Jump to content

birdwing7

Member
  • Content Count

    2128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by birdwing7

  1. Did any camps put out affirmatives based on this proposal?
  2. Wouldn't the incentive come from the $80 billion for buying the patents? It's a lot less than $250 billion, but it's not chump change.
  3. I don't think Biden is a candidate for POTUS in 2016. It might make sense to have a vice presidential candidate who, if they win in 2012, could be the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016.
  4. I don't think Biden is a candidate for POTUS in 2016. It might make sense to have a vice presidential candidate who, if they win in 2012, could be the presumptive Democratic nominee in 2016.
  5. The New Yorker has an article that makes Mitch Daniels seem reasonable. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2011/05/daniels-in-the-lambs-den.html
  6. He won't win, but I like Huntsman. He is a pretty reasonable fellow. Which helps explain why he won't win.
  7. Scott Odekirk posts useful links on this site. This morning I saw his link to an article by Dr. Kuswa on the space topic, which was very informative.
  8. I don't think anyone is suggesting putting arsenic on a rocket. The point is, solar powered satellites would rid the earth of the need for burning fossil fuels. Any renewable energy source could access the same advantage.
  9. Likely much less arsenic release than continued burning of fossil fuels. And, although I've only read the abstract, I imagine the author provides evidence on the point.
  10. Has anyone run across an argument in debate rounds regarding arsenic accumulation? SU Dani, a Brazilian researcher, says that the mining and use of gold, coal and oil release anthropogenic arsenic into the atmosphere, which is really bad. From the abstract: "The potential rise of successful forms of inborn resistance to arsenic in humans will make it certain that a number of other hardly won, nicely balanced human-specific adaptednesses will decline. These include a decline of encephalization and life-span, and consequentially intelligence and longevity. These changes are likely to have far-reaching impacts on biological and cultural evolution of mankind. The only efficient way of reducing chronic global exposure to arsenic and avoiding further human losses is the inactivation of important sources of anthropogenic arsenic such as hard rock mining and burning of fossil fuels." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19846256 It strikes me that a case to build solar powered satellites and mine asteroids would move mining off of earth and stop the burning of fossil fuels.
  11. This thread has really brought back some of the superluminaries.
  12. I think next year's topic may have a negative bias. How does the affirmative get past time frame arguments? Affirmative will spend a (generally) huge amount of money now for an advantage that occurs several years from now. Politics and spending, however, are relatively immediate.
  13. I've grown tired of this sandwich analogy. If all you are saying is you don't think the negative should have private actor fiat, that's something about which reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.
  14. First, a debate round has nothing to do with me buying a sandwich. I dislike analogies because I think they generally cloud issues. I think your analogy is so far removed from public policy and debate that it clouds this issue. Second, if I assume someone has the authority to force that guy to buy me a sandwich, it might make sense for me to have him buy it for me. That would depend on the net benefit. Which one of us can better afford the sandwich? Is there some legal or moral (or other) reason why that guy should buy a sandwich for me? If I think there is a risk that my buying a sandwich risks nuclear war, but him buying me the sandwich will not run that risk, I won't buy the sandwich.
  15. You're right about this: I'm missing your point. First, I said nothing about "good for debate", so I'm ignoring that part of your post. Assuming your view of counterplans (which I think is a distinctly minority view), in light of a private actor counterplan, the USFG should do nothing. Once a private actor solves the problem, there is no reason for the USFG to act, and given the net benefit, it would be better for the USFG not to act. That justifies a negative ballot, in my opinion.
  16. If the negative wins that the counterplan is mutually exclusive or net beneficial, I think for most judges it is round over. The counterplan does not advocate debris going away "magically". It advocates having private companies do it instead of the USFG. And the net benefit shows why the USFG shouldn't do it. As to your inverse statement, I don't see that it helps you. Any net benefit to private action over government action, provides the reason for private companies to act.
  17. If private corporations clean up space debris, there is no longer a reason for the USFG to act, and the affirmative has no advantage. Pretty much any net benefit would result in a negative ballot. Perm and impact turn the net benefits.
  18. One way to run the case would be: Lasers for space debris are inevitable. Using powerful lasers threatens other countries with military satellites, increasing risk of miscalculation, harming relations, etc. Plan uses low-power lasers, which are not a threat to satellites.
  19. There has been quite a bit of discussion in the popular literature recently about a NASA plan to use lasers to nudge space junk out of the way of satellites and such. http://dvice.com/archives/2011/03/nasa-wants-to-b-1.php http://theweek.com/article/index/213197/nasas-plan-to-clean-up-space-junk-lasers http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/lasering-space-junk/ There are some problems with the case, but it is cheap.
  20. Ankur, I was speaking empirically. I have heard really bad arguments from both fast and slow debaters. If anything, I have probably heard more bad arguments from slow debaters because they tend to have less coaching than fast debaters.
  21. I don't see any correlation. I've seen plenty of bad arguments from both fast and slow teams. I've also seen good arguments from fast and slow teams.
  22. Mr. Shuman, it's always a pleasure to see you back in these parts. I assume we agree there is no correlation between speed and good or bad arguments.
  23. http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-vote-to-repeal-obamabacked-bill-that-w,19025/#enlarge
  24. I don't mind the negative having lots of good arguments, so long as I feel my turns are specific and persuasive. I prefer predictability.
×
×
  • Create New...