Jump to content

F-22 Tradeoff

Member
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About F-22 Tradeoff

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 05/23/1991

Profile Information

  • Name
    Andrew Ginn
  • School
    Shawnee Heights
  • Location
    Topeka, KS
  • Interests
    Debate and gaming.
  • Occupation
    2N/2A
  1. True. It would be an incredibly difficult argument to win. But, that said, if you win the magnitude debate (against an insignificant advantage/disadvantage or two), you might pick up a ballot. Death via black hole is probably one of the worst ways to die in the universe. Either way, you should probably save the impacts for a "fun" round. Unless you've got hella legit evidence on probability, bank on another advantage/disad.
  2. Colonialism would lead to the exploitation of worlds and extraterrestrial civilizations. Look at what the Europeans did to Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East -- then apply it to space. Death of culture, subjugation of populations, racism (species-ism?), etc. I was never a k debater, but that's what I would expect to hear in a round where we got kritiked for exploration/colonization.
  3. Black holes in galactic back yard/effects of a black hole in the solar system. Hundreds of black holes wandering the milky way (albeit thousands of light years away). reference to the journal study cited in the article above: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0809/0809.4262v2.pdf Black hole merger can effect supermassive black holes. Black hole merger can send supermassive black holes toward previously safe stars and systems. Just did a quick google search. I'd imagine that the affirmative would argue that the black holes are unpredictable (not visible) until it's far too late, which would justify getting off the rock as soon as possible. Some of those articles should help with unpredictability. Negatives could either argue the above for an impact/internal, or they could counter the unpredictability claim with technology solving back (i.e. telescopes detecting black holes in range). Hope some of that helps. side note: I'm all about black hole scenarios. Coolest objects in the universe.
  4. I think freshman congresspeople are more to blame than Boehner. He agreed to $33 billion Thursday. He's had to deal with a group of people who don't want compromise, whereas a number of house and senate republicans have shown a willingness to compromise to get the budget through. Reid just agreed to $38 billion. The biggest issues now are the environment and planned parenthood (which republicans are referring to as "abortion funding") -- democrats are trying to blame the shutdown on republicans (calling them irresponsible for making the debate about ideology as opposed to fiscal policy), and republicans are trying to blame the shutdown on democrats (who want to "condemn military families and servicemen abroad" instead of accetping a 2% budget reduction). Interesting stuff.
  5. Assuming someone else hasn't already taken the site.
  6. I considered buying this book the other day. Thank you for posting. Did some research, and I'd have to agree: if you're going to run any type of militarization affirmative (or disad), you should probably check this out. Being able to read a card is one thing, but being able to draw parallels between trade routes in space and the Strait of Hormuz is another thing entirely.
  7. Necromorph Disad. Better hope Isaac Clarke's around to save us from EarthGov. Speaking of EarthGov -- would that be a disadvantage? Exploration leads to peace on earth/transition to one single world government?
  8. This is one of the reasons why I wish I could debate this topic. I, personally, am fond of exploration and would love to engage someone in a card war about how securing the frontier is absolutely necessary for humankind. I don't have any authors in mind at the moment (because I was never in purely kritikal rounds), but I'm glad you took the time to post this. Dude, I hope I get to hear a debate like this in my lifetime. Space (aside from black holes and gamma ray bursts) is so romantic.
  9. As lame as it might sound, the community is what made it easier for me to get up every Saturday morning. I made a lot of good friends in debate, and I got to know a significant number of them through JDI's 2 week program, which I attended twice. Everything that this post said is correct. Great research, great experience, you learn a lot -- and that's what you should look for when attending a local camp.
  10. Have you read the NSSO card? He basically argues that since launch costs are so high, the satellites would have to be assembled in space. Infrastructure, though, would have to be developed prior to (or alongside) the launch of the satellites in order to guarantee assembly. In my opinion, I think it's a pretty legitimate claim. I don't say that to contest your argument, though -- because you are right; development can happen independently. I, like you, also think that "R&D" solves back is a legitimate argument against current technological gaps/concerns that negatives will read as solvency frontlines. But you did bring up an interesting argument (one that we stumbled across pretty frequently): "solvency claims prove abuse, as evidence is only speculative". I think that's what the negative should be arguing, but I don't think any given judge should discredit the affirmative's initiative. As cliche as I'm sure it will sound by the end of next year... space is the next step in scientific progress and human exploration. It is the next (but probably not 'final') frontier. I'm glad my four years ended two years ago. I probably would have granted any decent K debater a number of links off those last few lines. Either way, I do appreciate your response. I'd be willing to help anyone interested in structuring an infrastructure/SSP affirmative out.
  11. What about space infrastructure affirmatives? I ran SSP on the energy topic in 2008-2009. A lot of our evidence (specifically NSSO 2007) talked about how infrastructure and SBSP satellites went hand in hand. How would a "give NASA research and development grants for the development of sustainable space faring infrastructure" affirmative hold up against topicality? That way you could claim a pretty wide range of advantages. Granted, yes, it does open the floodgates for generic disadvantages. Another question I have for the community involves an argument we struggled with when defending SSP: feasibility versus plausibility. There's a lot of literature out there that claims SSP is plausible but not feasible. I imagined this debate happened before the space program that sent astronauts to the moon -- and will probably happen before we sent the next batch of individuals to explore (Mars). Anyway, is the generic "funding/R&D solves back shitty tech" an adequate answer to equally generic "not feasible/space debris" frontlines? Sorry if any of that is/was muddled. Looking forward to hearing back from OP/other posts.
  12. I would have loved to debate this topic. Read a little bit about it in the topic forum, people have some pretty cool ideas for bot the affirmative and negative. I look forward to hearing Japan power affirmatives. Alternatively, I look forward to seeing affirmatives about securing long term US hegemony by shifting the military's focus to certain parts of the world (ignoring Japan, for example, and channeling extra troops to Afghanistan). Even if that isn't topical. EDIT: I would have picked this topic over alternative energy any day. And I loved me some space solar power.
×
×
  • Create New...