the resolution drafters know perfectly well how to limit a topic to a particular area, and have done it before. If they wanted to limit the topic to national security, the topic would have been "Resolved: The USFG should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance in the area of national security." Finally, this is a good place for a default to reasonability argument; it's extraordinarily unfair to punish an Aff with a loss because some obscure unpublished SSRN article defines "domestic surveillance" as a term of art, while the plain and ordinary meaning of the term "domestic surveillance" includes government surveillance unrelated to national security issues. Notably, by Ritter's definition, even surveillance of potential domestic terrorists wouldn't qualify! (he limits it to preventing threats from foreign nations and foreign terrorist groups).

 

Seriously, when one of the first articles to pop up on Google for "common core" and "surveillance" is titled "Common Core is the Most Dangerous Domestic Spying Program," that T fight should be plenty winnable for Aff.

lol

 

I'm pretty sure that the "framers" knew how to limit the topic then there wouldn't be so many complaints about affs on a yearly basis- if they knew how to word a topic, I wouldn't be able to read either space elevators or icebreakers on every topic...

 

Also, regardless of whether or not you find Ritter's qualifications or limitations valid he is still the only one that defines domestic surveillance as a term of art that I have seen so far, which makes his interpretation vastly preferable. 

 

Absent the normal reasons that reasonability is bad, it's uniquely bad in this instance because surveillance is used as a synonym and interchangeably by many authors with words like "watching, spying, etc", that make the scope of the topic impossible to prep.

 

 Also Ritter originally classifies it as foreign nationals and terrorists, but treason voids someone of their US citizen status according to him, and they become classified as a foreign national/threat. Also, homegrown terrorism is worse for the topic, domestically surveilling for foreign threats is the core of the topic even if you were to win this argument. 

 

Also, you're just proving my point with this next argument. The article title is SPYING not surveillance, that just proves that these affs broaden the topic to thousands of different synonyms used incorrectly by authors... 

 

Additionally, you're googling common core and surveillance, which is just begging to find one of those articles where authors use synonyms for surveillance interchangeably with surveillance. I could google Panda Express and surveillance and get an article, that doesn't make it a legitimate aff lol. 

Edited by CapitalismIsNotCool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

 

I'm pretty sure that the "framers" knew how to limit the topic then there wouldn't be so many complaints about affs on a yearly basis- if they knew how to word a topic, I wouldn't be able to read either space elevators or icebreakers on every topic...

History disagrees with you. The Latin America topic was limited explicitly to Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela when earlier drafts included other countries or referred to the region more generally. The 2000-01 protection of privacy topic was explicitly limited to consumer records, medical records, search and seizure, and a 4th category I don't remember. The oceans topic was explicitly limited to "no military" exploration or development. If the drafters wanted to add limitations, they could.

 

Also, regardless of whether or not you find Ritter's qualifications or limitations valid he is still the only one that defines domestic surveillance as a term of art that I have seen so far, which makes his interpretation vastly preferable. 

Cross apply my reasonability point. You admit Ritter's the only source using "domestic surveillance" as a term of art. That means that everyone else in the literature doesn't, and it's even more unfair to hold Aff to a term of art that exists in one article published only on SSRN!

 

Absent the normal reasons that reasonability is bad, it's uniquely bad in this instance because surveillance is used as a synonym and interchangeably by many authors with words like "watching, spying, etc", that make the scope of the topic impossible to prep.

So prefer a general purpose legal dictionary like Black's Law.

 

Also Ritter originally classifies it as foreign nationals and terrorists, but treason voids someone of their US citizen status according to him, and they become classified as a foreign national/threat. Also, homegrown terrorism is worse for the topic, domestically surveilling for foreign threats is the core of the topic even if you were to win this argument.

Wait, now I have to somehow interpret "The USFG should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance" as referring to surveillance of foreign threats, and read in a treason exception that doesn't exist anywhere in the literature? How complex does your interpretation have to be before I just laugh at it?

 

Also, you're just proving my point with this next argument. The article title is SPYING not surveillance, that just proves that these affs broaden the topic to thousands of different synonyms used incorrectly by authors...

 

Additionally, you're googling common core and surveillance, which is just begging to find one of those articles where authors use synonyms for surveillance interchangeably with surveillance. I could google Panda Express and surveillance and get an article, that doesn't make it a legitimate aff lol.

 

Fine, cross-apply the many cards in my 1AC that explicitly call it surveillance. And when I google "surveillance and 'Panda Express'", I get a bunch of articles on surveillance video footage of a police shooting outside a Panda Express, which is excluded by the words "USFG" and "its," not "surveillance" (unless you want to argue that surveillance videos don't perform surveillance?)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other thing I would add to Edgehopper's fabulous points is that the administrative cheerleaders of common core frame it as a security issue.  It's about increasing the US's human capital to increase our competitiveness, and falling behind in competitiveness is a national security issue to them.  (US economic crash, undermine the dollar as the world's reserve currency, blah blah blah).  So the common core architects and cheerleaders are all treating this as a national security issue that requires mass data collection (surveillance) of students to assist in steering future workers to good employment outcomes.  Seriously, have you even bothered to read these people?  It's absolutely frightening, and the FBI/NSA stuff is kindergarten play by comparison.

 

I mean, the aff case will necessarily deconstruct these ridiculous security claims, but the current administration talks about it like a security crisis.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

History disagrees with you. The Latin America topic was limited explicitly to Mexico, Cuba, and Venezuela when earlier drafts included other countries or referred to the region more generally. The 2000-01 protection of privacy topic was explicitly limited to consumer records, medical records, search and seizure, and a 4th category I don't remember. The oceans topic was explicitly limited to "no military" exploration or development. If the drafters wanted to add limitations, they could.

Yes, and people still read the same affs- framers are never really able to place limits on the creativity of debaters, hence why both icebreakers and space elevators were read on this topic. 

Also, 2000-2001 people hadn't started reading icebreakers and space elevators, but I guarantee that if I research I can find some aff that managed to come back around repeatedly from years past that wasn't meant to be included. 

Also, non-military didn't even weaken the icebreakers aff, it was just a nuisance for those teams to deal with but they easily could. 

Cross apply my reasonability point. You admit Ritter's the only source using "domestic surveillance" as a term of art. That means that everyone else in the literature doesn't, and it's even more unfair to hold Aff to a term of art that exists in one article published only on SSRN!

You are correct, my argument is that using it as a term of art is good- other interpretations under limits debate, because I can define domestic in a totally different manner and surveillance in different manners, making the phrase mean something different than it should when the 2 words are used together as a phrase. 

 

So prefer a general purpose legal dictionary like Black's Law.

^Doesn't define domestic and surveillance within context of each other, links to all of my unpredictability and limits offense. 

Wait, now I have to somehow interpret "The USFG should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance" as referring to surveillance of foreign threats, and read in a treason exception that doesn't exist anywhere in the literature? How complex does your interpretation have to be before I just laugh at it?

Lol? If you're not getting it I'm sorry, but Ritter's argument is that domestic surveillance is the collection of data of individuals within US borders in order to make sure that there is no interaction with foreign entities attempting to threaten national security-- that's the core of the topic; PRISM, NSA, etc. all prove a reasonable amount of ground within this interpretation. 

 

Also, you wanna talk about ridiculous interps, lets talk about the  different affs that already exist- Welfare surveillance, export surveillance, common core surveillant, literally any type of looking at or watching can be included within your idea of what the topic should be, which makes my limits offense exponentially more true. 

Each of these affs could be their own topic areas, hence why there's no actual generic good DA this year other than terror which many of these affs "no link". 

 

Fine, cross-apply the many cards in my 1AC that explicitly call it surveillance. And when I google "surveillance and 'Panda Express'", I get a bunch of articles on surveillance video footage of a police shooting outside a Panda Express, which is excluded by the words "USFG" and "its," not "surveillance" (unless you want to argue that surveillance videos don't perform surveillance?)

This argument still links into my interchangeable synonyms arguments- your authors misuse the term surveillance; it is distinct from just spying or watching, otherwise anything is fair game.

 

Also, my Panda Express surveillance argument is still just true- government collects revenue information and "surveils" them, and I could write an aff about that provided I found some random hack on the internet, hence why the bitcoin aff exists, although even that's better than common core lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only other thing I would add to Edgehopper's fabulous points is that the administrative cheerleaders of common core frame it as a security issue.  It's about increasing the US's human capital to increase our competitiveness, and falling behind in competitiveness is a national security issue to them.  (US economic crash, undermine the dollar as the world's reserve currency, blah blah blah).  So the common core architects and cheerleaders are all treating this as a national security issue that requires mass data collection (surveillance) of students to assist in steering future workers to good employment outcomes.  Seriously, have you even bothered to read these people?  It's absolutely frightening, and the FBI/NSA stuff is kindergarten play by comparison.

 

I mean, the aff case will necessarily deconstruct these ridiculous security claims, but the current administration talks about it like a security crisis.

That has nothing to do with the Ritter evidence- even if it is a national security threat according to some, the argument he makes is in the context of foreign agents/extralegal agents attempting to attack/threaten the United States, these people talk about it as a domestic security issue (the distinction being that the problem is produced within the United States and is a product of US education structuring, that's not a threat imposed by a foreign entity). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with the Ritter evidence- even if it is a national security threat according to some, the argument he makes is in the context of foreign agents/extralegal agents attempting to attack/threaten the United States, these people talk about it as a domestic security issue (the distinction being that the problem is produced within the United States and is a product of US education structuring, that's not a threat imposed by a foreign entity). 

I don't see why both definitions can't be true e _ e 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has nothing to do with the Ritter evidence- even if it is a national security threat according to some, the argument he makes is in the context of foreign agents/extralegal agents attempting to attack/threaten the United States, these people talk about it as a domestic security issue (the distinction being that the problem is produced within the United States and is a product of US education structuring, that's not a threat imposed by a foreign entity). 

 

It is a foreign threat - we're being outcompeted by *foreign countries*. (lol, but they said it, not me).  And it involves surveilling domestic "targets".

 

You're requiring a ridiculous amount of hair-splitting that excludes everything but your extraordinarily narrow reading of 'domestic surveillance'.  I would be tempted to laugh out loud at such a ridiculous interpretation - insisting the entire literature be held hostage to one person's idiosyncratic view of not only domestic surveillance, but treason as a revocation of citizenship, is laughable.  As a judge, it would require the aff *dropping* topicality to lose this debate.

 

Especially considering much of the domestic surveillance literature consists of surveillance on american citizens who are not in contact with any foreign agents.  That includes terror plots by radicalized islamists conceived domestically - the radicalization may have come by youtube or other online media (again, according to domestic surveillance proponents), but there's no direct contact with foreign agents.  Or then there's the lone wolf provision, which is specifically aimed at domestic terrorism threats.  To say that domestic surveillance, even as a term of art, only refers to those in contact with "foreign agents" is to exclude much of the literature on domestic surveillance, to the likely confusion of experts in the subject in the FBI.

 

And no, committing an act of terrorism does not necessarily make you a traitor.  Mass shootings are acts of terrorism, after all, and those who commit them are called many things, but never traitors.  Treason involves aiding a foreign state against your government.  Aiding a terrorist group, foreign or domestic, is not an act of treason.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a foreign threat - we're being outcompeted by *foreign countries*. (lol, but they said it, not me).  And it involves surveilling domestic "targets".

That's not the argument he's making-- it's about direct threats to national security intentionally from/by hostile actors or states. 

 

You're requiring a ridiculous amount of hair-splitting that excludes everything but your extraordinarily narrow reading of 'domestic surveillance'.  I would be tempted to laugh out loud at such a ridiculous interpretation - insisting the entire literature be held hostage to one person's idiosyncratic view of not only domestic surveillance, but treason as a revocation of citizenship, is laughable.  As a judge, it would require the aff *dropping* topicality to lose this debate.

Lol this interp is only narrow for those who aren't creative, Section 702, PRISM, NSA reform are all affs that come to mind which fit under this interpretation, and there are dozens of case areas in each. Also, your judging ≠ gold standard then, because this interp won a couple of outrounds at Greehill and Grapevine, and many prelim debates. 

 

The portion of your argument I underlined is a bad argument, I agree, but for a functional definition of who is subject to "domestic surveillance" I think it's pretty good. 

 

Especially considering much of the domestic surveillance literature consists of surveillance on american citizens who are not in contact with any foreign agents.  That includes terror plots by radicalized islamists conceived domestically - the radicalization may have come by youtube or other online media (again, according to domestic surveillance proponents), but there's no direct contact with foreign agents.  Or then there's the lone wolf provision, which is specifically aimed at domestic terrorism threats.  To say that domestic surveillance, even as a term of art, only refers to those in contact with "foreign agents" is to exclude much of the literature on domestic surveillance, to the likely confusion of experts in the subject in the FBI.

I think that fits into what Ritter is arguing because those people have external access and indirect communication with agents outside of the US that fuel radical ideology, which makes them open to domestic surveillance. 

 

And no, committing an act of terrorism does not necessarily make you a traitor.  Mass shootings are acts of terrorism, after all, and those who commit them are called many things, but never traitors.  Treason involves aiding a foreign state against your government.  Aiding a terrorist group, foreign or domestic, is not an act of treason.

This is just how Ritter contextualizes who is subject to domestic surveillance; it gets blurry but surveillance is not clear cut, and expanding the topic like you're trying to do makes it even more impossible to determine what the metric of the topic is. 

 

Also, you seem to be attempting to problematize my interp a lot, but no one has ever answered my predictability/under-limiting argument. What is the brightline for being T under your interpretation of the topic? Is any aff I can find a literature base for where one author mistakenly uses surveillance as a "stand-in" for another word topical? 

Edited by CapitalismIsNotCool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness, I didn't expect a T debate to break out here. 

[insert joke about how debaters will find anyway to argue their opinion here]

  • Upvote 1

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...