TOPIC LECTURE- D-HEIDT

1. What is Current US space policy? a. The US has a national space policy executive order; every president has a space policy. b. Bush national space policy (2006)i. Speaks in terms of broad goals. (US strategic posture toward space) ii. Emphasized that the purpose of space assets was to build national security. iii. Rejected international cooperation in space.- very hegemony based iv. Lots of international criticism- disarm and stuff- good cards from around that time. c. Obama policy (July 2010) i. Essentially the opposite of the bush policy ii. Directed US government agencies to look for increased international cooperation for space science and surveillance iii. Recognized that a major purpose of policy was to ensure the sustainability of space for peaceful development (space debris). iv. Many authors recognize space debris as a major threat to the world. 1. Space Debris is very important- governs international developments in spacea. Weapons tests generate debris- thus should be eliminated b. Must create rules for space development c. Space debris now is sort of a problem, will become much worse. d. In 1978 this theorist said that leaving the junk in space would make it unusable.- Cascade Effect e. Moving at high speeds. f. Impetus that is driving international policy developments v. Called for greater commercial development of space.- Relatively meaninglessevery president has said that in space policy. vi. Subsequent document released in February 2011 that was called the national space security strategy that applied to the DOD. 1. Largely agreed with the National Space Policy. 2. Wanted international developments to be consistent with clean up efforts. d. International Legal developmentsi. Outer space treaty1. Ratified in 1968 by 100 countries. a. Countries that can launch satellites into space independentlyi. Russia ii. US iii. Japan iv. China v. Europe (EU) vi. India vii. Israel viii. Iran 2. Outer space- including the moon- is not subject to national appropriation. (Sort of bans moon mining). 3. Prohibited the placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in space. 4. Prohibits the testing of weapons in space (which has gone on since the outer space treaty) 5. (Generally lacks enforcement) 6. Opened all stations of celestial bodies to international inspections.

7. Ultimately the founding document for all international law in space. ii. EU draft code of conduct1. Proposal- very important- (Significant aff or CP on this topic)- created in 2008 2. Created in response to space debris created by weapons testing. 3. Minimization for outer space debris. (Cant intentionally destroy stuff in space). (Check against weaponization of space) 4. Formal mechanisms for consultation 5. Pretty unpopular in congress even though congress doesnt have to sign it. iii. PPWT- Treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space 1. Bans all weaponization of space- very harsh 2. Legally binding. 3. Prohibits deploying any weapons in space. 4. Obligates all members not to threaten to use space weapons against other parties. 5. US opposes this vehemently. 6. US wont be bound by unenforceable arms control regimes. 7. Gives Russia and China political cover. e. What the US actually does in space: i. 3 Major agencies 1. NASA a. Created in 1958 in response to the Soviet Union launching a satellite into space. b. Was founded on the attempt to put a man on the moon, and humans into space. c. 18.7 Billion dollars a year budget.- about 18 billion goes to space. i. Science1. Robotics programs 2. Earth science 3. Science experiments 4. Probes 5. Uncontroversial ii. Exploration Systems- gets the largest portion of the budget 1. Governs putting humans into space 2. Launch systems 3. Space shuttles 4. Pretty controversial 5. International space station and the space shuttle are pretty biga. US has contributed about $100 billion to it Includes Russia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Europe. b. Became operational in 1988- still not completeexpected to be complete close to the end of this year. c. Was scheduled to be terminated in 2015.Obama just extended the date of US participation until 2020. d. Space shuttle- designed as a low cost transportation program to get the US into space. Launch costs are the largest barrier. Every shuttle launch cost about $1 Billion.

e. Vision for space exploration- replaces the shuttle program- Constellation Program. i. Series of new launch vehicles designed by the US- attempt to get stuff to space at a low cost. ii. Created a new launch vehicle iii. Created a heavy launch vehicle iv. Constructed a new spacecraft- the Orion space craft v. Constructed a new lunar lander. vi. Subject to heavy cost overruns- made it unaffordable. vii. In an atrocious state of development now. viii. Augustine report- says should cancel constellation and contract out to private markets. ix. Obama 2010 budget request- said we should cancel constellation program x. Offer cash prize for best launch system. xi. Reject goal of landing on the moon by 2020, should land on an asteroid or something. xii. Should maybe pursue mars. xiii. Congress said no to large parts of itdefinitely decided not to cancel constellation. xiv. NASA is sort of being forced to do the constellation program by congress. iii. Space operations1. Pays for routine operations of programs that they already have iv. Commercial space presence1. In space policy- almost everything NASA does occurs via private contractors. 2. Space tourism industries 3. Wants private companies to do its launches for it 2. Department of Commerce-lots of sub-agencies a. About 6 agencies devoted to space activities b. Mostly develops regulations governing the commercial use of space c. Issue licenses and regulations for private sector launch vehicles, etc. d. Commercial space right nowi. Globally, the value of the econ was $257 billion which is nothing compared to the global economy. It is growing significantly and commercial space applications have significant effects throughout the economy. ii. Communications and entertainment industries rely heavily on this stuff iii. Commercial satellite services are about 35% of the econ, infrastructure accounts for about 32%, and government space budgets are about 26%, lots of other small stuff less than 1%.

3. Department of Defense- largest- most space activities a. Much larger than NASA- impossible to tell how much larger. b. Total amounts to about $22 Billion in direct space activities, however, a large part of the budget is classified and space may be highly classified. c. Space programs are principally run by the airforce space command. i. Provides surveillance and radar data. ii. Provides secure military communications to any theatre in the world. 1. GPS was developed by and is still run by the military. iii. Provides missile warnings through radar and satellites iv. Provides space situational awareness- monitors space debris v. Provide military launch vehicles vi. Aides current US missile defense- mostly tracking and targeting- no actual weapons. ii. Since the end of the cold war- the US has effectively militarized space (but has not weaponized it) 1. ASATS (Anti-Satellite Weapons)- Major way that US has militarized space. a. China blinded a US spy satellite in response to the bush national space policy with a ground based lazer. b. China shot down one of its own weather satellites using a ground based missile/bullet in 2007 Widely condemned as a violation of the outer space treaty One of the first tests of an ASAT weapon. c. In 2008 the US had one of their satellites malfunction. i. Drove the EU to write their code of conduct. d. If there was a war in space the US would be a big loser because it would lose its space assets. e. Russia in December of 2010 launched a plane with a laser on it to shoot down space assets. f. India destroyed a high altitude launch vehicle. 2. Terms of the topic a. Beyond the Earths Mesosphere- a layer of the earths atmosphere- one of 5 layers(Between 31 miles and 50 miles)- barrier between earth and space- followed by the thermosphere and the exosphere i. Absolutely useless- the vast majority of our satellites operate in low earth orbitbetween 100 miles and 1200 miles-geosynchronous and geostationary orbit mean that it is directly above the equator really high up. b. Exploration- We are looking outward from the earth- that arguably even includes ground based telescopes. i. If something is not space exploration, it almost certainly is development. c. Development- Very broad- US government did include a definition of development, but doesnt fit the context of the topic- best definition is that development means using or exploiting space and any activities that facilitate the greater use of space. d. Its- most relevant term in the topic- since a lot of space activity is conducted by outer agencies- (Makes incentivization counterplans viable)- Almost every NASA project contracts out. Aff probably cant have the government provide funding for things not owned by the government. US government should probably own the stuff they are developing. 3. More popular affirmatives

a. Generic advantage groundi. Econ Growth1. Space is projected to be a large growth industry- has potentially unlimited resources (answer to dedev???) ii. Revitalizing the Aerospace industryiii. Space leadership1. US is currently world leader, but that is changing. 2. Probably decreases Hegemony (Both hard and soft power) iv. Education1. Contributes greatly to the scientific and technological education of Americas youth. 2. US is dramatically losing its scientific edge. v. Mining1. Lots of space resources- indefinitely fuels the US economy vi. Space Debris1. Destroys all of space, may cause miscaluculations. vii. Asteroids1. Gotta find them and destroy them before they find us and destroy us. viii. Colonization1. Get off the rock. ix. Environment1. Large portion of space science is devoted to earth science. x. International cooperation1. Engaging in space policy may help cooperation with other countries, most specifically china. xi. Aliens1. Stupid b. Possible affirmative considerationsi. Does it have to have a reason why the US does it as opposed to another country? ii. Does the affirmative have a reason why the USfg has to do it as opposed to the private sector? c. Possible Affsi. SPS1. We has unlimited solar powerz from space! Probs solves the environment and a bunch of other stuff. 2. Probably the most popular affirmative on the topic. 3. Want the government to provide a demonstration project to prove that it is viable. ii. Solar Sails1. Form of space propulsion- unfurl into space and it collects the electromagnetic radiation from the sun, pushes it foreward. Could be used to cool the earth? iii. Increase deep space propulsion1. Technically you could do this with solar sails- develop nuclear power based propulsion for probes and other stuff Space colonization and such iv. Constellations1. Fully fund- however you could do a lot of different things- could cut out heavy lift launchers, or cut out the normal Ares launcher, since access is the #1 barrier to development. v. Trans-Orbital railroad1. US gov would buy private sector launch vehicles and then sell them to the private sector at a heavily reduced rate.

vi. Asteroid detection1. Mathematical models indicate that asteroids may destroy the earth. If we double the funding or send a human mission to an asteroid vii. Mining1. Want us to mine asteroids and other stuff viii. SETI- Search for Extra-Terrestrial intelligence1. Tried to fund in 1992, but then congress cut it US doesnt currently fund Lots of people say gov should take a greater role or change the way that we search ix. Increase US Access to the space station1. Evidence in favor of this is fairly good- probably would be a us-china relations aff x. Mars1. Some people say that NASA is on its way out, congressional support for NASA is on a low point, public isnt behind it. If NASA announced a mission to mars on the same scale as the Apollo program it would access almost every advantage by boosting support for NASA. xi. Earth Science1. Some articles do say that NASA should develop remote sensing operations. Does that constitute space development? Should sell images to the private sector, environment, etc.- Most susceptible to the privatization CP.

How to research- mini lecture- Foley

1. Most people fail at research because they use the wrong search termsa. The goal is to narrow the search down to what you want without losing all of your content. b. People give up too early- you will not exhaust the literature base on your argument i. Never let yourself get away with the excuse there are no articles on this. 2. Only cutting an article once is a huge mistakea. Revisiting cards from a different perspective is the best way to go. b. Very few authors only talk about 1 specific thing in their articles. 3. Burnouta. Happens to every human being. b. Shift between card cutting methods. c. Relax and read whole articles if you get tired i. Will often give you ideas for search terms. 4. Places you can/should go to do researcha. Google- very good, but people often dont use it to its full potential. b. Gigapedia.com- people upload books and ocrd free books- library.nu c. Lots of think tanks- very usefuli. American enterprise institute, Belfor center for science and international affairs, etc. (All up on gmail). d. Can create your own custom search engine on google just put in the stem of each site e. Google.com/experimental can add functions for debaters f. Google alerts g. Use the google other search tools on the side. h. ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE THE CLUTTER! i. When looking on google, use the * So if you put space debris* war you will get stuff like space debris leads to accidental war. j. Google scholar will allow you to search stuff like Lexis shows, just go into the options on google scholar. k. Lexis is a very good search engine l. Familiarize yourself with Boolean search terms. i. Dont forget to use NOT and OR m. Search congressional testimonies- use cq researcher and other stuff- produces very good cards n. Just search law reviews- a lot of people write law reviews on stuff o. Use the shepardize function on lexis- allows you to find articles that have cited the article that you are reading i. Google also has related pages- works similarly p. Search court cases for T- also just any good literature definitions for your stuff

HOW TO DO CITES AT CAMP:

Ross & Zittell 2k- *First quals, **Second Quals (Mark and Paul, Article name, Date, URL) Dont cut abstracts.

Researching with D-Heidt

Research is the great equalizer Just dont give up Probably try to eliminate distractions Google Scholar is a good way to start a research assignment Will find every article on google scholar and google news Blogsearch.google.com is useful

Good space websites which are not very academic: The Space Review Space Politics Space Future Journal online Space Policy Online Space News Space Daily http://www.thespacereview.com/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/ http://www.spacefuture.com/home.shtml http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/ http://www.spacenews.com/ http://spacedaily.com/

Space specific Think tanks: Baker Institute http://bakerinstitute.org/ --has a space policy section but it doesnt have that much content http://cdi.org/ --has an amazing section on space policy, mostly from http://www.stimson.org/programs/spacesecurity/program-publications/ - this is the link to their space security section and this is the organization created the model for the EU Code of Conduct. However, they dont have that much content

Center for Defense Information anti-militarists Henry Stimson Center

The Marshall Institute pro-militarists National Academies Press

http://www.marshall.org/ --has an amazing section on space policy, mostly from

http://www.nap.edu/topics.php?topic=419 --this is the link to their space exploration and development section. You can download all of their reports for free, but you may have to register with them first (also free). It is a little hard to use though. http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/

Space Policy Institute

Secure World Foundation

http://swfound.org/ - I havent used this but they are dedicated to space and their reports look pretty useful

Space specific Journals: Acta Astronautica Ad Astra through Science Direct http://www.nss.org/adastra/ --not all is online. Michigan subscribes through the Wilson database but the most recent 9 months are not available electronically. A few recent articles are at the website, however. We may be able to ILL articles for you for the recent articles. --through lexis http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/index.asp --also available through proquest, which might be

Aerospace America Air & Space Power Journal easier to search

Astropolitics http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713634457~db=all --table of contents only Michigan doesnt subscribe to this, but you can access some articles free of charge. We can interlibrary loan any important articles so it is worth checking the table of contents (plus a few articles are available now). Aviation Week & Space Technology --access through lexis

High Frontier

-http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/highfrontierjournal.asp -great military space journal http://www.thenewatlantis.com/ --a journal devoted to technology but has a disproportionate number of topic articles

New Atlantis

Online Journal of Space Communication

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/ --great source, but it is very hard to use their website. Google site searching it is more effective through Science Direct

Space Policy

Some space-oriented databases to use: Air University Research Management System https://www.afresearch.org/skins/rims/home.aspx?mode=user (this is a search engine for papers written by members of the military who attended Air Univeristy. It is FANTASTIC but its search engine is terrible so it requires patience) AIAA Meeting Papers Access to an Aerospace industry association database of papers I havent seen elsewhere. Some are very relevant. http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ --amazing military database that has a bunch of full text reports; a lot of fantastic (military) space content is included dtic.mil -another amazing military database you can search for space policy papers; but you should site search it instead of using their search engine Fantastic science database, has many space policy journals.

Combined Arms Digital Library

Defense Technical Information Center

Science Direct

Useful databases at the University of Michigan for any topic:

First Search periodical databases that is full text JSTOR LexisNexis Academic

--this is a search engine that searches a variety of --great for academic journals --mostly useful for newspapers and some periodicals and some Congressional testimony; has the best search engine of any database. Also has a separate section where you can search law reviews. --great for periodicals, newspapers, some journals --last year it was called Lexis Congressional; it must have been sold to proquest. The best place you can go for fulltext Congressional hearings; also has the Congressional record, and the full text of every law, US Code and the Federal Register --great for academic journals --great for academic journals --great for academic journals --fantastic fulltext periodical database that has a lot of stuff unavailable elsewhere. It is included in the First Search search engine

Proquest Proquest Congressional

Project Muse Oxford Journals Springerlink Wilson select

A list of good foreign policy think tanks

*parenthesis after a website indicate that there is an important journal published by that organization that you should also check. Sometimes you must use an appropriate database to find that journal you should check ejournals at the University of Michigan to find the right one. American Enterprise Institute aei.org Belfur Center for Science and International Affairs - http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/ (International Security) Brookings Institution brook.edu Carnegie Endowment for International Peace carnegieendowment.org Cato Institute cato.org Center for American Progress americanprogress.org Center for a New American Security - http://www.cnas.org Center for Strategic and International Studies csis.org (The Washington Quarterly) Council on Foreign Relations cfr.org (Foreign Affairs) Foreign Policy foreignpolicy.com (Foreign Policy) Foreign Policy in Focus fpif.org Foreign Policy Research Institute fpri.org (Orbis) Foundation for the Defense of Democracies defenddemocracy.org Heritage Foundation heritage.org International Institute for Strategic Studies - http://www.iiss.org/ (Survival) National Security Network - http://nsnetwork.org/

New America Foundation - http://newamerica.net/ Partnership for a Secure America - http://psaonline.org/ The Century Foundation tcf.org The Jamestown Foundation - http://www.jamestown.org/ The National Interest nationalinterest.org (The National Interest)

Flowing
Should flow on paper and be able to adapt What do you flow? Come up with a language for flowing What do you flow? Everything Spacing: On example sheet Preflow/Always flow Flowing is not always necessary1NR doesnt have to flow the 2NC 2AC should be pulling their blocks during the 1NC, but should still listen to the speech and flow impacts and stuff. 1AR doesnt have to flow all of 2NC, can conceptually group stuff and cause imbedded clash

Hegemony- Callum Matheson

1. Strategic for a few reasons a. Short Term impact b. Not ridiculous c. Interact with other war impacts d. Automatically has a US key warrant e. High quality evidence f. Judge preference g. Central part of the scholarship and politics of space 2. People misunderstand many of the concepts hegemony involves a. People often confuse the goal of hegemony with the strategies used to achieve it b. People confuse Hard and Soft power 3. Concepts of Hegemony a. Military policy is divided into levels of importance: i. Grand Strategy 1. Overall plan for the US to accomplish its national goals ii. Strategy 1. Subset of grand strategy- plan to match American military power with our goals iii. Operations 1. A war, campaign, etc. Operational Doctrine= set of rules for how force should be applied iv. Tactics 1. The methods individual units use to accomplish their operational goals b. Hegemony is the goal of grand strategy c. It is difficult to win that the US will stop attempting to get hegemony- it is difficult to say that attempting to get it is bad because the US will probably do it anyway. d. Space influences the means at our disposal to accomplish the goal of hegemonyi. Control/Utilization of space1. Influences our latent power (all of things that are prerequisites to hegemony [i.e. population, econ power, geography {US was an insular power}], and actual power. a. In 1940 the US was not a hegemon, but it possessed massive relevant power- which is latent power. 2. Actual power: The capability to turn latent power into real influence and control (Hard Power). Hard power doesnt necessarily = hegemony. 3. Space is important because it may hold the potential for vast economic resources, as well as other economic possible gains. (Soft power) 4. The American military is fully dependant on space. a. We target drones and cruise missiles, GPS, etc. 5. Space is the strategic high ground a. Putting weapons in space would create a new era of military supremacy. e. Weapons in spacei. There is a difference between the weaponization and militarization of space 1. Space is already heavily militarized. 2. Some space weaponization is already in progressa. Russia placed a massive bomb in space. b. Regan decided that we should deploy missile defense systems. c. Soviet space station- has a huge cannon on it d. Fractional orbital bombardment system- shoot nukes into space.

e. US and Russia both have missile defense systems i. Russia had Galosh during the cold war 3. Hypothetical weapons a. Space to space weapons i. I.e. Cannon on Russia space system b. Earth to space weapons i. I.e. Earth based lasers. c. Space to earth weapons i. I.E. Rods from god, etc. 4. These possibilities create a choice for US strategy a. Competition and Dominance V. Cooperation f. Strategy for dominating spacei. Dolman wrote a book called Astropolitik 1. Space was always competitive, countries only cooperate when it serves their national goals. 2. China, Russia, EU, Brazil, Iran- all modernized or created space military capabilities 3. Basically the idea of political realism, but he argues that a world government may be possible some day. 4. Argues that the US should dominate space because whoever dominates space also dominates the earth. 5. Geopoliticsa. The geography of the world drives national strategy b. Mackinder- the most important stake in the world is Eurasia (whoever controls that controls the world)- heartland vs. rimland geographical conflict. c. Our strategy of containment during the cold war was explicitly based on Mackinders theory of geopolitics 6. Dolman argues that space is similar a. Grange points- points in space that are stable between objects that have their own gravity i. 5 of them ii. To place a space station in one of those places would give you a sustainable presence in space- would allow you to control space. b. Geosynchronous orbit- allows you to control and observe a particular spot in space. c. US could control the various points so it could control space i. Uses the work of Mahan- argues that the US should have points under its control to support operations, if we control a few points we control everything. d. Space power could theoretically eliminate the influence of geography of the earth. i. Offense would always winout over the defense. ii. General military theory for all of this1. Direct approach to military affairs- goal, in conflict with enemy, mass forces, break through, and win. 2. Indirect approach- shouldnt mass all power and take the enemy on directly, the easiest way to win is by not fighting. a. How Americas enemies would respond to domination of space. 3. Cooperation in space-

4. Debating Hegemony a. If the US is sufficiently powerful so that no other state believes that it can challenge us, we can maintain peace and prevent great power war. b. If war does break out, we can dissuade our enemies from escalating by threatening to destroy them. c. If that doesnt work, we can just destroy them. d. Full spectrum of dominance: i. The US should be able to beat any state at any level of warfare. e. Multipolarity is unstable because it is difficult to calculate deterrence- wars began because of miscalculations- every country at the beginning of WWII thought they would win f. On the other hand- unipolarity leads to countries attempting to balance us, US power causes countries to militarized and then we interpret that as aggression and go to war. Also is probably expensive and maybe unsustainable. g. Because space authors talk about world government, it may be an alternative to hegemony on this topic. h. Sustainabilityi. If heg will collapse no matter what, then heg bad arguments become very credible. ii. Space could create an unbridgeable military gap that could make hegemony sustainable. iii. If hegemony is inevitable- it doesnt matter if you increase it. iv. Even if decline is inevitable, US power is still good because it prevents chaos. i. The underlying conflict is between the belief that cooperation is possible an d the belief that competition is inevitable. j. Establish the basic theory of hegemony in the debate and you control the outcome of the debate. 5. Questions a. If you say that hegemony is inevitable, they could kick that advantage and say that the inevitable hegemony solves all wars. b. Probably better to say that heg collapse is inevitable. c. Russia and China are cooperating on weapons technology- counterbalancing in squo.

a. US would develop space resources in tandem with other countries and eschew conflict. i. Other countries militarize space now because we are already doing it b. Politically liberalist theory c. Not a strategy for hegemony.

Economics in space- J-Heidt

1. Many debates will come down to economic issues 2. Download the economics handout from the michian wiki. 3. Resource development in spacea. Solar poweri. Biggest potential energy resource in debate ii. Will inevitably learn about it. b. Harvesting solar power on the surface of the mooni. Moon rotates very slowly, once every 708 hours Poles of the moon would give you uninterrupted sunlight. ii. Close to other materials that we may want to use iii. Transmission and storage problems with solar power may make this aff difficult iv. Launch costs are very high- would require heavy government subsidies at the beginning v. Could power further space missions vi. Could avoid launch costs for further missions c. Helium 3- potential fusion fuel- current electricity is created by using heat to move urbines to generate protons. i. Creates almost no pollution- just low level radioactive waste ii. We dont have the technology to use it yet iii. Enormously expensive to build a fusion plant iv. Rate of fusion is relatively slow compared to the rate of fission d. Water- could help colonize or use the island hopping approach i. Deep craters in the moon near the poles 1. Extremely cold- some are only 25 degrees above absolute zero 2. Cold traps- retain any volatile molecules that find their way into them a. Trap water- means there is an equivalent quantity of water on the moon as on earth. 3. Water = effective radiation shield 4. Could be used for energy storage 5. Can be electrolyzed into component gases and recombined into water at night 6. Could produce liquid hydrogen- refuel spacecrafts a. Could only be useful for cislunar space (between earth and moon) and not translunar space (beyond the moon) e. Rare earth elementsi. 15 elements with 57-71 ii. Used in everything from hybrid car production to magnets, lazers, tvs, military stuff, etc. iii. Not actually rare on earth, but they arent easily accessible and concentrated for easy mining on earth. iv. China controls most of the worlds rare earth elements 1. May raise international security concerns- but mining in space may solve that problems v. Could be used for sale on earth vi. Possible international law issues vii. I law in space is underdeveloped 1. Will have to evolve or be ignored 4. Congressional funding of nasaa. Spending on space made sense when we were in the cold war and space race, not so much now.

b. NASA is only .6% of the US budget. c. Budget process i. President submits a budget request ii. Congressional budget resolution iii. Enforcing the budget resolutions iv. Actual appropriations bills- fund that resolution d. For every dollar spent on the space program it produces eight dollars of economic benefits e. NASA does directly raise money for the government i. Royalties for patents held by NASA go directly to the US treasury. f. Types of budget DAsi. Tradeoff DAs ii. Tradeoff DAs within the NASA budget iii. Spending DAs iv. Congressional or public backlash against NASAs funding 5. Public vs. Private Debatesa. Must be able to defend against the privatization CP b. Need a USfg key warrant c. 8 most common privatization mechanisms i. Provide direct cash payments or subsidies to companies that are going to expand operations in space ii. Could issue tax exempt bonds to support space infrastructure iii. Tax credits iv. Issue loan guarantees to promise startup money for companies offering space services v. Make space activities tax exempt vi. Prizes could be offered for designing technology vii. Open NASA up to commercial use- subsidize launch costs and allow for greater use for private missions viii. Ban NASA d. 8 aff answers to privatization i. Some things may be desirable even if they are not profitable ii. Find good reason why privatization of your program links to politics iii. National security reasons why only the government should do the affirmative iv. NASA has a unique advantage in terms of the economies of scale (when an industry becomes large enough that they begin to make gains in economic efficiency) v. Find a reason why your particular agency is key vi. Government needs to act as an anchor tenant (the government has guaranteed customers and private companies have the confidence to build up their own businesses) vii. Possibly a place where the government has a total monopoly on the tech (especially true of heavy launches). viii. Mission may have a reason to be classified

Aliens- Whit Whitmore

Not junk science or pseudo-science Extra Terrestrial lifeMost scientists believe it exists, just probably isnt intelligent. Ethics and morality debates Anthropocentrism debates Universe is pretty F***ing big- we probably arent the only ones

Intelligent V. Non-Intelligent life-

Mediocrity Principle-

Fermis paradoxWhy arent there aliens on our planet? Used as evidence that there are not a lot of aliens Rare earth hypothesis- what gave rise to life on earth? Earth is quite rare- it is less likely that aliens do exist Galactic habitable zoneCant just live anywhere in your galaxy Drake equation- used to support the idea that intelligent life probably exists in the universe. Zoo hypothesis- a highly advanced civilization may exist that doesnt want to be detected by us

Leslie 1998 (John; Professor Emeritus University of Guelph) The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction Hawking 2001 (Stephen; Lucasian Professor of Mathematics Cambridge) The Universe in a Nutshell J.H. Huebert and Walter Block, 2007, J.D. - University of Chicago and Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair in Econmics - College of Business Administration - Loyola University, "Space Environmentalism, Property Rights, and the Law" 37 U. Mem. L. Rev. 281, Winter, ln

Disads- Brett Bricker

SPACE DAs 1. Launchesa. Links to almost every affirmative on the topic b. The plan leads to an increase in the number of launches that happen c. Probably has a negative influence on the ozone d. Space Debris- probably increase it and that is probably bad e. Once the public/government realizes the negative effects, regulations will be put into effect and makes solvency less likely f. Launches=mass pollution g. Largest weakness- there are launches that will occur even without the plan. h. International launches do occur- substantial debris already exists 2. Return DAsa. Many affs will claim advantages based off of the exploitation of space resources b. Space diseases impacts c. Many affs will claim returning fossil fuel replacements i. Can be DAs too- reasons why fossil fuel dependence is good, etc. d. Clean coal DAs/coal important for US econ DAs e. Largest Weakness- Doesnt assume the advantage/the world of the plan. 3. Aliens DAsa. See whits aliens discussion

RELATIONS DAs 1. Sphere of influencea. Anger other countries- hurting relationships with people we dont necessarily consider allies b. Could backlash against our space assets 2. Discontinuation of allied cooperationa. If the plan unilaterally develops SSP, allies that have already developed SSP would probably be pissed that the US decided not to cooperate with them b. Weakness- dont assume that relations are probably resilient. ECON DAs 1. The Private industry a. Private industry crowd out or focus b. Crowd out argues that when there is an increase in public investment it discourages the private sector from investing in that area and maybe the private sector has a good effect on something. c. Private sector probably wouldnt perceive it as a necessity for them to invest d. Private focus DA- strategic affs take advantage of the private sector Many affs will claim effectual development by private sector e. The DA comes from where those funds are currently going- probably trades off with the places that the money that the private sector is using would go to otherwise May trade off with space tourism or something 2. Spending a. Breaking the new budget

b. Deficit DAs c. Objectivism DAi. The more the government interferes, the less you are as an individual d. Probably links to the consequentialism good DA and is really n/u 3. Resource Tradeoff DA a. Doesnt matter what the current status of the deficit is- if you can win that a certain subcomponent trades off with another subcomponent, then you get an impact b. Link evidence is hard to find TIPS FOR CONSTRUCTING AN ADVANTAGE 1. Every advantage is also a disadvantage 2. Do not be afraid to show your hand- a DA with 2 or 3 impacts is probably better than having 5 or 6 DAs 3. A 2A has a harder time answering some good links than a complex and thought out DA 4. Probably dont have to read too many impact add-ons 5. When compiling a DA you should be 1,2, or 3 steps ahead of the team that is answering your DA 6. Cut aff answers when you cut the DA- the things you find are most likely the things that the person who cuts answers to the DA also will find.

Kritiks- Lab Mini Lecture

1. Major K Terms a. Epistemology- Study of how we learn- begs the question of what we consider to be true i. Realism- states behave in order to maximize their survival ii. Positivism- Using Science to prove stuff iii. One of the easiest ways to beat an affirmative with a kritik b. Ontology- the study of being- our interactions with the world/how we define ourselves i. X-centrism is probably a type of ontology ii. The way you view yourself as a being could be represented in policies and how they are enforced iii. Spanos- probably one of the most difficult kritiks to answer- broadens the perception of ontology iv. You always need to answer ontology first. c. Aff answers to this stuffi. Justify the representations that the negative says are bad ii. Utilitarian calculus 1. They may still access your stuff 2. Says we have to focus on the impacts instead of the way we view things iii. Other countries probably will still do the negative things that the aff perpetuates d. Representationsi. All we do in debate is represent knowledge, we dont actually go and make a difference in the world e. When people say things like we should win because of our epistemology or we should win because we are a preformance i. Just remember that you are those things too, even if you didnt specifically discuss them. f. Must wonder, what would decision making look like in the world of the alternative? i. Would politicians sit around and beg the question? g. To find out if it is a floating pic i. Ask: Which parts of the 1AC does the kritik problematize? 1. Is the plan possible in the world of the alternative? 2. Common Kritik Tricks a. Error Replication/Self-Fulfilling Prophecy arguments i. They cant solve the problems they describe because they have a flawed conception of the world. ii. Moreover, we will continue to use this mindset and will continue to implement policies that replicate the impacts that they attempt to solve. b. Value to life i. The reason that extinction/death is bad is because they have value to their life ii. Death is better than life without value iii. The aff will say that you cant tell someone that their life has no value1. You are just saying that you arent saying someones life has a value, but that the system prescribes the lack of value onto their life for them. You are only happy so long as you have the power to self-determine your life and your goals. 2. Describing materialism as the reason we live probably isnt a good ontology to endorse. 3. Make a choice between things that are life affirming and life negating. iv. Aff can still say stuff by someone like Thoreau1. You always have the power to make the decision to do something that frees you from your lack of value to life

2. What if someone really finds value in their life in finding solutions for other people? a. There are things that are worth dying for and those are the things that give life value. 3. A simple answer to this is just that you are not an individual person, but the united states federal government v. Could even read evidence that begs the question of whether or not you have an ethical obligation to the other c. Veil of Ignorancei. Could be born into any part of society- places where all different people can universally agree are places where people who are born to all parts of society should be governed equally. d. The reason why we do terrible things is because we evolved to be beings that persue self interest above all other things. i. Most of the people who died for a cause died. e. Root Cause/X comes firsti. If we approach things from a militaristic mindset, then that is the root cause ii. Probably doesnt answer the specifics iii. One thing is probably not the root cause of everything iv. Explain how the war of 1812 was caused by X v. Gibson Grahm and other things are good link turns to root cause claims 3. Theory a. Framework i. Many affs will compromise with race to the middle 1. The neg team mostly just accept that and just say that you cause all of your impacts ii. Articulating your impact is important 1. Make your arguments responsive to negative impact turns iii. Framework interpretations that are good: Maybe instead of entirely excluding reps kritiks- the negative should win if the representations criticized make the plan worse than they help the plan. iv. Framework Lite: 1. Just have to read a plan text- just have to have a statement of what you defend. 2. Wording interpretations without creating a limit or ceiling probably makes your framework sound better and more reasonable v. Always try to find a middle ground

Topic Kritiks- Callum Matheson

The division of Kritikal arguments is kind of arbitrary. Try to make the kritiks as specific as possible and about a particular concept. 1. Most space writing has a 1950s feel a. American mainstream culture included mostly white middle-aged males b. Trust in government and technology c. There was a hope that atomic power would fix the world d. Werner Von Braun- advocated American space dominance i. Head of the early American space program ii. Thought we should put space stations around the earth full of nuclear weapons e. Space program became justified by fear of the soviet union and fear of nuclear war f. In 1961 when we declared we would put a man on the moon i. We framed it in the concept of the American frontier and American expansion g. Zuberin- wrote the case for mars- justifies it on the basis that we should have a pioneering culture once again h. Richard Slockin- When we deploy the image of the frontier as a justification to do something, it is based on the idea of regeneration of violence i. In space we do plan to destroy native species and environments for our own use- even the ethic of care could be artificial i. Anthropocentrism j. Deep Ecologyi. We should view everything that exists in the natural world as valuable and we should not interfere at all k. Do androids sleep and dream of electric sheep? 2. Faith in technology a. We have faith that technology will remove us from resource constraints i. J-Curve population vs. K selected species bell curve or level curve ii. This theory justifies expansion iii. Technology would liberate us from the environment b. Jackques Ellole c. The Novel level seven d. Tech will overcome us and be totalitarian 3. Besides being scientists- the other thing that most NASA astronauts are is white dudes a. This valorized traits that were considered heterosexual, Caucasian, and male. b. Attempt to promote a cult of heroism. c. Going to space creates the idea of a disposable earth 4. The drive to map and catalogue things a. Sort of a cult around Lewis and Clarke = same as cult of the asteroids b. Kato kritik is about using satellites to map the earth c. Spanos- the idea of the world picture presents it to us as something we can cut apart and manipulate i. Objectify nations- the drive to manipulate is created by our ability to have an omnipresent vision 5. American space control a. Creates the possibility of total imperialism i. We would be able to see everything and everyone from space and kill them with weapons from space b. Securing outer space- the management of life could never be as total as it is under the concept of astropolitics c. Pan K probably will be common

d. Astropolitik e. Sagan- our fear of asteroid collision is a means of maintaining a powerful militaryindustrial complex f. The Fear of a space pearl harbori. Dower- wrote about how the US war against japan was racialized genocide ii. war without mercy 6. The idea of Utopia a. Think fallout 3 b. Criticizing the very concept of utopia itself i. Social restriction ii. Tyranny iii. What are we willing to tolerate along the course to utopia? c. Should read 1ACs on this topic as works of science fictioni. Literary criticism is full of cards and stuff ii. It is possible to argue that affirmatives themselves are works of fictions- fiat is illusory iii. The idea that presentation of apocalyptic threat having a happy ending teaches an unjustified faith of our ability to solve problems in technology and the justice of our cause in doing so 7. Aff arguments against kritiks a. Develop a good defense of scientific thought i. Undermining the public belief in science, etc. Will empower the right. ii. Once you acknowledge that science is socially determined- you cant respond to arguments that one genetic group is superior or that evolution is false iii. There are physical laws that control the universe. iv. We could recognize how fragile space was- the environmental movement was an outgrowth of the space program- probably total crap b. Could defend the representations of the aff i. We are an advocacy- not science fiction ii. The way that we portray the world is still a good one iii. Science fiction may just be social commentary that is valuable c. Could just defend technology as an environmental practice

Kritiks- Kevin Hern

The objective of this lecture is to provide Kritik debaters with some tips for winning rounds on the kritik that dont rely on rehashed tricks and illogical dropped arguments. Im going to spend the first part of this lecture giving a brief history of the Kritik.

Shanahan early creator of the Kritik Three types of Kritiks Kritiks of thinking uncover the ways of thinking underlying policies, arguments, and even debate itself. Value kritiks argue that some value must be considered first when evaluating a debate. External value kritiks argue that some value is the basis of an objection to a policy. Internal value kritiks argue that some value held by the affirmative has unseen flaws. Language kritiks expose how the ways in which we talk about something frame the way in which we think and act about it. Threat constructions other stuff. Often, categories run into each other. All of these Kritiks rely on some sort of substantive framework argument.

Second part Critical argument construction Having a strong central thesis to your kritik. You need one clear strong and specific argument in order to narrow the possible range of counter answers creating different ways to answer an affirmative. West is best is a common thing you can criticize Most affs will claim things like leadership, economics, etc. Most kritiks that fail to make a coherent argument that proves the speech act of the 1ac undesirable lack this basic thesis. Link brainstorming (Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRJgqx8Zww8 sometime if you need some inspiration for the mindset to brainstorm K links) 1. Funding and support. Basic solvency method- Indict the way that beuraucracy operates

Technology in space- the discovery of new technology and new innovations can depend on the development and use of space- we consider space as an array of resources for human use. Who would space exploration help? Probably rich white males. 2. Technology and Space. Cap K- blah blah blah

3. Leadership and Space. 4. Tradeoff DA Producing alternatives requires middle ground of strength, specificity, constant research Alts cant be too strong or the aff can permute them. Do all kritiks need alternatives? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljj_qkiByM0 for the answer again, please watch afterwards) You need a solid idea or philosophical structure behind the kritik in order to give it value. Some K checklist terms Floating PIK Most easily beaten on a theory argument- an argument that the affirmative can be done in tandem with the k. Will advocate doing the affirmative without some value. Root Cause Obviously just the argument that the reason why the affirmative harms exist is because they are at the root of some other problem. Value To Life System devalues your life. Makes it harder for people to discover and obtain their own values to life. Methodology/Epistemology/Ontology First See other K lecture.

Third part Tips for debating the Kritik Tags/cards should not be extremely long

Labeling obfuscating vs. revealing

Should clearly label every part of your shell. Judges have a stomach for how much nonsense they can tolerate. Make the kritik seem very intuitive and logical. Variety in the shell Avoid repetition- k files are filled with the same impact over and over again.

Keep the K shell flexible

Slow down A lot of the best K teams of all time are a lot slower than the best policy teams. The arguments are different- framework intensive- and a lot of judges dont really like it. Keep overviews under control Dont need to re-explain the kritik. Read New Ks in the block Read new offense to the affirmatives values that they present in the 2AC. Use 2AC rhetoric against them as often possible If they make answers about the genericness of the K, say their answers are generic. If they say that the K is not real world, the affirmative doesnt assume the real world. Not my ____

Less time on the perm Dont overinvest in perm answers. Treat it like a counterplan. Write link blocks that turn the impact to every advantage. Make the framework debate about the aff

Think about how impacts turn each major advantages

Best link argument uncarded Take advantage of the moral high ground- sympathize with the fact that policy debate is contrived.oftentimes the structure of the plan is mostly made up.

Keep researching, dont get too happy with any one K

Counterplans- Clark Intro:

Josh Clark UM, JDCHS. My goal is to provide you with a broad survey of the likely counterplans you will encounter throughout the year, with some ideas of counterplans you can write as your research evolves. How did Dave tell you to write an aff? What were the things you had to take into account ? Must have a US Key warrant Must have a government key warrant Purpose of a cp a) Solve the Aff b) Garner Uniqueness Combination of both

X Country doing the plan CP

What countries could do the plan? Why would you read another country cp? Japan is implementing new intelligence technology to make reduce launching costs Engadget, 11 (3/23/11, Engadget blog, Japans space agency considers using rockets with artificial intelligence, http://dl2af5jf3e.search.serialssolutions.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-

8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=news&rft.atitle=Japan+Voices+Concern+about+China%27s+AntiSatellite+Missile+Test&rft.jtitle=Jiji&rft.date=2007-01-19&rft.spage=1&rft.externalDBID=JIJI&rft.externalDocID=1197130401) MH

The keyword here is obviously "considers," but it looks like Japan's space agency, JAXA, is indeed seriously thinking about using artificial intelligence to improve their rocket launches. As JAXA scientist Yasuhiro Morita explains, as opposed to simply being "automatic" as rockets are today, an "artificially intelligent" rocket would be able to keep watch on its condition, determine the cause of any malfunction, and potentially even fix it itself. According to JAXA, that would not only make rocket launches more efficient, but more cost-effective as well given the reduced manpower needs. That's not the only new measure being explored to cut costs, though -- as Space.com reports, JAXA's new Epsilon launch vehicle is also being built using fewer, but more advanced components, which promises to let it be moved to the launch pad nearly fully assembled. It's currently set to launch sometime in 2013, although it's not yet clear how much it will actually be relying on AI if such a system is put in place.

Politics Economy DAs Space Leadership Specific Country Politics Often should only read against exploration affs, if they talk about how they increase heg you probably shouldnt read this.

Agent CPs

There are three agencies in the US that involve themselves with Space Policy: DOD NASA Department of Commerce EO Congress Space bureaucracy prevents roll back economic and political support, control of Congressional perception, and coalition building solve. McCurdy, 04 Howard E., Professor of Public Affairs, American University (Space Politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective, ed. Eligar Sadh, pp. 105-128, BUREAUCRACY AND THE SPACE PROGRAM, Springer Link)Red Once space programs are underway, someone has to maintain the political support necessary for their
implementation. This responsibility typically falls to people in the bureaucracy. NASA officials conducted various legislative campaigns to save ISS, prevailing in one case, in the US House of Representatives, by a single vote. Campaigns were led by a succession of NASA Administrators, assisted by career employees from the Agencys office of legislative affairs. White House officials provided support, but the primary effort was based in the

Administrative leaders use a number of techniques to maintain support for approved initiatives. They widely distribute monies allocated. Most of the money that space bureaucrats receive for space-based initiatives is redirected through installations in the field and from there to aerospace firms that produce operating systems and the hardware. The so-called space crescent of high-tech NASA field installations that passes from Florida through Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana to the Johnson Space Center in Texas was deliberately created by national officials as a means of reshaping the rural economy of the South. Ninety percent of NASAs budget moves from field installations such as these to a network of aerospace contractors, universities, and subcontractors that stretch throughout the US. The resulting complex creates a widely distributed base of support that is hard to displace once a space program is underway. Agency leaders consult frequently with groups that represent the people who benefit from government space activities. They consult with associations representing aerospace industrialists, scientists who fly
NASA bureaucracy. experiments in space, engineers who design and build space systems, and a number of professional societies and grass-root advocacy coalitions such as the American Astronautical Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Mars Society, National Space Society, and Planetary Society.

Space bureaucrats maintain close ties with the members of congressional committees that authorize their programs and appropriate their funds. Congressional oversight of space policy is fixed institutionally but is somewhat uncoordinated. Separate committees review
proposals for military, intelligence-gathering, and civil space activities, and their jurisdictions change slowly if at all. Fragmentation of responsibility continues within the budgetary realm. NASA funding in the US House of Representatives moves through an appropriation subcommittee that also reviews spending plans for urban housing, environmental protection, and veterans affairs, while government spending for military space systems moves through a separate subcommittee. For all its fluidity, space policy review in the White House is far more comprehensive than congressional review. In part for that reason,

congressional review tends to be reactive rather than proactive, with space bureaucrats informing and nurturing congressional legislators as a way of maintaining momentum for programs underway. In
general, congressional members of authorizing committees tend to be more supportive of existing initiatives than legislators on appropriation subcommittees, who must fund programs. Finally,

space bureaucrats build alliances with their counterparts in other space agencies. As the first American to orbit the Earth, astronaut John Glenn rode into
space on a rocket built by Air Force officials who were preoccupied with the delivery of nuclear warheads. The Hubble Space Telescope uses optical technology originally designed for the NRO. Civil space officials in the US commonly formulate international agreements with officials in foreign countries, in part An agreement with a foreign government to cooperate on a space mission provides a layer of protection not afforded by a domestic enterprise. International agreements are harder to break than domestic commitments, given foreign policy concerns and international obligations, and engender a tendency within Congress to defer to the President.

to broaden their base of support.

Political scientists characterize the resulting network of alliances as

policy

iron triangles of American politics. This refers to the distinctive threeway relationship that emerges between bureaucrats, congressional members of supporting legislative committees and their staffs, and advocacy coalitions that represent beneficiaries. The goal of people in this tripartite alliance is to control as much government activity as possible within their area of policy interest without external political interference.
subsystems, subgovernments, or the

Politics Militarization Bad Advantages: Solves nearly all of the aff, unless they have an advantage stemming form agency use. The military would probably act in secret, NASA is unpopular and the Department of Commerce would be great for most affs that rely on the private sphere for R &D Disadvantages: Most teams wont specify which means you will spend most of your time trying to win competitiveness, and they are all executive agencies so politics links might be a lie This year the ASPEC argument may be better because there is a debate in the literature over who should control our space program.

Treaty/ International Agreement CP

Code of Conduct What is a Code of Conduct? Move towards not militarizing space. Text: The United States should offer to negotiate a Code of Conduct for acceptable space practices with any other interested space faring nation. This should include the extension of a conditional offer to China that it will negotiate rules of the road for the use of space as long both China and the United States refuse to engage in practices that contribute to the militarization of space, including the launch of solar power satellites, and offer reciprocal verification. The president should authorize transparency measures to allow international monitors from any country that agrees to a Code of Conduct to allow verification of United States adherence to the Code of Conduct. Only a space code of conduct solves the risks of weaponization and de-escalates the drive towards a space arms race Wright, 7 - co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (David, Boston Globe, Protecting our future in space, 10/3, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/10/03/protecting_our_f uture_in_space/)
So, in looking forward, we need to figure out how to protect these space assets. And to do that, we must recognize that the space environment has changed dramatically since the Soviets launched a 2-foot-wide metal ball back in October 1957. First, space is now multinational. For decades, the United States and Soviet Union dominated space, but today more than 50 countries own satellites or a share in one, and nine countries have successfully launched satellites. People in nearly every corner of the globe now depend on the services satellites provide. As a result, space is getting crowded. Over the last five decades, the number of objects in space has increased dramatically. Today, more than 850 operating satellites and nearly 700,000 pieces of debris larger than a marble orbit the Earth. A collision with such a piece of debris could damage or destroy a satellite. Laws and "rules of the road" to guide operations in space, and controls on the production of space debris are increasingly necessary. Meanwhile, some resources are at a premium: Slots in the highly sought-after "geostationary band," the part of space where satellites can remain over a given point on Earth, are assigned by the International Telecommunications Union on a first-come, first-served basis. Many developing countries are concerned that slots won't be available

when they are ready to use one. Second, space is in danger of becoming weaponized. While space has long supported military forces through reconnaissance, navigation, and communication satellites, there currently are no weapons based in space. The Bush administration, however, has been pushing to develop weapons to deny other countries the use of space; these include space-based interceptors, which could be used to attack satellites. Meanwhile, China's successful test of an antisatellite weapon last January dramatically demonstrated that satellites are already at risk. Left

unchecked, the fear that controlling space may afford a decisive military advantage threatens to trigger a space arms race. That would divert economic and political resources from other pressing issues, and hinder international cooperation necessary to make progress on such problems as nuclear nonproliferation and terrorism. In addition, increasing reliance on satellites for crucial military functions could cause instability in a crisis. Military war games suggest that the loss of important satellites, such as reconnaissance satellites, could spark a quick escalation in a conflict. Increased congestion and the threat of weaponization pose an important challenge: How do we continue to reap the benefits of space and avoid conflict? That requires a new model for space. Long over are the "Wild West" days when most viewed space as sparsely
populated with little need for laws and rules, and so vast that no one was worried about degrading the environment. This new model must reflect our modern, interconnected world. It

requires a legal framework to regulate space traffic, allocate limited resources equitably, and provide ways to resolve disputes. Particularly important are limits on potentially harmful or destabilizing technologies, such as a ban on testing and use of weapons that destroy satellites, and verification measures to instill confidence in and strengthen adherence to the regime.
Forty years ago this month, the Outer Space Treaty entered into force. The treaty bans stationing weapons of mass destruction in space and extends the UN Charter to cover space operations. It lays out the fundamental principles for governing space, which should be used to create a legal framework that addresses today's issues and technologies. To do this, international negotiations are urgently needed. Some steps have been taken, but much more work is needed, especially on military issues. Since 1994, a handful of countries, including the

United States, has blocked efforts to begin international negotiations on space arms control. Given its long history in space, the United States, which owns more than half of the active satellites orbiting today, instead should be promoting negotiations to protect our future in space as well as security on Earth Advantages- Solves inevitability claims for space mil good and provides your turns with Uniqueness, would most certainly have politics as a nb Disadvantages Lots of good hawkish literature attacking the codes effectiveness and realist authors will claim that countrys will weaponize anyway, meaning the code would just put us behind. ATTEMPT TO TAKE OUT THE SPACE MIL INEVITABLE ARGUMENT OST The Outer Space Treat What is it? Set the rules for space exploration and development. Counterplan: In accordance with the Outer Space Treaty, The US should establish an international regime consisting of all countries that use space rescourcses and private companies interested in development that intends to raise the necessary funds, develop the necessary technology for colonization and distribute assets and technology in accordance with participation. The US should propose a rescourse regime that: (A) (B) (C) Allows private enterprise develop of the moon and acquisiton of lunar rescourses, including reasonable access to profitl Disallows discrimination in access to lunar rescourses Allows for later revision

Developing an international regime is feasible and involves other countries in the development process while retaining US advancements Results in moon development Bilder 09, Professor of Law at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Foley & Lardner-Bascom (Richard B, A Legal Regime for the Mining of
Helium3 on the Moon: U. S. Policy Options, University of Wisconsin Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper Number 1100, 10/8/9, http://leoindustries.books.officelive.com/Documents/SSRN-id1486273.pdf SW)

C. Should the U.S. Seek to Establish an International Organization or Enterprise for the Cooperative Development and Carrying Out of Lunar He-3 Mining

? The U.S. could take the initiative in seeking to establish a user-based international organization or enterprise designed to cooperatively develop and manage the mining and distribution of lunar He-3 and perhaps other lunar resources and, perhaps, more broadly, at least certain aspects of the development, production and distribution of He-3-based fusion energy on Earth.65 The organization could be comprised of, first, the principal space powers and other nations willing to actively participate in creating the necessary capabilities; second, other nations and entities who are users or beneficiaries of such capabilities; and, perhaps, third, private companies, consortia or investors interested and capable of investing and participation in the enterprise as a whole. The organization could be based on a recognition that the Moon and its resources constitute a common heritage of humankind, that the enormous potential of He-3-based fusion energy deserves to be shared by all of the Earths nations and peoples, and that this promise might best be achieved by a cooperative rather than individualistic or confrontational approach to the development and management of such a complex, challenging, costly and potentially history-changing source of energy. The worlds leading technologically advanced nations have already taken significant steps in this direction in their cooperative approach to the development and operation of the International Space Station and their formation of ITER, the cooperative project in which they are together seeking to establish the commercial practicality of fusion energy. The potential inclusion of private companies and consortia in such an organization would recognize the growing interest and important and exciting possibilities of participation by private enterprise in the commercial development of spaceflight and space resources.66 Such a cooperative international organization could take a variety of forms. As several commentators have suggested,67 it might, for example, be modeled on the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT), an innovative user-based intergovernmental commercial consortium which, pursuant to a U.S. initiative, was established by a number of government and operating entities, initially on an interim basis in 1964, and then by permanent agreement in 1973, to own and manage a constellation of communications satellites providing international broadcast services to all areas of the world.68 Membership in INTELSAT was open to any state which was a member of the International
and Perhaps, More Broadly, of Terrestrial He-3-Based Fusion Energy

Telecommunications Union (ITU); however, access to the system was available to every nation. Under the INTELSAT agreement, shares and votes in INTELSAT were reallocated periodically in proportion to each members contribution to and use of the system; that is, substantial users, such as the U.S. which contributed more investment, had more shares and voting weight in substantive decisions of the organization. The organizations primary source of revenue was from satellite usage fees which, after deducting operating costs, was redistributed to INTELSAT members in proportion to their shares. As

this nondiscriminatory pricing structure in effect subsidized lesser use by developing countries with heavier use by more developed nations, thus providing some sharing of the benefits of space communications technology. INTELSAT was tied to the United Nations through its recognition of
indicated, satellite services were available to any nation, whether or not a member of INTELSAT and all users paid the same rates;

the regulatory functions of the ITU. In 2001, INTELSAT, which by that time had over 100 members, was privatized and renamed Intelsat, Ltd. It is now the worlds largest provider of satellite services, operating a fleet of over 50 communication satellites and providing service to over 600 Earth stations in more than 149 countries and territories. INTELSAT offers not only a successful example of international cooperation with respect to the profitable commercial development of a common space resource but also suggests the possibility of transitioning an initially intergovernmental commercial

Whatever form such a cooperative international institutional arrangement took, it would be designed and serve to provide access and influence to all nations, participants, investors, and customers in the development and use of He-3-based fusion power, alleviate conflict and discontent over which nation or nations should control lunar resources or resource-related operations on the Moon, and assure that the benefits of He- 3-based fusion energy would be widely shared by all nations and peoples throughout the world. Among the more important objectives of such an organization or enterprise would be: (1) raising the necessary capital to sustain the development of a technologically and economically viable He-3-based fusion energy system; (2) developing the necessary fusion and lunar He-3 recovery technology; (3) assuring effective continued and environmentally-sound maintenance and operation of terrestrial and lunar fusion-energy related facilities and services; (4) assuring reliable supplies of He-3 and other resources to terrestrial customers; (5) maintaining reasonable and uniform
consortium to participation or management by private enterprise.

rate structures to all users; (6) assuring access to proprietary technologies, resources and profits related to a fair valuation of members participation and contribution; and (7) resolving disputes among members concerning their participation in such an enterprise. Such an organization or enterprise might conceivably be established independently of any separate international agreement regarding a lunar mining regime; presumably, if it embraced a sufficiently broad and significant membership, including all of the leading space powers, it could in itself constitute and elaborate such a regime, although it would, of course, have to conform to the broad principles set forth in the Outer Space Treaty and those provisions of the Moon Agreement which can be considered to now reflect customary international law. Alternatively, such an organization or enterprise could be designed to supplement and be compatible with the Moon

Agreement or other international agreement which might be negotiated to deal with lunar resources; indeed, Article 16 of the Moon Agreement specifically provides that an international organization whose membership is comprised of a majority of State Parties may conduct activities under the Agreement if it declares its acceptance of the Agreements obligations. Finally, such an organization or enterprise could be established under the Moon Agreement by the parties to that Agreement as, in itself, a part of the international regime, including appropriate procedures, to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon that the parties undertake to establish under Article 11(5) and 18 of that Agreement.

Advantages: Its a great place to validate private property in space, because the sq seems the OST would prevent it. Its also a well established treaty that has had staying power, so other modifications might be more likely than other agreements to succeed. Disadvantages: Its still an international treaty. Most people think China already violated it with their shooting down the satellite in 2007, because it blinded US vision (supposedly)

Privitization/Uniqueness CPs
Generic Privitization CP Generating commercial interest in space is key to maintaining space exploration in the future Space Access Society, 06 (SAS's View Of Things, 2/15/06, http://www.space-access.org/updates/saspolcy.html)Red Our major goal at Space Access Society is to help bootstrap space transportation costs downward to the point where this virtuous circle gets underway. We see this as the approach to humanity permanently expanding off this planet with by far the best chance of success. Government programs come and go, but if there's profit in a thing it's here to stay. Phase Out NASA The United States federal government should restrict the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to only allow activities that occur beyond the Earth-Moon system, bar NASA from building and operating launch vehicles and lunar exploration equipment, require all other nondefense and nonemergency launches and lunar exploration equipment to be purchased from the private sector, and enforce the Commercial Space Act Requirement that NASA must acquire scientific data from private firms. NASA fails -- only the CP sustains necessary innovation to solve the case. Pelton, 2010 [Joseph N., Research Professor with the Institute for Applied Space Research -- George Washington University, chairs a NASA and the National Science Foundation Panel of Experts that is conducting a global review of satellite telecommunications, A new space vision for NASA - And for space entrepreneurs too?, Space Policy 26 (2010) p. 78-80]

NASA - now past 50 - is well into middle age and seemingly experiencing a mid-life crisis. Any honest assessment of its performance over the past two decades leads to the inexorable conclusion that it is time for some serious review and even more serious reform. National U.S. Space Study Commissions have been recommending major reform for some years and finally someone has listened. President Obama has had the political and programmatic
courage to make some serious shifts in how NASA does its business. It is no longer sufficient to move some boxes around and declare this is the new and improved NASA. One of the key messages from the 2004 Aldridge Commission report, which was quickly buried by NASA, was words to this effect: Let enterprising space entrepreneurs do what they can do better than NASA and leave a more focused NASA do what it does best namely space science and truly long range innovation [1]. If one goes back almost 25 years to the Rogers Commission [2] and the Paine Commission [3] one can find deep dissatisfaction with NASA productivity, with its handling of its various space transportation systems, and with its ability to adapt to current circumstances as well as its ability to embark on truly visionary space goals for the future. Anyone who rereads the Paine Commission report today almost aches for the vision set forth as a roadmap to the future in this amazing document. True

there have been outstanding scientific success stories, such as the Hubble Telescope, but these have been the exception and not the rule. The first step, of course, would be to retool and restructure NASA from top to bottom and not just tweak it a little around the edges. The first step would be to explore what space activities can truly be commercialized and see where NASA could be most effective by stimulating innovation in the private sector rather than undertaking the full mission itself.
XPrize Founder Peter Diamandis has noted that we don't have governments operating taxi companies, building computers, or running airlines - and this is for a very good reason. Commercial

organizations are, on balance, better managed, more agile, more innovative, and more market responsive than government agencies. People as diverse as movie maker James Cameron and Peter Diamand is feel that the best way forward is to let space entrepreneurs play a greater role in space development and innovation. Cameron strongly endorsed a greater role for commercial creativity in U.S. space programs in a February
2010 Washington Post article and explained why he felt this was the best way forward in humanity's greatest adventure: I applaud President Obama's bold decision for NASA to focus on building a space exploration program that can drive innovation and provide inspiration to the world. This is the path that can make our dreams in space a reality [4]. One of the more eloquent yet haunting calls for change came some six years ago. The occasion was when Space X founder Elon Musk testified before the US Senate in April, 2004 at a Hearing on The Future of Launch Vehicles: The

past few decades have been a dark age for development of a new human space transportation system. One multi-billion dollar Government program after another has failed. When America landed on the Moon, I believe that we
made a promise and gave people a dream. It seemed then that. someone who was not a billionaire, not an Astronaut with the Right Stuff, but just a normal person, might one day see Earth from space. That dream is nothing but broken disappointment today. If we do not now take action different from the past, it will remain that way [5]. One might think that, since Musk was seeking to develop his own launch capability, he was exaggerating; but a review of the record suggests otherwise. Today nearly 25 years after the Rogers and Paine Commission reports that followed the Challenger disaster,

we find that the recommendations for NASA to develop a reliable and cost-effective vehicle to replace the Shuttle is somewhere between being a disappointment and a fiasco. Billions of dollars have gone into various space plane and reusable launch vehicle developments by NASA over the past 20 years. Space plane projects have been started by NASA time and again amid great fanfare and major expectations and then a few years later either cancelled in failure or closed out with a whimper. The programs that NASA
has given up on now include the Delta Clipper, the HL-20, X-33, the X-34, X-37, X-38, and X-43 after billions of US funds and billions more of private money have been sacrificed to the cause [6]. In the field of space research NASA has a long and distinguished career. In the area of space transportation and space station construction its record over the past 30 years has largely been a record of failure. The Space Shuttle was supposed to have been an efficient space truck that would fly every two weeks and bring cargo to orbit at a fraction of the cost of early space transportation systemsdperhaps a few thousand dollars per pound to low-Earth orbit. In fact, the fully allocated cost of the Shuttle is over $1 billion a flight and it is by far the most expensive space transportation system ever. After the Columbia accident NASA spent years and billions more dollars to correct serious safety problems with the Space Shuttle and still was never able to fulfill the specific recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Yes, that's correct. After grounding the Space Shuttle for some 2.5 years (from February 2004 to August 2006) and expending $1.75 billion dollars in the wake of the CAIB report, NASA was not able to correct the identified problems and complete the tasks asked of it. Then, after the foam insulation problem re-emerged with Discovery and STS flight 114, hundreds of millions more dollars were spent to solve the problem again, bringing the grand total to over $2 billion [7]. The first rendition of a space station was scheduled during the Reagan years to have been completed in 1991 for several billions of dollars. The projected completion date extended to 1994 when the project was redesigned and it became the International Space Station (ISS). Today the ISS is not only late, but its total cost has ballooned to over $100 billion [8]. Project Constellation, with a projected cost of over $100 billion until its recent cancellation by President Obama, seemed to loom as an eerie repetition of the ISS e another mega-project always over budget, always late, and with constantly lowered expectations. Henry Spencer, writing for the New Scientist, has characterized Project Constellation as an Illusion, Wrapped in Denial. His specific observations about the NASA Moon/Mars program were as follows: First, it probably wasn't going to work. Even so early in its life, the programme was already deep into a death spiral of solving every problem by reducing expectation of what the systems would do. Actually reaching the moon would probably have required a major redesign, which wasn't going to be funded [9]. Any

private company with NASA's record on the

Space Shuttle, the ISS deployment and spaceplane development, would have gone bankrupt decades ago. In all three cases the US Congress has been told by NASA essentially what it wanted to hear rather than the grim facts as to cost, schedule and performance. I personally remember when Congress was being told quite unbelievable things about the cost and expected performance of the Space Shuttle. We at Intelsat presented testimony that strongly contradicted NASA's statements on cost and performance. There

are dozens of examples of entrepreneurial space enterprises that have generated innovative ideas that seemed to show us how we could have gotten ourselves into space faster, cheaper and better. - A private, Boulder, CO-based company called
the External Tanks Corporation (ETC) suggested in the 1980s thatwe could just add a little more thrust to the External Tanks for the Space Transportation System (i.e. the Space Shuttle) and lo and behold we could put them into Low-Earth Orbit. Dr. Randolph Stick Ware of the ETC explained that one could then strap these tanks together and create the structure of a space station at a fraction of the cost of the ISS, and much more quickly as well. - Bob Zubrin has for years championed the idea of sending methane generators to Mars to produce the fuel for the astronauts' return trip. The cost of a Mars mission with a refueling station on Mars would be dramatically lower. - Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites took a few million dollars of backing from Microsoft's Paul Allen and developed the White Knight carrier craft and the Space Ship One space plane. This vehicle system, which won

the X Prize, set the stage for a space adventures industry that will begin launches in 2011. When this experimental space plane landed at Edwards Air Force Base in 2004, a spectator's sign said it all: Space Ship One e NASA Zero. Some have suggested that President Barack Obama's cancellation of the unwieldy and expensive Project Constellation to send astronauts back to the Moon for a few exploratory missions was a blow to NASA and the start of the end of the US space program. The truth is just the reverse. Project Constellation, accurately described by former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin as Apollo on Steroids provided little new technology or innovation and had an astronomical price tag. It was clearly too much for too little. If the opportunity costs of Project Constellation are examined (i.e. if we think what could have been done with an extra $100 billion of space funds), dumping it defies argument. With much less invested in a questionable Project Constellation enterprise we can do much more in space astronomy. We can invest more wisely in space science to learn more about the Sun, the Earth and threats from Near Earth Objects. David Thompson, Chairman and CEO of Orbital Sciences said the following in a speech that endorsed the new commercial thrust of the NASA space policies on Nine February 2010: Let us, the commercial space industry, develop the space taxis we need to get our Astronauts into orbit and to ferry those wanting to go into space to get to where they want to go. We are in danger of falling behind in many critical areas of space unless we shift our priorities[10]. With

a change in priorities we can deploy far more spacecraft needed to address the problems of climate change via better Earth observation systems. We can fund competitions and challenges to spur space entrepreneurs to find cheaper and better ways to send people into space. We can also spur the development of solar power satellites to get clean energy from the sun with greater efficiency. We can deal more effectively with finding and coping with killer asteroids and near earth objects. We may even find truly new and visionary ways to get people into space with a minimum of pollution and promote the development of cleaner and faster hypersonic transport to cope with future transportation needs. The real key is to unlock the potential of commercial space initiatives while giving a

very middle-aged NASA a new lease on life. Here are just some of the possibilities that are on the horizon of a revitalized commercial space industry. Solar power satellites: The new space company Solaren has recently contracted with a US west coast energy utility to start beaming clean solar energy from space to Earth in 2016 via a tri-part solar power system. Its three key components are: 1) a lightweight solar concentrator; 2) a high performance solar cell array that will see the equivalent of many suns 24 h a day; and 3) a transmission system from space to Earth. Solar power satellites could be a major new part of the new mix of green energy systems we need to reduce our addiction to carbon-based fuels. Serious efforts are now underway not only in the USA but in Japan and other countries seeking a new source of clean energy [11]. - Commercial space planes and space stations: Space adventure tours to go into dark sky to see the big Blue Marble from space may become reality as soon as 2011. To date only some 500 people have gone into space since the dawn of the Space Age. This new industry (space tourism is not the right name for this high-risk-type adventure, which is much more dangerous than a commercial air flight) will potentially create the opportunity for thousands of citizen astronauts to fly over 100 km into space. The space adventure business is currently being developed by enterprising billionaires. Sir Richard Branson, head of Virgin Galactic, is the most visible leader, but there are many others willing to risk capital on commercial space. They include Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com, Robert Bigelow, owner of Budget Suites, Paul Allen, one of the backers of the Space Ship Corporation, John Carmack, creator of video games such as Doom, and Elon Musk, founder of PayPal. Each of these entrepreneurs of great wealth is currently putting serious money into developing spaceplane technology and commercial space platforms. Robert Bigelow has already launched his Genesis 1 and 2 commercial space station prototypes [12]. - Innovative challenge prizes to spur new space technology: The

Google Lunar XPrize has developed a wide range of innovative technologies that show us much more cost-effective ways to explore the Moon and get more bang for the buck. The Bigelow
notion of a space elevator that would give us cost-effective access to the Moon and Mars. In the 21st century a

$50 million America's Challenge may produce a breakthrough in space taxi designs in the next few years. Most exciting of all could be current and planned prizes to develop the technology to create a space elevator that could get us to space not only safely but at a truly modest cost, and cleanly. In the 20th century Arthur C. Clarke not only showed us how geosynchronous satellites could revolutionize global communications, but also popularized the

revitalized and innovationdriven NASA, along with other space agencies, could redefine our human destiny by providing key answers to climate change, making space travel safer and much less costly and helping us solve our energy problems. All this could be achieved with the right incentives to move us toward enlightened space commerce and entrepreneurial innovation. On the other hand, this could all prove to be merely a momentary illusion killed by bureaucratic inertia in a space agency that is too large and indifferent to truly change. Only the future can provide the
answer. Only concerted political will exercised from both the inside and the outside will bring significant change [12]. pg. 78-80

Tax Reform The National Aeronautics and Space Administration should establish five ten-million dollar prizes for the development of [x technology>

Property Rights Land Claims CP Land claims recognition provides incentives for privatization Wasser 2k8
(Alan Wasser served as Chairman of the NSS Executive Committee from 1991 to 1994, active in both the National Space Institute and L5 Society since 1980, President of New York City L5 in 1981 and 1982, former member of the Boards of Directors of ProSpace and the NYC NSS chapter, a Senior Associate of the Space Studies Institute since 1984. He majored in both Political Science and English, SPACE SETTLEMENTS, PROPERTY RIGHTS,

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: COULD A LUNAR SETTLEMENT CLAIM THE LUNAR REAL ESTATE IT NEEDS TO SURVIVE?, Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Volume 73: Number 1, Winter 2008, pg online @ http://www.space-settlement-institute.org/Articles/jal73-1Wasser.pdf)

There appears to be one incentive, however, that could spark massive private investment leading to the establishment of permanent space settlements on the Moon and beyond with an immediate payback to investors. The concept of land claims recognition (developed by author Alan Wasser and others over the last twenty years) seems to be the most powerful economic incentive, much more so than all the other incentives, such as government-funded prizes and corporate tax holidays combined.8 If and when the Moon
and Mars are settled in the future through other incentives, the nations of Earth will eventually have to recognize these settlements authority over their own land. But to create an incentive now, governments would need to commit to recognizing that ownership in advance, rather than long after the fact.

Land claims recognition legislation would commit the Earths nations, in advance, to allowing a true private Lunar settlement to claim and sell (to people back on Earth) a reasonable amount of Lunar real estate in the area around the
base, thus giving the founders of the Moon settlement a way to earn back the investment they made to establish the settlement.9 Appropriate conditions could be set in the law, such as the establishment of an Earth-Moon space line open to all paying passengers regardless of nationality.10 The many other aspects of the land claims recognition concept are discussed in detail elsewhere,11 but a major point of related debate involves what international law has to say about the legality of a private entity, such as a space settlement owned by a corporation or individual, claiming ownership of land on a celestial body like the Moon on the basis of occupation and 9 It cannot be stressed enough that the reason for land claims recognition legislation is not to establish a good property rights regime for its own sake, nor is it to protect Lunar residents from claim jumping, which will not, in fact, be a problem, as will be shown later. The

sole reason is to create the only product that a privately funded space settlement could sell to the public back on Earth for sufficient profit to justify the tremendous cost of establishing a space settlement. Id. This product is hundreds of millions of paper deeds that are recognized by the U.S. government and other governments
as bona fide deeds to acres of Lunar or Martian land, printed on Earth for pennies apiece, and sold to investors on Earth for perhaps one hundred dollars each. Id. The chain of reasoning is as follows: The

objective is promoting the settlement of spacethe day when ordinary people will live and work in thriving communities on the Moon and Mars. We do not want the Moon and Mars to be permanent wastelands like Antarctica, but instead we want them developed like Alaska. This goal would require an enormous up-front investment, but government has proven unwilling or unable to make this investment. Id. Private enterprise could make this investment, but only if there were a prospect of a quick, enormous profit upon success. Id. For this, there needs to be a very profitable product that a privately funded space settlement could sell to the public back on Earth. Id. It would be ideal if every nation of the world allowed the sale and acknowledged the validity of the deeds but, since the biggest pool of money is concentrated in the U.S., and the U.S. tends to lead the way in economic matters, it is U.S. recognition that is by far the most important. A claim of 600,000 square miles around four percent of the Moons surface and roughly the size of Alaska would contain
384,000,000 acres, so at even a conservative price of one hundred dollars per acre it would be worth almost forty billion dollars. use.12 The following discussion lays out the argument that current international law, and especially the

Outer Space Treaty, does appear to permit private property ownership in space and permit nations on Earth to recognize land ownership claims made by private space settlements, without these nations being guilty of national appropriation or any other legal violation. -- Coercion/OBJ -- Spending -- Politics -- Efficiency Case Turns Advantages: Generates Uniqueness for DAs and Case Turns Both critical and non-critical potential net benefits Disadvantages: Doesnt solve Government based advantages like space leadership, hegemony, space mil, ect. Also, is likely to be perceived as not solving in an good timeframe, because plan isnt a direct mandate of the cp ASAT Advantage/UQ CP Text: The United States federal government should enter negotiations with <<<Country developing ASATs>>> to create verifiable, enforceable limits on ASAT-relevant technology development, deployment, and testing. The United States federal government should maintain diplomatic contact on space related issues with <<<Country>>>.

Limiting testing and development mitigates the strategic value of ASATs and reduces the likelihood of their use. Diplomatic ties reduce the chance of space conflict Grego and Wright, 10 *Laura, senior scientist in the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, **David, senior
scientist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program (Securing the Skies, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nov. 2010, www.ucsusa.org/securingtheskies)

Red Verifiable limits on ASAT-relevant technology and on threatening behavior can also mitigate threats to satellites. Such limits reduce both the readiness of an adversary to interfere with a satellite as well as its confidence that the interference would be successful. Limits also can restrict the operational testing and deployment of dedicated ASAT weapons during peacetime so that they are less reliable and thus less likely to be used in a crisis. Negotiated restrictions can define appropriate uses and behavior for dual-use technology, and they may strengthen the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate applications of such technology. Examples of limits on uses are technological constraints on the capability of satellites to quickly maneuver in
orbit; bounds on the power that a laser may transmit into space; and a restriction against coupling a high-powered laser with a satellite-tracking

Defining the consequences of certain actions against satellites and developing enforcement mechanisms, together with the creation of a better international space monitoring system, will not only help to deter attacks but also to assign responsibility for those that may occur. Active diplomacy can also put mechanisms into place that help prevent misinterpretation of inadvertent interference with satellites and thus help avoid any consequent escalation.
mirror. A limit on behavior is exemplified by, say, how closely or quickly a satellite may approach another without permission.

No Space Mil CP Text: The United States federal government should declare that it will not intentionally damage or destroy a satellite and that it will not test ASAT weapons designed to permanently destroy or disable satellites. The United States federal government should pledge that it will not be the first nation to station a weapon in space. The United States federal government should declare that it will not develop or deploy space-based ballistic missile interceptors, and that no part of its missile defense system will be used against a satellite. The United States federal government should review plans to sell missile defense technology to ensure that it is not used against satellites by clients. The counterplan prevents space mil by strengthening precedents against space weapons and reassuring other countries. Even if other countries develop space weapons they wouldnt have a considerable lead over the US. Grego and Wright, 10 *Laura, senior scientist in the Global Security Program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, **David, senior
scientist and co-director of the UCS Global Security Program (Securing the Skies, Union of Concerned Scientists, Nov. 2010, www.ucsusa.org/securingtheskies)

Red The United States should unilaterally declare that it will not intentionally damage or destroy a satellite, whether through dedicated ASAT technology or dual-use technology. This declaration would reinforce an important longstanding norm: no country has ever intentionally caused irreversible damage to another countrys satellite. It would also be consistent with the U.S. Department of Defenses (DODs) preference for temporary and reversible means of satellite interference. Moreover, the declarations should go beyond this norm by ruling out tests of destructive ASAT weapons directed against a countrys own satellites. Because it would limit the operational development of such weapons, such a declaration would help assure other countries that the United States is serious about seeking mutually

constraints on dangerous technologies. It would also set a standard that other countries should meet to become more credible partners in space security negotiations. This moratorium would ban the use of ASAT weapons that destroy or permanently disable satellites but would not be a comprehensive ban on all ASAT weapons. A second category includes those whose effects are temporary and nondestructive; the
agreed

United States has already deployed some of these types of weapons, such as satellite signal jammers, for which the technology is widely available. There is less agreement on the implications of these latter weapons, on what kinds of limits regarding them would be useful, and on whether they are appropriate responses to the threat posed by the military utility of satellites. Pledge Not to Be the First to Station Weapons in Space Stationing destructive weapons in space is without precedent. Despite research and development efforts over the years, no dedicated space weapons are known to have been deployed.21 This has been the case for various reasons, the main ones being that they are costly, technically challenging to

Space basing is a poor choice for many kinds of weapons. For example, ground-attack weapons based in space would be 50 to 100 times more costly than ground-based alternatives with comparable delivery times, as discussed in the Appendix. Similarly, a system for defending against only one or two ballistic missiles launched from the main geographic regions of concern would be enormously expensive because hundreds of interceptors in space would be required. Even then, the system would fail to provide a reliable defense. (Space-based missile defenses are discussed in more detail in Step 3.) While there may be other missions that
develop, and unpopular with policy makers and the public. military leaders believe would be better suited to space-based weapons, the marginal military capability that the United States might gain from

Pursuing such weapons would legitimize those uses of space and encourage other countries to develop similar capabilities, which could subsequently be used against the United States. Even if never used, these capabilities could increase tensions and hinder the coordination and cooperation needed for the international community to solve pressing problems in space. The United States would gain much by publicly stating its intent not to deploy space-based weapons. Making such a statement would not lock the United States into a position of inferiority, as it would imply the reconsideration of U.S. plans if another country started to place weapons in space. Moreover, the U nited States has the capability to catch up quickly. In short, it is not in the U.S. interest either to lead in the weaponization of space or to be encouraging others to do so by a lack of clarity about its position. In the absence of an official statement of intent by the administration, other countries trying to figure out U.S. intentions are likely to turn to other evidence (such as military writings or politicians declarations), which not only may be unrepresentative of official policy but also may appear needlessly aggressive. For example, the discussion of space weapons in documents such as the Air Forces Vision for 2020, the interest in them
these missions must be weighed against the substantial costs. among some policy makers and military leaders, and the continued funding of research and development of relevant technologies22 could raise concerns in other countries about U.S. intentions. Verification Given the U.S. ability to observe satellites and detect launches of missiles as well as of space-launch vehicles, it could have a high degree of confidence about how well other countries were abiding by their declarations not to deploy dedicated space-based weapons. The United States can determine the launch trajectory of a missile, the orbit of a satellite, the types of orbital maneuvers a satellite undergoes, and the physical attributes and appearance of a spacecraftall of which are closely related to its mission. For example, U.S. sensors observed the demonstration of Chinese ASAT capability in 2007, the previous nondestructive tests of this technology, and Chinas January 2010 missile defense test. The declarations need not be made overly complicated by including a detailed definition of a spacebased weapon. It should be sufficient to describe it as a spacecraft purposely designed to damage or destroy another object that is in orbit, is transiting space, or is on or near Earths surface.23 Combined with a moratorium on testing and using destructive ASAT weapons,

these straightforward declarations would go a long way toward reducing threats from space both to space- and ground-based assets. Step 3. Declare that the United States will not develop or deploy space-based ballistic missile defense interceptors. Pledge not to use any element of the U.S. land-, sea-, or air-based missile defense systems to attack or destroy a satellite. And review plans to sell systems with this capability to other countries in order to ensure that any missile interceptors sold by the United States will not be used as antisatellite weapons. Pledging to close off or limit these activities would reinforce the U.S. moratorium on using destructive ASAT weapons and the pledge not to be the first to deploy space weapons. It could also help avoid reactions by other countries concerned that the United States may pursue these options. While little unclassified effort is currently being made to pursue space-based missile defenses, this absence does not accrue the
benefits that a clear declaration would.

Advantages: These are the same idea as the accord counterplans for space mil, except they provide unilateral solvency making its effect more likely. Disadvantage: Reciprocity from other countries could be a scary thing, leading to scary other countries will not follow debates.

Advantage Counterplans
List of Different Advantage areas from the Topic Lecture and Counterplans ideas that can help Space based impacts will be more difficult to solve without having a competing space solvency claim. There will be teams who like their politics turns this year that will read their aff as a cp. 1. economic growth CPs -- This would probably have to deal with the technological internal links, which means you would have to have a cp that would revitalize the technological sphere Possiblity would b 2. the aerospace industry. -- Youd have to counterplan out of the terminal impacts of Military hegemony and economy. 3. space leadership. -- democracy promotion --Hegemony 4. Education -- STEM education CP Question: What does STEM stand for? 5. Mining. --Development of mining infrastructure for precious metals CP 6. Space debris You can solve other forms of miscalculation 7. Asteroids. A competing Asteroids solvency mechanism itd be hard to generate any net benefit besides plan specific 8. Colonization. -- Conservation/dedevelopment CP Probably would solve our resource shortage. 9. Environment -- Climate CP Kyoto Protocol, Cap n Trade, Dedevelopment Nanotech could mine the atmosphere!/ could probably solve everything 10. International cooperation.

Relations CP, International Agreement/Treaty CP 11. Aliens. This is stupid. -- Disclose Area 51, Secret Alien Encounters Politics Case Turns Space DA Consult ______ China, Russia, NATO, Japan Relations Japan probably says yes, probably prevents international backlash, etc.

Consult Cps

Collaboration w/ other country CP

Probably in line with the status-quo Other countries would probably do stuff with us in the world of the plan, so you have to win that unilateralism is a key part of the aff. Multiactor fiat is probably illegit.. be prepared!

Conditioning CPs
Conditioning CP Condition on different companies improving standards Condition other countries doing something, for the US to do the plan Aff needs to be done unconditionally

Debating Theory- Greenstein

1. Generic- How you can win on theory a. History of theoryi. When people talk about theory the history is divided into 2 sections1. Before Greensteina. Go to- people were afraid to read counterplans conditionally, aff had a huge advantage 2. After Greensteina. Too many people started to go for theory b. People have lost the specialty of being able to go for theory b. Why should you go for theory? i. If you get good- you can do whatever you want ii. Being good on theory on the aff can make your life so easy! c. You have to make theory counti. Have to win it is a voting issue1. Whenever you extend a theory argument- start by saying X is a voting issue 2. You have to argue that things have to be voting issues a. If things like X are not voting issues, they become a no risk option for the negative- it encourages them to read these counterplans to hurt aff strategy- the only remedy is to make it a voting issue. ii. How to make theory good1. Neg will always say that they need it for the ground Aff is always strategy. 2. Why is fair debate important? 3. Debate provides you with a lot of skills that are hard to get if you dont do debate Learning stuff isnt true- you have the internet. 4. Must learn to deliberate, do good research, be a critical thinker, speaking skills- etc. iii. No 2AC Blips 1. 1 second theory arguments with no explanation or impact are terrible 2. Maybe 2 clear warrants iv. Clash is essential when you are affirmative1. If you extend theory in the 1AR you need to make sure that you dont drop anything. v. The 1AR should layer arguments to make it easier for them to make new ones1. If the aff says condo is bada. In the 2AC- X is a voting issue- make 2 good solid arguments b. In the 1AR- extend your first argument- then answer some arguments and throw in new ones- then extend your second argument d. How are you going to win theory strategically? i. If your argument is not about the status of a counterplan- there is no circumstance that this should be the whole 1AR ii. Usually about half of the 2AR should be enough to win on theory e. Once you are really good at theory and have a reputation- use it as a weapon i. If you extend 30 seconds of theory in the 1AR it puts a lot of pressure on the 2NR 2. Specific- what you need to win on this topic a. Need international fiat and private actor fiati. Arguments are the same- the only difference is that international is a country or institution- private actor is a private company.

b. International Fiati. International fiat is not reciprocal and delimits- The aff gets one actor- the neg should get the same one and not unlimited choices. 1. There are 193 countries 2. There are 55,282 types of intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations 3. Literature does not check the limit- judges have too low of a threshold for negative solvency and net benefits- there is a different between advocate literature and capacity literature- makes it impossible for the aff to win. ii. There is no useful affirmative comparative aff evidence1. Any evidence about US vs. International action is answered by negative fiat- our only ground is international fiat bad. (CX THEM ON THEIR SOLVENCY OR NET BENEFIT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THIS) iii. There is no useful or predictable education1. No one person is situated to choose between the US and international action (decision maker model) 2. In the real world, if someone were to say should the us or japan do this? there is nobody to make that decision 3. Teaches us to choose between unrealistic options 4. Simulations are more effective when they focus on only one actor because they allow for clash and argument resolution. iv. Disadvantages Check1. They dont need the CP- the net benefit checks- preserves affirmative ground- allows you to make arguments besides US action key to beat the disad- you should have the right to beat the disad with other arguments. 2. Relations DAs solve for international education while still maintaining topic focus v. Quality and scope of arguments1. Artificially inflates the quality of terrible arguments. vi. Side Bias1. (They will say the aff speaks first and last)- speaking first doesnt matter because the negative chooses what the debate is about when they read an international counterplan. 2. The neg has too many options these days- disads, t, case args, kritiks, performance, pics, consult, condition, etc. 3. The negative gets the block to overpower the 1AR which is really hard to recover from 4. The neg statistically wins more debates these days 5. To answer infinite prep- no we dont, we have to be neg too- you might have friends vii. Counter-Interpretation1. In general- people like these- you have to defend so much less of what you are saying they cant do. (CP must be non-topical, or really anything arbitrary- makes it really easy to win on the aff) a. The best one for international fiat is- you get the disad or net benefit but not CP if they just say have Russia do it b. If they read a country or organization- they can do it, but that organization cannot include the united states- it does not test whether or not the US is key- impossible to compare US action alone vs. an organization that is dominated by the US because the US will do most of the CP. c. Probably still links to the net benefit.

2. Resolution isnt asking us to determine the agent- they have to use our agent that works too c. Applies to private actor fiat as well d. Multi-Actor fiat3. How to answer abusive CPsa. (Process, consult, conditions) b. Voting issue becausei. Predictability- it is impossible to predict these CPs- even if the aff has read every article about the plan that exists, they would still never find any literature about the CP- the US is never going to give another country veto power over its policy, that is absurd! ii. Education- They can run their counterplan on any topic- never answer the question presented to the judge by the resolutioniii. Counter interpretation- (Must choose based on your situation)- Legit CPs need a solvency advocate- makes the CP predictable and increases the quality of debate because it proves that competing literature exists- if they just have a card about the net benefit it is not enough. 1. Cps cannot involve the possibility of doing the entire affirmative plan- they can do part of the plan but cant include the possibility of doing the entire affirmative plan- they still have loads of other ground- not fair to expect the affirmative to generate offense based on something that is not in the plan- it is just based off of a process that the negative expects the affirmative to use. iv. Only Vs. Shady domestic process CPs- Counterplans cannot use the affirmative agent- there is no literature that accounts for the CP as a whole even if there is literature on separate parts- the counterplan as a whole does not reflect real world policy processes and no actual policymaker would be able to consider a policy like thisv. no mechanism for one policymaker to implement a multi-actor counterplan REMEMBER- You are aff and get to choose what the plan does- you shouldnt have to be unconditional and immediate

How should you think about theory: 1. There are no rules- except speaking times and speech order- cant falsify evidence or clip cards 2. The guiding principles of theory3 ways you can impact theory Education- what model is purported by the interpretation of the violator or what has been said that creates poor pedagogy. Fairness- Has something in a debate occurred that makes debate unfair or unwinnable for one team? Role of the Judge- how the judge should do stuff Why are intrinsicness arguments legitimate? Because the judge is assumed to be a logical policymaker. No policymaker can do X- or kritik debates come down to the judge not being a policymaker. Theory debates should be debated like a disad or like a disad and a CP Thinking about theory guides practice of theory- like if you say that they can read conditional stuff but cant read contradictory positions Almost all theory interpretations are completely arbitrary and self-serving The aff could double-turn themselves on theory INTRINSICNESS/POLITICS THEORY 1. Basic model of intrinsicnessa. Logical policymaker could do the plan and do something to remedy the disad. i. Rational policymakers care about opportunity cost- anything that can be kicked out of is not an opportunity cost ii. Roleplaying good arguments- influences how debaters may debate in front of them b. Disads to judges being policymakeri. Judge could be an organic intellectual, an activist, a break from the simulation, a random citizen, etc. ii. What is the best of things to be? 2. Answers to intrinsicnessa. Overlimits- no disadvantage is intrinsic-do intrinsic perms justify mass condo or other abuse? b. Hurts education- disads are core to the topic- learning about the opportunity cost to the plan is why we debate c. Maybe a better test would be what they should do and not what they would do d. Mispositions the role of the judge3. Where can intrinsicness go for the aff? a. Policymakers usually arent idiots Removes the power of fiat, but it isnt quite as strong. b. Wide variety of politics DAsi. Shouldnt need the intrinsicness test to beat one of our disads if it was true Move towards higher speculation of the quality of evidence. What is reasonability? 1. If the aff can prove why they arent bad for the topic without proving that they are good for the topic then they are reasonable.

Theory- mini lecture- bricker

2. No reasonable ground lost unless they can specify which tandential issues they have lost 3. THE BEST- if the aff can prove that there is literature that suggests that the aff is a part of the topic- it would be unreasonable to exclude that from the literature based upon whatever other considerations you have about debate a. Offense to the negatives view of topicality b. (Even if they win that their counter-interp is better, debaters shouldnt guide the lit, the lit should guide debaters, you still win because you are still within the topic literature) c. More limiting is always relative. PRESUMPTION 1. There is risk in change- and you default to the world of least change 2. When the negative advocates change- they have made the stasis point of the debate change- the negative isnt saying that we shouldnt change. Presumption flips towards the affirmative in the world where the negative reads a counterplan. VOTE NO1. The judges decision is the final vote in congress that votes for or against the judges decision- means that debates and committee discussions already happen WHAT SHOULD YOU DEFENDCould say stuff about like we will defend [X agent] for the purpose of your disads, but we believe that counterplans that attempt to gain artificial competition off of the agent of the affirmative are illegitimate.

1. Why you dont care enough about cross-x a. Cross X is speech time- it is a lot of speech timei. 19% of the debate is CX b. CX is the only speech time thats up for grabsi. Each debater has an equal opportunity to talk c. CX makes the rest of your speeches better- increases judge understanding of your arguments d. Chamber of truthi. The only time when questionable evidence and bad arguments can be interrogated ii. Your opportunity to make the weak points of your arguments seem a lot stronger e. Window to your personalityi. The only time in a debate that you are speaking conversational speed ii. Can win/lose you speaker points 2. Basic Principlesa. Only one audience per CX and that audience is the judge i. Debaters will never concede that you have made a good argument in cross x ii. You need to look at the judge during cross x allows you to gauge reactions b. Dont ask, arguei. CX is not question time- it is argument time ii. Ask pointed, leading questions- prevent counter-examples iii. Instead of saying why does economic collapse lead to war? say the economy collapsed in 2000 when the tech bubble burst, and again in 2009 because of subprime mortgages- why didnt that lead to nuclear war? c. Cross apply your CXi. Use CX like a card- point out to the judge that you have demonstrated something in CX- dont use the phrase cx was embarrassing d. Almost never ask a question that you dont already know the answer toi. Dont ask open ended questions e. If you get asked an open ended question- dont stop talking f. Be assertive and be confident i. You want to sound like an expert in cross x- you want to sound like you know things the other team doesnt g. Dont be an ass i. You dont need to be rude to the opposing team- dont yell over your opponent or overtly lie in CX ii. Dont try to embarrass debaters below your skill level- be polite h. Dont interrupt your partner unless its super importanti. Unless your partner is saying something that will lose you an argument- always let you answer something 3. Advanced Techniques a. Know what to ask abouti. Attack the points of weakness of the opponents arguments ii. Certain arguments have built in weak points- internal links and links of disads- alternatives to kritiks- solvency or internal links for terminal advantage impacts contradictions

Cross-X- Nick

iii. Ask about issues that you will make analytical presses about during your speeches b. Talk about arguments that matter i. Dont waste your CX on one of their arguments c. Have a company line i. Have the same exact answer to the same exact question ii. Before a tournament or debate- you and your partner should discuss how you will answer certain questions d. Reverse pit of doomi. The best arguments in a debate are the ones that the other team makes for you- ask the other team a series of question that seem straightforward when in reality you are getting them to say the exact thing that you want ii. Best used/executed 1. With a counterplan that only does part of the aff 2. Setting up links to a kritik 3. Setting up a uniqueness outweighs the link argument on politics e. How to avoid the reverse pit of doomi. Stick to your whole aff- dont prioritize one part- dont oversell cards/impacts 4. How do you get better at cross examination? a. Know thingsi. Know counterexamples- know everything about everything ii. Know- A. History- econ collapse history, proliferation history (like North Korea, Israel, Iraq, etc.) , Radical social movements- (know Ghandi and stuff)- know what happened in Russia and Cambodia and china B. Know current events- Ask questions that their evidence does not assume C. Know your arguments- confidence and assertiveness flow from expertise D. Know their arguments- good teams use buzz words- understand their terminology b. Pay attention to the mastersi. Watch politicians and good interviewers- watch parliament c. Practice CXi. Do CX drills

1. Rhetoric Defined a. Aristotle: rhetoric is the art of identifying all the available means of persuasion in a given situation 2. Available means of persuasion: a. Logos- Logic b. Pathos- emotion c. Ethos-Credibility 3. Ethos means dwelling place in greeka. You get credibility from every part of your life that inhabits your dwelling place 4. The importance of ethos in the debate communitya. Ethos is built on persuasion i. Persuasion is the defining part of our activity ii. All it takes to win a debate is for the judge to write your name at the bottom of the ballot iii. Debate is one of the only activities where you have the ability to persuade the judge on the rules of the activity b. The debate community is a lot smaller than you think i. We are less than 2 or 3 people removed tops from knowing each other ii. People wont even listen to your argument if they have a preconceived notion of who you are iii. The electronic era makes the debate community even smaller than it was 5. The debate community loves angels and demons a. People want you to win if you are an angel b. It is very easy to cheat in debate6. What makes a great debater? a. A great debater works hard i. There is nothing that frustrates the community more than wasted talent ii. Shows respect for the activity b. A great debater respects the activity i. What is it about debate that you love? c. A great debater plays well with others d. A great debater is respectful to all the judges- even the bad ones i. No matter how bad a judge is- you must give them respect 7. 10 key differences between judges and debaters a. Judges have made a commitment to the activity while most debaters are simply passing through i. Treat arguments like the debate community is bad very differently b. Debaters think that swearing makes them look cool- judges think it looks silly c. Judges have lots of things competing for mental attention while debaters are 100% concentrating on the moment d. Debaters believe that any dropped argument should win, judges dont want good debates decided on a technicality e. Judges are tired and debaters are running on adrenaline f. Debaters think that assessment is a sign of intervention- judges think that assessment is a crucial component of deciding debates g. Judges believe that debate is a good activity and worthy of protecting, debaters think that it is all about what it takes to win

Ethos- Jared Atchison

h. Debaters think that it is a weakness to admit that their opponent is right i. Judges value good clear delivery- debaters think that they are going too slow j. Debaters think that judges should take into account how good they are when making their decisions- judges dont care 8. What you do at debate camp can impact your ethos 9. Dirtiest secret in the judging communitya. When it is a close debate- how a judge thinks about you matters in whether or not they will vote for or against you.

THE HISTORY OF THE KRITIK 1. Began with a discussion of ethics 2. Evolved as an ethical objection to something that the affirmative did 3. The first alternative was introduced- now we see alternatives as impact assessment or roll of the ballot claims 4. Introduced into debate to resolve the aff answer to the kritik (Uniqueness) 5. Very legitimate to say that the negative cannot read an alternative at all a few years ago- that argument has lost some force K SLAYER THEORY ARGUMENTS 1. The alt is utopiana. Alt attempts to envision a world that is not capable of actually existing b. Can be used in 2 ways i. As a way to manipulate the links in the world of the perm- possible in the world of the aff + the alt to do the plan and reject security representations ii. The alt is just impossible- framework- is just an ideal that cant actually be realized 2. Actora. Who is the actor of the alternative? The judge Who is the actor of the aff? The USfg b. No mechanism for implementing the alternative c. Also could be a reason that a perm is possible- USfg does the plan, judge rejects X 3. Vagueness of the alternative a. Obvi 4. Framework- The neg is responsible for the mechanism/process of change, not just the endpoint of their ideal or impact a. Neg still gets an alt, the question becomes is it feasable or what measures must be taken to create the world of the alternative b. They may say alt solves without a mechanism i. What system replaces X? ii. How do you deal with X issue? iii. How do we interact with X country post-alternative? iv. Propose a historical example that the alt cant account for THE REPS KRITIK 1. What theoretical objections should you make? a. Reps kritiks are unpredictable- unlimited number of objections to your reps b. Perm- sever reps- only have to defend the action of the plan, not the reasons why it is good i. An answer to this is that no judge would vote for the plan alone absent the representations c. YOU SHOULDNT TRY TO REJECT ALL REPS ARGUMENTS IN DEBATE i. FRAMEWORK: The negative should win if the representations criticized outweigh the positive representations of the plan plus the material change of the plan. 1. Reciprocal because the neg gets link args based off of the 1AC reps so the aff should get advantages from the 1AC reps 2. Avoids floating PIKs- discussion of whether or not the 1AC was good or bad- focuses the debate toward the topic and the aff gets to defend the whole 1AC a. Floating Piks can pik out of generic stuff in the 1AC

Kritiks- mini lecture- bricker

b. Not a literature base for defending every word used in the 1AC c. Maybe a counterexample would be that the neg should be allowed to floating pik out of normative claims in the 1AC i. An answer to this would be how do you deal with racist and sexist language? 1. An answer to this may be that there should be an alternative punishment for that kind of language- that should be a question that is separate from the question of the aff and that should be a prior question- cedaw has rules against that that automatically results in a loss d. Conditional repsi. Does conditionality allow the negative to sever their reps? 1. Aff can say that this proves that representations do not have a lasting and/or permanent effect on the real world, they can be removed 2. How can the aff capitalize on this? a. Use CX: Get the negative to show their hand by pointing out contradicting positions- non-uniques the offense against the permutation

Pathos- Jared Atchison

THE MOMENTS WHEN YOU SHOULD AND CAN USE EMOTION IN DEBATE 1. Pathos defineda. Pathos is an appeal to an audiences emotion b. We are afraid of them- they can manipulate us and others c. Debate is seen as the remedy- it is supposed to elevate an argument so that the logic is what goes to the foreground 2. What, if any, is the role of emotion in debate? a. Defending your impactsi. Systemic impacts1. Kritiks result in otherization, violence, and opressionii. Qualitative suffering Vs quantitative death claimsiii. VTL vs. Extinction1. It is so difficult to overcome the presumption that utilitarian judges have that you must have life for it to have value b. Defending your theoretical perspective i. If you want a judge to vote on a theory argument and cause the other team to lose, you have to insert emotion into the debate. c. Defending your partner i. If the other team mocks your partner you must defend your partner and have a pathos appeal d. Defending your squad or your coach i. Anytime someone attacks your squad or your coach- you cannot let it be a random argument in the LBL- you have to make an emotional appeal e. Defending yourself i. If you are even accused of cheating, you have to recognize that you have to stand up for yourself. If you ever have a team say this card is cut out of context, you must stand up and say do we need to stop the debate to evaluate this? itll force them to say nah and diminish their argument. f. Defending debate i. If they say debate bad and you stand up and dont use an emotional appeal, it creates cognitive dissonance and will lead to a loss. 3. Spectrum of emotional appeals a. If something is distant, you are less likely to be inclined to make a pathos appeal. If it becomes pretty personal, you are more likely to make a pathos appeal 4. Which emotional appeals should you use? a. Guilti. One of the most powerful appeals possible under certain conditions: 1. The audience must feel like they are part of the problem 2. There has to be a simple solution a. vote for me because then you take a symbolic stand for your argument 3. There cannot be too much guilt a. Otherwise they start victim blaming b. Feari. An extremely powerful emotion, but it only works under certain conditions 1. Must motivate someone to act, but it cannot be paralyzing

2. The solution has to be simple 3. You have to tap into cognitive dissonance ii. Why is it difficult to use a fear appeal in debate? 1. Judges are 100% disconnected from your impacts c. Angeri. One of the most common emotional appeals in debate- can be persuasive under the right conditions that are rarely satisfied in debate. 1. The audience must agree with you that an injustice has occurred 2. The anger must be controlled 3. The anger must have an appropriate target or channel 4. The anger must be expressed and then retreated 5. Does it work? a. Depends on the judge b. Depends on the success of the emotional strategy c. The most successful strategy currently being employed in debate is cognitive dissonance i. The result of a stress that is produced when a person holds 2 inconsistent beliefs at the same time 1. When you believe that smoking is bad for you and simultaneously holds the belief that smoking is fun, that produces cognitive dissonance and they have to resolve that in the moment ii. People force themselves to stop thinking about one of the beliefs iii. The obvious solution is to vote for the person who has made you think about stuff and has given you an easy out iv. This means that the judge ends up looking for a rationalization to vote for them v. If you just go in with framework- you are asking the judge to endorse a third stress producing belief d. What can you do to beat them? i. What if you come from a disadvantaged background? 1. You can have a pathos based appeal based on the connection to the topic a. Give the judge a way to vote for you while still endorsing the way that the debate community can produce good change. 2. Honestly be engaged in making the debate community a better place a. If you have an emotional connection to what you are doing, you have to bring it up in debate. 3. Talk about the ability of debate to change without being reliant on the ballot a. It is worse for the debate community to try to change through individual competitive debates, attempting to change the debate community in this way will produce more anger. The judge may feel better when they walk out of the room, people dont walk away thinking they are right they walk out saying how will I destroy that team next time I debate them e. Recognize the power of rationalization vs. rationality i. The best judges in the country can rationalize any decision

f. The newest science proves that judges cannot escape emotion i. how we decide by joan o lare 6. Case Studies a. Watch 2 debates i. On the blog putting the k in debate double octos of NDT between Emporia and Oklahoma ii. Wake forest V. Kansas- NDT finals

1. Politics is the topic a. Most of these issues rely on the politics disadvantage- most intrinsic link b. Counterplans will almost completely rely on the politics DA as the primary net benefit c. It is a dependable strategy- you cant always predict the aff, but politics will be a necessary component of your neg strat d. No ceiling- you dont know enough and politics could become better than it ever was before e. Dont lose- good teams rely on the politics disad- you have to know your enemy 2. Politics on the topic a. The current political backdrop- despite what negative debaters want you to believe- politics and the plan cannot exist in a background- 3 major events will happen during this years topic i. In 2012 we will have a national election 1. A politicians #1 goal is to get back into office ii. We are in the midst of a budget crisis 1. Every policy action is subject to greater scrutiny than ever before iii. Massive job losses 1. 9.1% of our nation is unemployed 2. Space policy is non-partisan, it is just subject to petty politics b. Current space policyi. Major corporations are responsible for a large portion of Obamas national space policy 1. Also the DoD ii. The American people are not clambering to go to mars, and most politicians dont want us to create SPS, lobbyists from the aerospace industry do iii. The war is over in terms of space policy1. Human spaceflight is almost over c. The Obama good DA i. When a policy is created, congress goes thorough 3 steps in implementing 1. The president makes a proposal 2. It is debated by the congress 3. Goes thorugh the process of appropriations ii. Budget and tradeoffs 1. Even if plan is popular, it isnt as popular as several other policies that congress wants passed 2. NASAs lifeblood is federal funding and it has been losing blood for decades. iii. Republicans1. It isnt that republicans dont like nasa, they just love nasa more in good economic times than bad- senators that have supported parts of national space policy in the past dont support it now iv. Even if the plan is popular- implementing it costs capital 1. Congress has to bicker over the details- difference in opinions, even obamas own party rails against him in spending. Barney Frank is vehemently anti-nasa and is the main budgeter. v. Empirics-

Politics- Rubai

1. JFK had to do tons of work behind closed doors in the 60s before he could even suggest going to space. Every president needs prior authorization to ensure support- that support does not come for free. vi. Obama has to push the plan1. Obviously d. Elections DAi. There is not currently a GOP frontrunner and few people have announced their candidacy ii. Differs from an agenda link- relies upon the view of American people where agenda links are about American politicians iii. Polls can be indicted because they purposely poll people in certain areas iv. Swing states will probably be incredibly important for the affirmative moreso than the negative. 3. Debating politics a. Thumpersi. Another item on the agenda would trigger a tradeoff- takes out link uniqueness ii. Obama thumpers1. Obama doesnt has political capitals. 2. Other issues are killing his political capital iii. Other groups are angry and they will not compromise 1. The tea party will never support obama, neither will most republicans 2. Gridlock is probably inevitable- almost nothing has made it through congress post-healthcare iv. Controversy is inevitable1. Although obama isnt doing a lot for space policy, he is certainly not abandoning it 2. The things he is doing now deny the link threshold v. Negative answers1. Stress specificity of your internal link 2. Obama does not fight every fight- he would have to get involved in space policy 3. You can uniqueness counterplan out of these issues 4. Impact diversity 5. Make sure that you win that it turns the case b. Uniquenessi. Recency is key ii. Cite momentum or predictive evidence c. Internal linki. Who is vital to X? ii. Win that that person is key to the plan iii. Frame specificity in terms of the internal link iv. Author qualifications are important v. Turns the case arguments are important d. Answering the elections DA i. Can say Obama will win- incumbents win, find swing states that like the plan ii. Can indict polling data iii. Just read Obama bad, or impact turn the DA.

e. Answering the politics DA i. Uniqueness at the top ii. Link defense iii. Link turns iv. Internal link defense v. Theory vi. Impact defense vii. Impact turn f. Theory in politicsi. Intrinsicness- test of the opportunity cost of the DA 1. No disad to the permutation- not an impact of doing both 2. Aff doesnt have to win that it is good, just that it is true 3. To answer this- it is best to prove it false ii. Vote no1. For a logical policymaker to decide on the plan they must first consider it 2. Presumptiona. The negative team does not have to advocate any change b. Should not have to assume that the plan has been introduced 3. Doesnt trigger the link is another answer to this 4. Could just say that politics debates are good iii. Fiat1. Should assume that the affirmative has to enact the least means necessary to enact the plan 4. Researching politics a. Gotta be up on the current political issues b. Get yourself a google reader account- subscribe to: i. The hill ii. Politico iii. Roll call iv. CQ politics

Universal Debate Tips

Cross Examination You need a game plan- your goal should be to introduce 3 winning arguments into the debate. Stay 1 step ahead, ask questions to make life difficult for the other team. Start setting up link arguments in the CX of the 1AC CX ing the 1NC is key to interrogate link evidence to the affirmative Push on their impact evidence CXing the 2AC- DO NOT- point out that stuff is dropped- Expose areas of underdevelopment and weakness- particularly in terms of evidence 2NC should tell the 1N what they want cross-xed Theory arguments are important to CX- If they read a bad card- read it really slow and make it sound really bad- ethos is a key part of CX CXing the 2NIncredibly important- The only chance that you get to go head to head with the 2NC to regain your honor Start to introduce the new arguments you have to make in the 1AR in the CX of the 2NC- Aff has to steer the ship- Ask about your major arguments in cross-x Develop the depth for those arguments in the CX and mention it in the 1AR- just say- thats the cx of the 2NC. Start talking about evidence that they wont get to address- indict their evidence early on- even if the 1AR just briefly makes note judges have a view that is described as true evidence. True outweighs new. Life becomes really hard for the block if you destroy the 2N in the CX of the 2NCIf the 2NC takes case, but they dont reference the 1AC evidence. Ask them about specific evidence, that while extending a lot of arguments they havent referenced anything in the 1AC. Impact Calculus If you arent going to extend a reason why your impact matters, why would you extend it? Calculus must be comparative- make sure to reference their impacts Choose a framing device that helps strengthen your impact Good impact calculus starts with good internal links. You have to solve the impact better. Must win turns the case analysis Probably should turn the internal link, even if they have 100 impacts, turning the internal link can take it all out. Choose impacts strategically- focus on relevant solvency deficit impacts to the counterplan or impacts that you dont think you can outweigh. Know where you are weak! 1AR should not spend more time than you need to on issues they did not address and should just extend stuff insofar as it is required for the 2AR to say stuff that the judge doesnt think is new. 1NC strategy choices Not a bad idea to read topicality, but if you are doing that at the expense of covering case then you are only hurting yourself Theory Objections You should be prepared to slay arguments on theory because of how large this topic is. Have answers to everything they get to say Introduce an intellectual background for what you should do. Conditionality means that we can advocate the permutation! (Jared Atchinsons article) Be creative without cheating

If you want to advocate the permutation, do it with a little bit more creativity. Evidence Comparison Be very prepared to do this. Whatever the crucial question in the debate is, you have to break down this debate. Indict evidence in CX Dont extend evidence by its tagline alone Kicking out of stuff Have to kick out of things properly Gotta say that they cant advocate the perm, just a test of competition. Maybe could extend intrinsicness- no inherent opportunity cost- both will happen Clarity is a huge issue with a lot of people. You are going fast because you think that going fast is what you need to do.

CP Theory Mini Lecture

HOW TO DEFEAT CHEATING COUNTERPLANS: (Process non-topic specific CPs, or CPs that include the aff) 1. Competition Vs. Legitimacya. Legitimate- Good for debate/required to debate about some stuff i. Neg will have a nuanced version of why their counterplan is legitimate- X is illegit unless it is with X ii. Protect the aff- time tradeoff between the block and the 1AR iii. Near-infinite neg condo= difficult 2AC b. Competition- Does something that is different from the aff (Based off of what the cp does textually or functionally). 2. How to beat ita. Be good at defending topic-specific education i. Debate is supposed to be an open forum and we would run out of new things to learn about and debate. b. Defend that the aff should be protected c. Fairness should be your big argument d. Win competing interpretations at the same time as winning that their interpretation is arbitrary i. If this CP were allowed, the neg would be allowed to do XY and Z ii. Competition off of immediacy allows the CP to do anything now and the plan later. e. Fairness outweighs educationi. Larger internal link to education ii. We just have to win that topic education is more important than the education that they introduce 3. How is X illegit? a. Delay Counterplan i. Craft a permutation in the world of competition. ii. How is the counterplan illegit? iii. A lot of ways. 4. Aff args not worth makinga. Topical CPs bad b. Rebuttal extension of perm theory c. No Neg fiat d. Dispo/Uncondo Bad

The 1NR

Rebuttals

Any successful negative strategy starts with the 1NC and every 2NR is more effective with a good 1NR Winning the debate is more important than getting credit for winning the debate Be prepared and efficient- you have to earn respect for the 1NR 2N is the captain of the negative ship Provide input on strategic decisions, but it is not your job to disagree with the 2N 1N should extend meaningful arguments Speech needs to sound awesome If there is an argument that you are not prepared for and it will require reading a lot of evidence- give that argument to the 1NR. 1NR should take add-on advantages Should be prepared and ready to have time set aside to recognize that the 2NC will need you to do stuff for them. Be prepped to do damage control after the 2NC cross-x if necessary Watch what the 1AR is doing- 1AR may ignore the 1NR Take arguments that you dont want cross-xed THE 1AR Imbedded Clash- dont say they say, unless they make voting issue arguments- 1AR has free reign to be able to move arguments up and down the flow. Make a Choice- Is there a place where the 1AR can out-card the block? At the end of the debate you will hand the judge something that you have more cards on. Make crazy statements like I dont need to extend many cards here because theirs are so bad when they have a lot of answers on something. Kick an advantage that either the disad turns or the counterplan solves. Cut your losses- if you arent trying to consolidate you are failing Impact calc- Start the try or die and or the controlling framing in the 1AR or 2AC Your impact calculus is not timeframe, probability, magnitude, try or die, etc. Just start on the thing that is strongest about the advantage. Quality outweighs quantity. Think how can I beat someone that is better than me at debate? READ THE EVIDENCE Understand how to create argumentative shells for the 2AR- the phrase try or die on a flow can justify ridiculous impact calc Make claims like post date, better warrant, etc. THE 2NR 1. Offense on top- always- even before you kick out of arguments- the first few sentences will change the way the judge thinks about that argument.- least important flow on the bottom- the first 2 or 3 sentences that you say should be scripted and powerful 2. ABC- Always Be Closing- 2AR shenanigans will always happen, you had better close the debate- protect yourself from new arguments- make the debate about the 1ARDraw a line back to the 1AR- no new 2AR extrapolation because X- Top of the 2NR- you should be able to draw a line back to any new 2AR argument- then be like this is an argument that you shouldnt allow them to explain, heres why.

3. Blocking yourself out- Dont spread yourself out of a debate- more arguments are not necessarily a good thing. 4. Group things- find out where there is a thread of commonality between certain arguments- you need to extend multiple arguments with a few sentences- you will need to do broad strategy based arguments. 5. Anticipate and know- During CX put your aff hat on for like 45 seconds and think what could they extend for 2 minutes and win on? 6. Dont try, Dont die- if you lose a debate when you were negative, it will probably be because the aff controls some terminal claim that regardless of their ability to solve that you should still vote aff. You will have to win that not everyone will die if you dont vote for the plan. If you concede that warming will kill us all, it doesnt matter because if they solve because a 1% chance of solvency is worth it 7. To card or not to card?- If you believe that you will lose a debate if you dont read a card, read it. If you do read a card, the words immediately following/preceding that card should be an explanation for why that card is justified. If the 2AR characterizes your card as new, you may lose. The 2AR could read evidence to answer your cards as well- they can point out your evidence and you dont get to respond, so be careful. 8. Use the 1NR- The 2NR is a team speech- you need to give the 2NR the best set of options/most efficient use of time possible. The 1N must pay attention to what the 1AR is doing, The 1N should have the first glance at a lot of 1AR cards and give them a very detailed look over. The 1N should be prepared for anything the 2N wants them to do. 9. Conditionality- Unless the 1AR has invested a large chunk of time explaining any other issue, dont waste your time. Dont waste your time, focus on important stuff, isolate your offense at the top, imbedded clash is just as important, and attempt to win that x outweighs their impact. (fairness>education or vies-versa). If 1NR invests more than 45 seconds, you should consider this a threat, but over-reaction is just as much of an enemy. Point out shadow extensions and other stuff. THE 2AR 1. A good 2AR starts far before the 2AR is givenA. Know what evidence is in the debate- you should flow the major and relevant parts of the 1AR and stay up on what evidence is read in the 2NC. B. Know what the 2NR wants to go for, but you should know on a team by team basis what they will most likely go for. C. What do you want the 2NR to take? D. What mistakes did the 2AC make? The 1AR should be the 2AC that you wanted to get. The 2AC you gave isnt always perfect. E. What arguments should the 1AR have on each flow? I. Limit the amounts of things that you want them to talk about- give the 1AR as much time as they have. II. Type as you go during their speech- then just hand it to them and have them read off of it. III. Make sure the 1AR does lots of offense, the 2AR can get away with defense. IV. If you fuck up the 2AC- interrogate their strongest evidence in the 2NC and then have the 1AR read new stuff. Maybe even make a joke like maybe I only

needed to spend 40 seconds on this disad, this evidence is pretty bad. Look for new 2NC args that justify new 1AR arguments. V. Encourage the 1AR to strategically undercover things. VI. Dare the other team to go for stuff, debaters have way more pride than they should. 2. What is the controlling impact? A. We only all need to die once- you can kick out of advantages and not stack up offense- find the way that 1 issue can win the debate in a dozen different ways. B. You only need one impact to one advantage Assuming that you know you are good in a part of a debate, you only need to explain why 1 impact controls the rest of the debate. 100% certainty gets attached to advantages that can always outweigh Pick your best impact based on coverage in the 2nr. C. Where is their evidence weak? That will show you where you get a controlling impact. D. Where did youinvest the most time in the 1AR? E. Close every door, compare every impact even if etc. F. Your 1AC should be phenomenal, you should destroy them with the case. G. You have to invent a path for winning- make big choices. 3. Argument Ordering A. Start with the case B. Circle arguments that you absolutely have to answer and answer them first. Put the debate in your order. C. Grouping and organizing- Go through a disads by uniqueness, then link, etc. the 2AR is not a line by line speech 4. The 2NRs Main RoutesA. Say I can only answer explicit stuff in the 2NR, dont let them just extend random evidence. B. Be realistic and honest- dont pretend that you won everything. C. Identify new spin that justifies a new argument- try to frame the rest of your debate through your strengths and justify your new arguments D. Pick and Choose- Instead of using 5 arguments to explain 3 things, use 3 arguments to explain 5 things. E. Call the 2NR out when they mess up- tell people how they have to judge 5. All the small thingsA. Sometimes underviews are acceptable- a 2AR that ends with what you want the judge to start their decision with is pretty powerful. B. Always sound and act like you are winningC. Always mention evidence by name D. The 2AR should sound different from the 2AC- You want a coherent story, kick stuff, only try to win the best stuff. E. Trust and Honor the 1AR F. It is better to go into the 2AR planning to describe what HAS happened that what is ABOUT TO happen.- make it sound like the 1AR already pwned the 2NR- You all already lost the debate before I even got up, Im just telling you why you lost. G. Yall already got the death sentence from the 1AR, Im just here to wield the axe.

Conditionality- Bricker
1. How to defend it on the nega. Breadth over Depth- In round argument testing is good and it makes it so that discussion in the debate and out of the debate is harder. If what you get out of debate happens inside of a debate, you arent working hard enough. b. Neg Flex- Neg should get to test the aff from multiple angles- It is very hard to be negative- inverse relationship with aff predictability and aff ability to respond- Aff chooses debate, speaks first and last, etc. c. Hard debate=Better debate- Encourages aff innovation and critical thinking. i. Could be answered by- taking away condo makes neg debate harder and switch side debate makes hard debate ineivitable. d. Checks 2AC add-ons- 2NC cps are impossible in a world of uncondo e. Perms check f. Condo --> better 1AC writing which is a good educational skill for writing papers, etc. i. Although topic breadth probably solves this argument. 1. Answers to this= if negatives were stuck with 1 CP then the 2AC would get to read a ton of responses- decreases the incentive to read a lot of pre-empts in the 1AC. g. Condo has diminishing returnsi. The Neg gets less benefits from each condo CP- arguments are underdeveloped and get to read less case. 2. 3 Aff arguments must be answered a. 2AC is the first speech in the debate that can lose the debate b. Depth outweighs breadth- breadth inevitable over the course of the season In round depth outweighs. c. Err Aff- All theory arguments are just a link if you dont win that the judges job is to protect the affirmative because of other inequalities like win percentage, choosing the aff, choosing the topic, etc. Judges job is to protect the aff.

1. What is a Word PIC? a. The idea that a word in the plan text is bad and should be replaced. b. Sapir and Whorf- Whofian hypothesis- introduced the theory of relativitythe way we discuss language determines reality. i. All of reality is constructed by the language that we use. ii. Language LITERALLY constructed reality. 1. People came out with counter- examples2. Egyptians- Egyptians didnt have a future tense to their language, but were worried about the future. 3. Hopi people (natives)- no component of their vocabulary that can express time, but they were one of the few native peoples that believed in a linear conception of time. 4. Chinese- No subjunctive mood in their language (cannot express desire through language). c. Can take advantage of these criticismsi. Word PICs assume that the affirmative uses a word within the plan with an inherent meaning. ii. The negative will assume that the word has an inherent meaning- that is in tension that reps create reality- because words are always textually subjective. 2. How the aff can beat word picsa. Criticize Hard Sapir Whorf- the idea that language constructs reality i. Get evidence that contradicts the sapir-whorfian hypothesis. ii. Defensive- question their theory b. Criticize censorshipi. They are basically saying you cant use this word ii. Censorship is probably bad 1. Neg would say- Really offensive words could be replaced iii. Point of Stasis- where does it begin and end? 1. Censoring the words we use just drives the hate speak underground (or the thought process)- hate will probably compound because they hate people more because they cant use words and stuff- we act like it goes away but it actually doesnt. 2. Prevents re-appropriation- can change the definitions or the connotations of bad words- prevents any positive use of the word in the future. iv. Cards you should cut1. Article from 1993 from Peabody- in the context of debate rounds- the gender kritik made the discrimination outside of rounds a lot worse. v. Euphemisms1. Replacing a word with a synonym does not remove many of the connotations associated with that word. c. Impact Turni. Turn the impact ii. Place terminal defense on their net benefit- as in X word inevitable. d. Permutationi. Perm do both

Word PICs- Mini Lecture- Bricker

1. If the replacement word has any emancepatory potential, then the perm overcomes the link, if it doesnt, then they cant deal with the status quo use of language. a. Neg will say risk of a link outweighs i. But those links still exist in the status quo, and we have a censorship DA net benefit. ii. Perm do the CP 1. If they have introduced a synonym- make arguments about how intent matters and words dont have an inherent meaning- that word can be different things without a competition claim. 2. If you win a criticism, then it isnt textually severance because you question what it means to have said words in the first place e. Distract from topic-specific educationi. Pretty obvious- we just think about small words. ii. They just pic out of stuff that they can use in any debate. iii. Their interp allows pics that distract from topic-specific education f. Other stuff to doi. Have a defense of the words in the 1AC- have other instances in the literature and US code ii. Find the double speak cards that are most often read by the negative, and cut them iii. Find the butler re-appropriation cards and cut the Peabody article. g. Confusion in congress arguments are good- can have certainty net benefits. i. Congress will still probably end up using the word or same connotations. ii. The bill you present is not the bill presented in congress. 3. Theory Stuff a. CPs must be textually and functionally competitive i. A model of textual competition is bad for a couple of reasonsii. In their interpretation they could pic out of the color of the text, the font iii. Justifies scrabble permutations that justifies severance of the plancan take things that have different meaning and put them into the plan. b. There is a literature bias in favor of the negative because words are consistently criticized, but nobody has an incentive to defend words.

1. Understanding the real impacts to theory arguments a. Every theory debate you have can be broken into 3 basic impacts i. The Effect of the practice on the game 1. What are the reasons that the practice is good for the game? ii. Education- What types? 1. Plan specific 2. Real world policy education 3. Individual country education iii. The practices effect on the skills that we learn 1. Research 2. Speaking Quickly- NOT a. Strength- education- more arguments in- breadth over depth b. Disadvantage- Skill- you have only been trained in logic 2. Debating the plan a. The plan is a recent phenomenon- it started in high school debate workshops- they used to only have to use Hypo-testing- to affirm the whole resolution 3. The Definition of competitiona. For a CP to be competitive, the counterplan has to be better than the plan OR the plan+ part or all of the counterplan. 4. What if the Perm is better than the Counterplan AND the status quo a. A Policymaker votes affi. If the judge sees debate as a site to search for the best policy option, the judge votes aff on the permutation because it is the best advocacy in the world of the debate ii. The plan achieves an advantage in the debate, it is unfair to advocate perms because you change the question of the debate from is the plan the best idea but changes the question to is the permutation a good idea? A policymaking judge will always advocate the best policy option. If the neg says Best Policy Option on conditionality it just proves that you can advocate the permutation even if they kick the counterplan because it is the best policy option. b. The permutation is just a test of competition i. Permutations are just a test of the counterplan, not an actual advocacy because affs are so designed to destroy the status-quo. The remedy is to kick the counterplan. ii. The aff should always overwhelmingly beat the status-quo 5. The evolution of conditionality debates a. The logic of conditionality doesnt have anything to do with the number of options- as long as the central question is whether or not the plan is a good idea. b. Conditionality has become hypo-testing for the plan. 6. The Rope a Dope a. The 2AC is the affirmatives last chance at offense! You have to have offense! b. The privatization CP- and the Cap K c. Astropolitics and Japan Co-op counterplan d. Cp Do the plan if Russia agrees to secure its nuclear weapons (loose nukes net benefit), CP2- do the plan if Russia does not agree to secure its nuclear weapons- (Hard line good for heg net benefit)

Permutations- Atchison

i. Should we not allow the negative to do this??? ii. Beat teams that do this so that it is less incentivized iii. When you judge you will have to take a position on whether or not this is a net better or worse practice in debate. iv. There is another answer here as well7. Advocating permutations in the era of multiple conditional optionsa. The negative doesnt have to resort to the status quo anymore- start initiating risk on the part of the negative for what they put in the 1NC b. The aff cant Rope a Dope the negative so there is no risk! c. What would it do to the negative if the affirmative was allowed to advocate one legitimate permutation? i. Why would that be good for debate if the negative was forced to think through the position of all of the 1NC positions before reading it? 1. If the aff could advocate 1 position through a permutation it gives you offense using the net benefit from the negative that the 1AR can compare to what they did go for. You get to read it like a 2AC add-on in the 1AR. It introduces risk to the negative. 2. The 2AC could link turn the net benefit (in the privatization counterplan scenario that means that government key to the private market) and then those become solvency advocates for the perm. 3. You could use the link turn to read new impacts to X impact if you do an impact takeout in the 1AR that would be legitimate. ii. CI they get one would be no rope-a-dope- if they win the thesis that multiple conditional options are good then we get to advocate one legitimate permutation.- from 1970 to 2k8 the neg won plenty of rounds- even if we lose that multiple conditional options are good- we still get to advocate the permutation. 1. You have to win the doctrine of reciprocity- that theory and debate should be fair and both sides should have an equal chance of winning from the offset- the only way to recorrect the abuse on conditionality is to allow you to advocate the permutation. iii. Perms check- the neg makes this argument 1. Concede this- means you get to advocate a perm- because if all perms are is a test of competition then it helps a negative to be able to kick stuff using a perm. 2. Perms were just a test because the aff was designed to beat the status quo, but in the world of multiple conditional options the aff cant just beat the squo any more which means you deserve to get the permutation. iv. Judge kick1. Does the judge at the end of the debate have the right to determine that the 2NR thought that they won the formula and went for the counterplan, but they were wrong, so they kick the counterplan and they evaluate the plan vs. the status-quo. a. A policymaker judge will do this. b. They will then evaluate the permutation c. Could ask- what is the status of the options in the debate?- do you have to kick or can the judge kick? i. What if they say yes to the second question?

ii. It means you can stand up in the 2AC and say fine you can be conditional, but you have to kick, not the judge1. Increased chance of intervention 2. Etc. d. Perm do the counterplan if they say yes, perm do the plan if they say no. i. Consult simultaneously fiats 3 worlds1. The world of say yes 2. Say no 3. And change ii. Not severance, not intrinsic, not timeframe.

Conspiracy Theories- Callum

1. Definitions a. Conspiracy: to join a secret agreement to perform an illegal or reprehensible act. i. Not necessarily always false b. Conspiracy Rhetoric: the text purporting to reveal the existence of a conspiracy c. Conspiracy Discourse: the broader ideological, cultural, political, and social context within which conspiracy rhetoric is produced and consumed. 2. Where do we find conspiracy theories? a. Popular culture i. When our world looks interesting it makes it sound cool. b. Politics i. Lacking fact-checking makes these easy to circulate 3. Studies of Conspiracy Discourse a. Psychoanalytic- what type of people are susceptible and how do they persuade other people to believe them? i. The single defining characteristic was paranoia. ii. There are certain people that sleep better at night thinking that a conspiracy is the reason horrible things happen in the world. b. Argument scholars approach to conspiracy discourse: 5 basic characteristics i. Use deductive logic from a universal premise that everyone agrees with (i.e. the government lies to you). ii. Challenge traditional forms of authority by assigning bias (the notion that every source you use against the theory is biased/a part of the conspiracy) iii. Appeal to narrative coherence to overcome evidentiary gaps- (when you challenge them on a part where there is no evidence, they appeal to the overall story that they think makes sense) iv. Establish an ethos of victim for increased credibility (must say that you are the victim) v. Emphasize the emancipatory potential of truth (red pill v. blue pill) 4. Debating conspiracy theories a. Be knowledgeable on the relevant conspiracies- the person that commands the intellectual authority will always sound more persuasive. b. Refuse the initial premise- if they say the government lies, you have to say no they dont, the just have in the past. c. Outline the scope and size of the conspiracy- iz it really crazy? d. Shift the presumption against the conspiracy theory- dont allow them to indict the squo, you have to say in order for this to have occurred- so many people would have to be involved, so many people would still have to keep it quiet, you have to demonstrate that actual understanding isnt what we should prefer e. Make analogies to other outlandish conspiracy f. Argue from what you know! 5. Common theories this year a. Three broad categories- Even theories, Systemic conspiracies, SuperConspiracies b. Race of reptilian humanoid aliens who run the world c. Conspiracies about space and the ability to get there-

i. Moon landing was fake1. If you can win this premise it helps a lot of other conspiracy theories that are even weirder. 2. Bill Kaysing started this theory- We never went to the moon- a lot of different evidence that suggests that the moon landing was fake. a. No blast craters on the moon, not deep enough indentations, radiation in space would have fried the cameras, van allen belts prevent human beings from getting into space- regions of radioactivity in earth that are dangerous to human beings. b. Van-Allen claims that the moon landings are real 3. All of NASA is lying about the moon landing. 4. The Wikipedia page about the moon landing conspiracy is really good. ii. Flat earth- pretty obvious- the sun and the moon are about the same size ;) 1. The theory is kept quiet because it would screw everybody over iii. Time Cube- Jean Ray- got this file ;) 1. Tangent to that is that the earth is a cube, and there are streams of lava that separate it. d. Alien Conspiracies i. Government has physical evidence that the earth is being visited by extra-terrestrial beings 1. Governments of earth were in contact with aliens multiple times and then it becomes a mess of complex conspiracy theories 2. David Icke- Claims that a race of ancient astronauts came to earth (reptilians) and their descendants run our government and our societies, many prominent families around the world are reptiles (kennedys, rothchildes, british royal family, etc.)there is another race of Nordic Aliens that bred with humans and created a line of people known as aryans that have protected human society for awhile. a. Just a little anti-Semitic 3. The reptilians probably have founded the illuminati who control everything else. a. The reptilians eat people, they are here for monomolecular gold 4. Aliens also may keep us from leaving the earth. If the drake equation is true, Fermi paradox comes into play, the answer is that aliens are deliberately secluding the earth, we arent ready for alien contact ii. Golitsyn conspiracy1. KGB spy who defected to the west and wrote a bunch of booksclaimed that there was a conspiracy by the soviet government in which it would appear to allow the warsaw pact countries to become democratic and appear to reform the soviet-union itself, but in reality it is a deliberate deception to lull the west into complacency so we would dissolve and disband NATO. 2. Christopher Ruddy wrote about how the soviets are hoarding foods 3. Nyquist also writes about this

6. How to use conspiracy theories in debate a. The easiest way to win a debate is to create asymmetry between both sides with information. b. Build in an answer to not qualified arguments c. Conspiracy theories have an artificially high value in debate because of the way our community interprets evidence d. Culture jamming- criticize the way we debate i. Criticize the fact that mainstream media stuff is fake- or tlak about how most debates are stupid (as in, read irony). e. There are affirmatives that are based on these theories f. Have nasa demonstrate that there were alien landings, take photos of area 51 or other secret parts of the earth. 7. You could literally say that the reliance of the theory on scientific evidence is badthat science was manipulated as part of an anti-conspiracy 8. In CXa. Make sure to ask Do you defend that this theory is true or are you just running this as a way to parody debate? b. How can a government be so competent enough to fake X and kill people, but not kill people who are writing books about it?Is the government really invincible? c. Just go cut the caards about the argumentation of a conspiracy theory being bad d.

Impact Calculus- Callum

1. The impact is the most fundamental and normative part of the debate 2. Script the debate a. There is a hidden (unofficial) script in debate about how to evaluate risk i. 1% Logic- A 1% risk of X would be so catastrophic that any countermeasure was justified in response ii. How do you manipulate this consensus? b. Probability is the most significant impact 3. The mathematical calculus of risk in debates is just a shorthand way of organizing info that represents the process of finding the impact, but is not the process itself. 4. 3 Reasons why low risk logic is bada. It is paralyzing- we would have to do so many things and solve so many problems! It is impossible to evaluate 2 extremely low risks of extinction. b. Statistical Noise- low probability things can be discounted because at some point the relationship becomes so tenuous that the results cannot prove that there is a relationship- the expression of risk is overwhelmed by variables that we cannot account. 5. How to explain impact argumentsa. Make it lurid- people throw around phrases and they get desensitized to the horrible implications of stuff. Arguments lose their value to be leveraged against other impacts, you will also get better speaker points. i. Read fiction books about the events we talk about in debates (like The Road). The sheep look up, Lucifers hammer, The Stand. b. Make impact debates interact with each otheri. Nuclear war probably turns the case pretty effectively ii. We wouldnt be able to go to space because the atmosphere would have caught on fire iii. Make sure the scale is apparent- the space program would probably get cut after a nuclear war- the government might no longer exist and our technology and investment might just lack a little bit c. Impacts may turn totally unrelated impactsi. You can get away with assertions like war would cause disease in more circumstances d. Know your historyi. History is important in impact debates because it lends credibility to evidence and the speaker when that might otherwise be missing. ii. Reference events that have already occurred- we tend to overestimate events that have already occurred because they have already occurred. e. Make overviews usefuli. Get in the habit of explaining impacts in the overview-it gives the judge a reason to care about everything that follows. f. Rely on evidence as much as possiblei. They can call for your cards after a debate, but not analytics ii. Journal= Risk Analysis iii. Bostrom Global Catastrophic Risks g. Attributes of an impacti. Ethics- All Impacts have an applied ethical framework 1. Utilitarianism is the assumed ethic in most debates ii. Magnitude- Just the scale of the impact 1. May be even or work in favor of the aff on this topic

iii. Timeframe- the most important impact this year 1. The way to beat high magnitude impacts is that they probably occur in a long timeframe. 2. Timeframe controls what thing turns another thing- the impact that happens first has a chance of causing the longer term impact 3. The next nuclear war will also be the last one- we will probably all die 4. Timeframe matters- intervening actors a. There is, however, a possibility that there is no response because of political motives or delay b. The timeframe of effective response also matters- tipping point/brink arguments 5. It is also possible that we cant make accurate predictions beyond a few years. 6. (we thought we were running out of copper in the 70s and we would all die, but then fiber-optics were invented and we didnt need them (A book called The Experts Speak) 7. When you calculate timeframe there is an implied unit of timeyou imply a scale by which you evaluate- politicians think about time as in the time they will be in office but people think for space stuff we should alter the concept of what we think of is now. iv. Probability- Probability is overused- people confuse the probability of the impact and the probability of the link 1. Probability in the context of an impact is the likelihood that the worst case scenario will actually occur. 2. People often concede whole sections of an impact- you get away with 100% of an impact 3. If you drop an impact you can say the negative has never compared X with Y, so we are forced to do it in the 2AR.- use relative probability framing v. Systemic Effects1. Is happening now and will continue to kill people- the probability is 100% 2. The problem is, 1 shot impacts might cause systemic problems much greater than those of the aff. vi. Reversibility1. The chance that we could rebuild or recover vii. Existential Risk1. Extinction should contain every other impact because it is so huge. It isnt the number, it just changes the human species. 6. Nuclear War a. Most debate arguments assume that some war will break out, draw in outside powers, and escalate to nuclear war. b. To give perspective, there are 17 wars being fought right now- there have been 40 in the last 10 years. c. Mead 92- doesnt talk about how nuke war would lead to extinction- nuclear war- loads of earth crap would be blown into the atmosphere and cause nuclear winter. d. Photosynthesis could/would stop

e. Disease would spread, risk of radioactivity- damage the human genetic code- many people would die f. NUCLEAR WAR PROBABLY WOULDNT BE THAT BAD i. Atmospheric pixels were 100 miles wide, etc. ii. They also assumed arsenal sizes and yields that no longer exist iii. There is evidence that Russia no longer keeps any weapons on high alert iv. A full scale nuclear war would probably only affect weather in the northern-hemisphere and other stuff might not be highly affected. g. Some information i. 1KT= 1000 tons ii. 1MT= 1,000,000 tons iii. Accuracy of a nuclear weapon is expressed in Circular Error Probable- the area of a circle where there is a 68% chance that the weapon will fall within. iv. ICBMs= inter-continental ballistic missiles 7. Top 6 most important nuclear war contingencies a. North Korea- May have no nuclear weapons i. They have a large conventional army with a strategy based on the 1980s soviet strategy (put everything on the front)- Their weapons are probably too heavy to put on a missile. ii. War could kill a few million people- less than 1% of the world population- probably outweighed by 1% of the most common disadsnuclear war would be very one-sided b. Middle Easti. Israel has several hundred thermo-nuclear bombs- may even have a full triad ii. Iran is sort of failing at a nuclear program iii. Israel lacks strategic depth- there is not much space in Israel iv. Israel has a very offensive military strategy- and there is speculation that Israel has The Sampson Option v. It is hard to win that it would get that far because Israel would win the conventional stage c. India-Pakistani. Dense populations- nuclear war response capabilities are lacking ii. Very little warning- they share a border iii. Aftermath of war is the big concern here iv. Probably wouldnt cause human extinction d. US-China nuclear wari. Would be bad- Chinese weapons are big and loaded with a lot of radiation, they would aim for cities. ii. China may have 90 icbms, 1/3 of them are submarines iii. Chinese weapon reliability is kind of contested iv. The Chinese early warning system is pretty bad1. We could first strike them and they wouldnt even know for a few weeks e. Russia-China wari. TNWs- Russia has a lot of these- they consistently lie and cheat about arms control ii. All Chinese missiles can hit Russia and all Russian missiles can hit china iii. Things could get bad

f. US-Russia wari. Both countries have large arsenals on high alert ii. Minutes of warning time and fast responses iii. Probably wouldnt kill us all- we could probably destroy all their forces before they know us, they assume nuclear warheads get to targets when they add up extinction stuff.

Performance- Shackelford
1. The Principle a. It takes hard work to be able to win with performance b. Always answer an argument/prepare an argument as if you were debating it at its best 2. What is the different between performance and pretending a. Traditional debate is about pretending/hypothetical worlds b. Performance teams say that they arent pretending- they are presenting something that in and of itself solves a problem 3. Form Vs. Content a. In traditional debate all we care about is content b. The Form (the style) is extremely relevant in many performance debates as well as the content (form IS content) 4. Types of performance a. 1AC=silence- Could be a representation of how the oppressed voices are silent in the political sphere b. Poetry- poetic investigation good c. Hip Hop/Rap- music good d. Different Languages- oppression of minorities e. Show Films- could be used to interrogate stuff f. Genealogies/metaphors/narratives/counter-factuals- infinite list 5. Topic Unique performances for next yeara. Play with the concept of space and spatiality- how are spaces created and codified? b. Science Fiction- we dont really know much about space i. The book Space Traders c. The Overview effecti. Conceptualise the planet differently 6. Framework a. Can just try to win an objective interpretation, or can try to win a sneakier framework standard b. Reasonability is a way you ask the judge to prioritize arguments c. Framework isnt exclusion, it is about prioritizing arguments that are germane to the resolution because something will always be excluded d. What you have to think about in framework is Procedural Vs. Potential i. Procedural1. Was their approach topical/predictable/are limits good? Doesnt take a stance on the desirability of those for political change 2. Should=expectation of enacting the plan 3. Resolved implies policy 4. Could paint the aff as anti-topical- that the aff is a negative argument that destroys the topic 5. A lot of teams, however, will read the resolution- the problem is that they are mostly extra-topical because 99% of the reason you vote aff isnt to affirm the resolution. They also may be effects T. ii. Relations to topics could be infinite- just talking about space isnt enough! iii. Predictability- even if you have a lot to say, you arent prepared because the majority of literature doesnt speak to that- there are hundreds of thousands of interpretations of the topic.

iv. Limits- You can explore stuff anywhere, there are infinite advocacies that hurt your ability to debate v. Ground- Performance teams will give you a list of groun d, but you can make arguments about how the ground you had was not desirable/equitable in some way. vi. All reasons get at the question of competitive equity or fairness and are all debates of the desirability of policies 1. Debate is more than a policymaker training ground, it cultivates certain characteristics/skills that can have an effect on the real world 2. Ideally we should create a debate format that maximizes the possibility of having political effectiveness in real life 3. Education can probably outweigh fairness 4. Critical thinking skills/position taking- how might your interpretation incentivize real skills? 5. We cede that political space to other people otherwise 6. Switching sides is a good productive skill a. Key to prevent stuff like group think e. What does your framework shell look like? i. Interpretation- the debate should be about the hypothetical enactment of the resolution 1. Instrumentally affirming the topic 2. Dont craft a bad interp- it should be clear, firm, and obvious what you are getting at f. Preeminence- How to get better/take it to the next leveli. Predictability1. Pre-round strategy/preparation is where we actually develop our opinions, do critical thinking, and other stuff 2. Pre-round is when we deliberate and focus on our arguments a. We can change based on our research and other stuff 3. We may change our mindset, but we dont know the reasons why- we dont have good reasons ii. Limits1. We need to have a stable topic to debate on a. Maybe it isnt fair because you wont get in-depth education b. Having limits and trying to create something unique is better for value to life- it is easy to have a personal connection to the topic- While it may seem that their stuff is creative, it really isnt. Find ways to be creative within those rules. iii. Phrases to use1. Our interpretation solves their offense 2. They should make their critical methods reasons to prove the desirability of a plan! 3. Framework is a-priori- their project comes second to the resolutiona. The aff has to win a we-meet before they can impact turn the framework- their plan is a secondary question to whether or not they actually did the things they are criticizing, you dont get to criticize the rules unless you play the game.

4. What if they win that they are fair? a. Everything is a framework argumenti. We need a shared understanding of what the judge is voting on, we know how to win and compare stuff. ii. Having no stable shared way of discovering who wins makes debate less productive and fair because the aff can change the goalpost at any point. b. Deal with the fact that education is inevitablei. The question isnt about the amount of education, but the type of education. g. Problems/Mistakesi. Half-assed framework attempts- (Kind of reading framework but with a bunch of other stuff) 1. Or just not going for framework ii. Attempting to copy part of what they did and going for the CP or the K1. You implicitly agree to the legitimacy and desirability of their argument iii. Just taking what is given to you1. Take reciprocal ground- fair ground is impossible, reciprocal ground is inevitable. If they do something nuts and crazy, you have the ability to be crazy back. iv. Dont get angry, but dont be too respectfulv. Dont use fiat language- dont make debate about fiat even if they do 1. Fiat is a loaded term and it is easy to critique- because it creates a false dichotomy where you are the team that actually thinks that voting aff is actually going to cause the plan vi. Dont be over-confident1. Cover your bases and assume the worst- highlight the specific in-debate abuse when you go for framework or explicitly concede we meet or arguments they made on the framework that prove that they have to stably create the aff. vii. Dont forget to ask if the plan is the only reason to vote affirmative 7. How do we debate framework on the aff? a. You can come up with any form of performance to negate what we did, it doesnt answer any questions b. The negative has the added burden to exclude you when you are aff c. The aff sets up a specific set of conditions for why you should vote aff- can talk about how you are predictabled. Aff choice! e. Defend role playing! f. Should defend the specifics of policy focus, dont just generically defend it g. All kritiks are about a prior question- first you must defend your knowledge production method h. We should weigh our decisions under specific frameworks i. Should you read framework in the 1AC? i. It gets your arguments out quicker and gets you to flush them out easier later in the debate ii.

Persuasion- Nick Miller

1. Debate is more than just arguments a. What makes a speech good? i. You dont just hear the speech, you feel it. b. Persuasion can pervert rationality c. There is substantially more to persuasion than having the best cards and arguments d. Persuasion is not just what you say, it is how you say it e. Judges often simply miss things, you need more than smart arguments to win a debate 2. What does a good speech do? a. It makes the audience well disposed toward yourself and ill disposed toward your opponent i. If you are more likeable you are more likely to win more debates ii. If you are well liked and people know you to be a hard worker, the crowd will be disposed to you iii. If you are an ass, people wont like you b. Magnifies or minimizes the leading factsi. Impact calculus is very important c. It excites the required kind of emotion in your peers i. Covered in Jareds pathos lecture ii. Pay attention to the required kind of emotion d. It refreshes their memories by means of recapitulation i. Give overviews- makes impacts sound better and more logical 3. Persuasion [Rhetorical] techniques a. Clarity comes before everything i. Judges may misunderstand other stuff ii. Nothing else matters nearly as much iii. The judge will check out- if you make no effort to engage the judge they will get bored and stop trying iv. You lose any possible benefits of persuasion- speed is antithetical to persuasion v. Speed= words UNDERSTOOD per minute/ arguments flowed and understood by the judge per minute vi. All of your judges agree that you arent clear enough vii. This does not mean go slow, just that clarity should be your primary objective b. Techniquei. Dont just read cards, speak cards ii. The human brain requires inflection to understand stuff iii. The judge would understand your evidence while you read it and may favor it at the end of the debate iv. The judge continues to pay attention v. Magically your speaker points increase vi. Look ahead as you are reading- look forward in your evidence vii. Cures double-breathing c. You need eye contact i. Look up when you speak always ii. Judges react to arguments d. Understand and use the advantages of primacy and recency

i. Try to get out your arguments first and make the last argument the best. ii. Dont put your best arguments in the middle of your speech! e. Name your arguments i. It is harder to kill/ignore stuff with a name ii. Key to flowability iii. Understandability 1. Limits the amount of things you can say next f. Be consistent with your argument names/explanationsi. You and your partner should use the same names and tags for your arguments g. Swagger/Confidencei. You have to be confident/appear confident in your arguments, but not to the point of jackassery ii. If you seem baffled or intimidated, the judge will probably think you are losing h. Volumei. Be loud i. Rhythmi. There is a music to a good speech, it flows nicely and isnt boring and languid. j. You are on stage and an actor, you should play a role i. Judges like characters ii. Build a debate persona built around what you do best iii. Your role changes from debate to debate 1. Need to excite different kinds of emotion in different speeches and debates iv. You need to have moments- when you slow down and connect with the judge to amp up the persuasion on essential issues. v. We dont pay enough attention to the public speaking aspects of debate k. Seem responsive i. Make your arguments phrased to be as responsive as possible to the oppositions arguments ii. Always try to reverse the tag of the opposing sides best argument iii. Even if statements are magical iv. Be positive- frame your arguments positively as opposed to negatively l. KISS- keep it simple stupid i. Things that are easier to understand seem truer ii. Go for less iii. Phrase your impact calculus as simply as possible m. Details are goodi. You want the basic argument to be simple, but specific details to support it n. Stand up and get out from behind your computeri. Speakers who stand are more persuasive ii. Clarity and presence matter o. Non-verbals i. You can speak without speaking- eye contact is part of this ii. Hand gestures increase the power of an argument iii. Body language matters, go up with some like inviting language or aggressive stuff

p. q. r.

s. t. u.

iv. Nonverbal communication can be both good and bad Omit needless words i. Good writing does not include useless fluff phrases Kill the passive voice i. Dont use non-active verbs Use some flowery languagei. Add detail to stuff with literary techniques that are also great public speaking techniques ii. Use metaphors and figurative language the ship is sinking, and the negative is just re-arranging deck chairs iii. Use parallel structures- Repeat a key phrase iv. Rhetorical questions- raise multiple questions and then answer them by reasoning aloud v. Antithesis- A figure of balance in which 2 contrasting ideas are used back to back its not try or die, its try and die vi. Allusion- reference famous stuff vii. Correctio- Qualify a statement by recalling it in a better, milder, or stronger way their impact is nothing but an ambiguous oppression claim Jokes i. Humor is useful- makes the judge like you more ii. Make jokes if you are funny Smile i. If you smile occasionally it might be good ii. Dont smile all the time, its fucking creepy Record yourself and watch it i. Watch it and flow it, you might get very frustrated with yourself

Debating New Affs- Levcovitz

1. When to break a new aff a. Have a realistic assessment of where you are at skill wise, if the team you are debating is significantly better than you, you shouldnt break a new affirmative in that spot b. The best way to maximize your expected value is to make the debate about the issues that you want to debate about c. If you are an affirmative team that works hard, you should be better prepared to debate your affirmative than the other team d. You will hear a group of generics that will just be thrown at you 2. So what if you have decided to break a new aff? a. There are 2 types of new affirmativesi. The One and Done Affirmative (The MSU aff)- Cant hold up to 90 minutes of research, just designed to catch the team off guard ii. Long-term sustainable affirmative- more than 2 weeks worth of research- then you will know everything that can be said on it b. When you do research you should keep a word document open with new aff ideas and new aff cards 3. A failure to prepare is preparing for failure a. Have a grid and know which teams you want to break certain affs against b. Should be ready very early with this affirmative c. A new aff cannot be new to you- needs to be finished at least a week if not 2 in advance 4. The 1AC itself a. Put the plan text at the end of the 1AC b. Set 2 Timers, 1 to 7:40 and one to 8- at 7:40 you should read the plan regardless of where you are in the 1AC c. Check the plan for vague and dumb spelling mistakes- think of possible word pics and other stuff. d. Time the 1AC- know how long it will take e. Practice the CX- be able to answer any arguments about the affirmative i. At no point should the 1A have to defer to the 2A to answer any questions- script and prepare cx 5. The 2ACa. You must give multiple practice 2ACs- like 10 minimum b. Try and answer an array of 1NCs c. Answer predictable generic 1NCs and tricky ones d. Answer the HUGE 1NC as well- like 8-10 off e. Have answers to generic cps and say yes and say no arguments related to specific countries i. Your evidence can be really crappy, just slightly better than generic f. Have tricks against common disads- like senator specific link-turns g. The 2AC should convey to the 1AR key arguments that need to be said 6. Make the block hard to give a. Add-Ons that are not risky should be read b. Put them in places that make them deal with stuff c. Theory does not change with a new affirmative- it doesnt give them the ability to do whatever they want against you i. Just because you have done a lot of research doesnt mean they get to go ape shit on you- can still guarantee a win on the rope-a-dope ii. Dont lose on new affs bad

1. They are good for researching the topic and topic-specific education 7. Be experts on the aff, but if you cant, fake it! a. Pretend like you know what you are talking about! b. Is the judge/panel conducive to a new aff? c. Have a K aff in your arsenal @ all times! DEBATING AGAINST NEW AFFIRMATIVES 1. You need to know what you have a. You no longer have to put files in a tub/index folder- this means you have to do a ton of back-logged work b. Look through every file that you possess c. Look for stuff that is in all of your files so that you can answer new stuff, and you need to know what could be used to apply to a new aff d. You dont want to hear afterward that you had answers e. You need to know every single impact turn file that you have f. Have a list of all of the advantage counterplans that you have g. You could create a word document with all of your impact turns, would probably solve a lot of your problems h. Make sure you have a DA turns the case file i. Focus on having an array of arguments that you can say against good affirmatives 2. Things to think about a. Condition Counterplans- what could you condition the aff on? b. Process counterplans- obvious c. Have a new disad that hasnt been read before that may be a new topic generic DA d. Think about Genres of affirmatives that people can break e. Look @ the college wiki and what people read there and ask yourself how it might apply to this topic f. Throw out a lot of shit and see what sticks g. Lol cut the lopez CP 3. Topicalitya. Risky to go for T, but be willing to go for it if the aff isnt topical 4. Look for any edge that you can geta. If they read laundry-list impact cards turn the different stuff inside it b. Make their life more difficult than they wanted it to be 5. Prep timea. Prep during the 1AC- nobody flows the 1AC b. If the 2NC guzzles prep time, the 2NR is like impossible c. Utilize the 1NR in order to maximize the amount of prep time that you can get d. Dont take 5 minutes of 2NC prep e. Have the 1NR write out stuff or explain warrants for pieces of evidence that you can make in the 2NR f. Open up your versatility because the generic options will not always cut it 6. Be smart about why internal links are dumb a. Dont rely on just impact defense, also look at their internal links, they are probably awful

Different types of launch vehicles:

Space- Jareds Bro

Plane launch- Could drop off high and launch from anywhere in the world Trojan asteroid orbits are determined by Jupiter For orbits, getting to the altitude is not the challenge, what is difficult is getting into orbit The majority of velocity is going sideways in order to get into orbit Where would you want to put a space asset?- very little debris in a van-allen belt ;) Only 5 spacecrafts right now on interstellar trajectories (Pioneers, Voyagers, and New Horizons) Rules are that you must get it out of space at some point by things such as crashing back into earth. 133 successful space shuttle launches in history

Argumentation 101- Sarah Topp

1. Steven Toulmina. Founded contemporary argument theory b. Explained how we all should/do make arguments. 2. Two Triadsa. The Primary Triad (Building Blocks) i. Claim 1. A position on an issue that you want the judge to accept 2. Comes in 3 types a. Fact i. Contestable factual claims b. Value i. Impact Calc/Framework debates c. Policy ii. Data 1. Your evidence that establishes the basis of your argument iii. Warrant 1. Establishes the logical connection between claim and data. It is the reasoning behind the process used 2. Makes the logical connection that fills in the reasoning so that the judge can understand 3. 3 Types a. Substantive i. An actual explanation of your reasoning b. Authoritative i. The qualifications of the person making the argument c. Motivational i. Warrants that rely on values that the judge holds b. Secondary Triad i. Cosmetic parts of an argument that strengthen them ii. Backing 1. The supporting material for the warrant of the argument that helps the audience understand the reasoning of a warrant iii. Qualifier 1. Assesses the relative strength of the claim, indicates the strength of the leap from data to the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies iv. Reservation 1. A possible exception to your claim 3. Enthymemes a. Arguments that rely on shared understanding between the speaker and the audience b. The audience/judge is expected to fill in the reasoning c. Generally omits the warrant or premise/data d. Doesnt work if there is not a shared understanding e. You should argue like this when you can because it makes you more efficient f. Everybody argues enthymemetically all of the time 4. Fallacies

a. Incorrect or flawed reasoning where the claim or the conclusion doesnt follow directly from the premise or the evidence b. Ad Hominem- attacking the person and not the argument c. An appeal to authority- reliant on illegitimate authority to prove a claim d. Appeal to belief- Assumes that because many people believe something to be true it must be true. e. Burden of proof fallacy- burden of proof is placed on the wrong side of an argument f. Confusing cause and effect- every time Im ill I have a fever, so the fever must be making me sick g. Post Hoc- After this therefore because of this h. Straw Person- persons actual position is ignored and an exaggerated position is substituted and attacked

Conditionality- Atchison
1. Debaters are horrible at theorya. Your judges have taught you recently that it is not worth it to go for theory b. Most debaters operate within the framework of if it is relevant to the aff, the aff should be prepared to debate it 2. The short definition of conditionality a. Formal Logic i. Debate has borrowed the term conditional from logic, an if then statement ii. What became controversial is the application of that logic to cps and kritiks b. Definition i. The negative always has the right to revert to the status quo as an option for comparison to the plan 3. The evolution of conditionality debates a. If you understand debate history you will win theory debates b. Policymaking Vs. Hypotesting i. (See the perms lecture with jared) c. Debaters liked conditionality, so they took it from hypo-testing and brought it into the policymaking framework d. Conditionality specifically i. If you believe in policy-making, then the counterplan is a reason to reject the plan 4. Traditional arguments against conditionality a. Bad for the game i. 2AC doesnt get to read his/her best offense- kills the most important affirmative speech- the plan used to be read in the 2AC- the 1AC just got to present the harms, the 1NC denied the harms, the 2AC presented the plan, and the 2NC presented disadvantages to the plan ii. Strategy Skew (NOT TIME SKEW)- we dont know what they will go for until the 2NR iii. They can Rope-A-Dope you- see permutations lecture iv. The logical outcome of conditionality- the 1NC is 11 off with 5 counterplans and 2 kritiks (like the final round of the NDT between Kansas and Wake Forest) b. Education i. We dont get in-depth education- Conditionality rewards the less clash in debate and wrecks the net educational experience for everyone in the room ii. You just throw shit against a wall and see what sticks- articulate why contradictions are bad for the education that we get iii. Argument interaction is a unique educational benefit we get from debate- the 2NR is like its okay, we will pick one after you have lost all chances at offense and your partner undercovered it in the 1ARkills education iv. Policymaking education- As a policymaker it is difficult to know if you have a good or bad option if it hasnt been defended to its fullest- A policymaker cant do good policymaking if there was never a rigorous defense of the policies that they are choosing between c. Skills

i. Discourages researching disads to counterplans if they are just going to kick it if you beat it- the time investment is useless- people just try and read add-ons that the CP doesnt solve ii. Debate doesnt just teach you how to beat your opponent, but it teaches you what arguments you can concede. The negative doesnt even have to concede stuff, they can just not go to it anymore 1. You need the ability to say Im wrong here, but Im still right overall- that skill is unique to debate and it is lost in the world of conditionality iii. The basics of advocacy- You learn the ability to argue consistently in depth with rigor for a position- conditionality allows you to say I have 4 contradictory thoughts on this position, I hope that if you listen for the rest of the debate I will have picked one. 5. Why is conditionality good? a. The Game i. Negative Flexability- The aff picks their case and speaks first and last ii. Key to debating new affs/unpredictable add-ons b. The Education i. You get to test the policy from multiple perspectives- results in netbetter education 1. Although cumulative series of debates probably solve this ii. Shallow discussions on multiple arguments are better than in-depth debates on bad ones iii. The rational policymaker- the education of opportunity cost outweighs c. The Skills i. Promotes Critical Thinking ii. Makes 2ACs better 1. Gotta chose their best arguments iii. Promotes efficient thinking 6. Multiple conditional options a. We have passed the rubicon, there are legitimately multiple conditional options b. Why are multiple conditional options different for the game? i. The Rope-a-dope ii. Worse forms of bad research iii. Even more neg flex/ we should get to test the policy from multiple perspectives iv. Even more efficient 2ACs 7. How do you win a debate on conditionality? a. Change the way you execute theory i. Treat it like a war- you have to get upset/angry- 2AC needs vocal inflection, the 1AR must be upset, and the 2AR must be indignant ii. If it is the first sheet of paper and why you need to DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND, then you have a shot b. Treat the negative like a 2 year old that has abused their freedom i. We gave you a little neg flex, but then you said we could handle 2 ice cream cones at once, you cant, it is just making a sticky nasty mess of this debate! c. Out-Execute your opponenti. You are asking the judge to pick a winner or loser based on a question posed to the entire debate community

ii. Push the evolution in each of these 3 values- if you say perms check you are agreeing that the other team gets to advocate a permutation. iii. Pre-round condo is probably just uncondo under the guise of preround iv. Could debate reciprocity rather than voting issues

Stupidity- Bricker
1. Wipeout a. Humans are going to develop technology that will either hurt the universe, aliens, or environment in the future, therefore we should all die now b. ANSWERS: i. Humanity is singular- No aliens/Extra-Terrestrial beings ii. Humans are technologically progressive and peaceful 1. Mutually assured destruction prevents us from killing everyone 2. The worst parts wont have a mind of their own so they cant kill us all 3. Greg Easterbrook iii. Humans k2 save the universe/life 1. Only humanity can develop a civilization that can depart our universe, because the sun will explode in a few billion years iv. Intrinsicness test the argument1. Wipeout people have no ethos, so you can probably pwn this down v. Human evolution1. Humanity will eventually re-evolve and will re-create all other terrible stuff in the future- so humanity is inevitable so we shouldnt sacrifice everybody else now 2. Spark a. We should have a limited nuclear war now to prevent a larger nuclear war in the future b. ANSWERS: i. Do not associate spark with arguments like war with X good ii. Defend nuclear winter theory (Tune 7 card) iii. Limited nuclear war will cause extinction iv. Win that a limited nuclear war is not possible- will escalate quickly v. Nuclear war includes bio-weapons which lead to extinction/would trigger something else that does cause extinction vi. WWII denies the mindset shift argument- not only did we fire-bomb almost every major Japanese city and drop nukes on them- the fact that war is still thinkable denies the disad 1. Genocides happen, we were all like never again and then more genocides happened vii. Caldwell is racist- he says we should start a nuclear war with countries in Africa because they are our least productive countries and are already diseased anyway 3. Malthus a. We should kill off a large portion of the population so we save us all from overpopulation and a resource crunch that leads to everybody dying b. Answers to dedev/opop probably outweigh c. ANSWERS i. (Julian Simon)- under-population bad 1. The more people we have the more likely we are to have another Einstein 2. The baby genius theory ii. He is pretty racist iii. A lot of things have denied Malthus-

4.

5.

6.

7.

1. He predicted that we would run out of fossil fuels much quicker than we did iv. Space probably uniquely beats this- infinite resources! v. No transition/Growth inevitable- we shouldnt risk millions of lives because we will just be put back in this place in 50 years- the theory is self-replicating vi. Win extinction- you beat Malthus d. Rights Malthus- we shouldnt give people rights because the more liberal a society, the more environmentally destructive it is Counterfactuals a. Should is the past tense of shall- should is a definitive claim that refers to past, present, and future- it does not have a temporal nature b. This means that the resolution is that the US should do X at all times c. Something in the past created the problems that exist in the status-quo d. ANSWERSi. Have an answer to Should is the past tense of shall- probably no longer the case- a criticism of their whole topicality argument ii. Have a definition of Should that demands future action iii. Find other words in the resolution that demand temporality (future action) iv. We dont need counterfactuals to evaluate history 1. You can still look at the past to understand how you should act in the future2. Their understanding is probably worse because they just deny history and wonder if they could have changed it v. Your topic disads will still link- it just gets rid of politics and spending Timecube a. The earth is a cube with 4 sides, it rotates around the sun 4 times in 1 dayour modern conception of a day is 4 days and everything we know about physics is incorrect- the aff impacts assume a modern world of physics that we dont know b. ANSWERSi. He is a racist, schizophrenic nut- he said that desegregation is bad ii. PC magazine gave him the #1 nuttiest website award iii. Win that modern conceptions of physics are possibly correct- if a nuclear weapon blows up, bad things will happen Ashtar a. There is an alien god that controls and has made himself known to parts of an elitist humanity- part of the draco-orion myth- (good and bad aliens) b. We should have a nuclear war occur so ashtar will come down and save us all c. Consult ashtar is also run ;) d. ANSWERS: i. Non-Falsifiability ii. Aff impacts still true iii. You can just make shit up too, be like yeah, I consulted ashtar before writing the 1AC, He said it was all good iv. Probably justifies all mass-attrocities- see the holocaust/heroshima/etc. Plagarism a. The 1AC reads the 1AC- and then the 1NC reads the 1AC but inserting their own names

b. We shouldnt rely on other people to prove our arguments for us c. The idea of property rights should be problematized/ruptured d. ANSWERSi. Allow the aff to say Capitalism good ii. Cut indicts to plagiarism iii. If you can steal their language you can steal their ideas, life, etc. (slippery slope) iv. Say that stealing is bad 8. Gregorian Calendar a. The Christian Calendar implemented by pope Julius was the justification for religious persecution and religious imperialism b. ANSWERSi. Talk about how linear time is good ii. This is just stupid- just a correlation, not a causation 9. Normativity a. Roleplaying as if we can solve a problem makes the impacts of the aff more likely and/or makes us less likely to actually do something b. ANSWERSi. Probably cedes the political discussion to the elites/ stuff gets coopted ii. Win that debate education is good 1. Current political stuff- only through debate can we evolve our knowledge iii. Have examples about how debate has made you a better person 10. Format PICsa. The way the plan is worded/visualized/or said is bad b. ANSWERS: i. Theory ii. Yeah, thats it- you are guaranteed to win- laziness and topic specific education iii. Lol defend the plan as written isnt necessarily the plan as seen or defended 11. Specification argumentsa. Ontology spec, or Hilighter Spec, etc. b. Treat them like any other spec argument- resolution is focus, not a reason to reject the team, etc. c. Infinitely regressive, etc. All of these arguments are most effectively countered by not getting flustered and retaining your ethos

Astropolitik- Everett Dolman

1. Strategy and operational art a. Dolman is a space theorist, not an engineer- the theorist defines the aim for the operational side of the war that will be in accord with its political purpose. b. What is the strategic purpose of war? i. We fight war for a better state of peace (a very subjective answer) ii. We fight wars to win them c. What is the purpose of military power? i. To be prepared and when called upon by the legitimate governing authority, to maximize violence within the constraints placed upon it d. What is the purpose of Land, Sea, Air, or Space Power? i. Each of these requires a separate unique strategy that must fit within the grand strategy ii. Can a medium be controlled from an outside medium? iii. This kind of control is the ability to dominate the medium 2. The end of Victory a. The goal of victory is to achieve an end state b. The culmination of events in the battle space is not helpful in the relations between states c. We never lost a battle in Vietnam, but we still lost the war d. No political dispute is a strategic goal (Continuation is the purpose of strategy, elimination would be the culmination in the eyes of a tactician) 3. Pure Strategy a. Theory allows us to come up with a model that says if we have considered all of the variables, what would the world be like? b. The problem is, there are variables that we cant count c. All we have is theory in the world of a nuclear war- all we can do is imagine possibilities 4. Lao Tsus Jar a. The tactical contest is defined by its conditions and boundaries b. Utility and value are very different. The tactician is utility focused, but the strategist is value-focused. c. For a jar, it is the hole described by the clay that is its purpose. Thus, utility derives from whatever there is, but value comes from whatever there is not. i. Value is all in the imagination 5. Purpose of military power a. See Callums Heg lecture b. Realism V. Idealism i. They are both assumptions that have different connotations to each person and are ultimately meaningless c. To win wars is not a good military goal, the better goal is to control the outcome and to be ready and prepared d. There is a difference between countries preventing access to space through contestation (like ASATS), but it is much harder to control space 6. The Importance of Space Strategy a. No nation relies on space for its economic security and well being more than the united states b. The US economy would collapse, our military would have to return to a defensive posture c. Space must be protected, the only question is how you best protect it

d. Weapons alone probably cant protect space 7. Some people say war in space cannot be done a. The technology is available today to dominate space if a nation is willing to spend the resources to do so 8. Should it be done? a. Can the united states afford to be the second state to weaponized space? b. Would a state that weaponizes space first have such an advantage that they could prevent other states from joining them? c. Because of the geographic terrain of outer space, they probably would be able to block access to all others d. Most anti-weaponization people are in the anti-nuke debate- they had to do something after the cold war ended, so they migrated toward weapons in space so that they would still have jobs e. How would you feel if the Chinese decided to dominate space? i. That would upset us, but the theory of hegemonic stability means that every period of prosperity has been accompanied by a dominant liberal hegemon- it appears that a hegemon is necessary 9. What is Astropolitik? a. A harsh realist view of outer space as a political, economic, and military arena of interstate competition b. Idealism- space shall not be weaponized c. Collectivism- space is the common heritage of all mankind d. Realism- space is a potential base for great power e. The outer space treaty says nobody who goes to space is entitled to the wealth they find there- stifled competitive desires and ruined our chances of going to space f. The state that fails to grow ultimately withers and dies 10. Just remember- we arent dominating people because we think they are better than them a. We are a collective of people from all over the world b. We just celebrate the belief that all people deserve to participate in politics, etc. which as proven to be the most successful political system. 11. Contestation v. Control a. Contestation is astrostrategy, it is what china and the US are doing with their ASATS 12.Tenets of Astropolitik a. Classic geopolitics provided the most enduring realist explanations for change in the international system i. Many classical geopolitical theories prove readily adaptable to the realism of outer space ii. These theories, adapted for sea, rail, air, and missile power, can be viewed as segments of an evolutionary process, space power is their logical and apparent heir iii. The special terrain of outer space dictates the tactics that we should use when getting there 13.Astrostrategy a. He who controls low earth orbit controls near-earth space, he who controls near earth space controls all of space 14.To control space means to control the world a. Space is different in terms of military dominance because it is a gravity well, there is nobody who can sneak attack you 15.Is a war in space likely?

a. It is a real threat, the Chinese have been making more and more provocative statements about space and space war- they plan to colonize the moon by 2020 16.Any kind of china war will be fought over spacea. Geopolitically there is no reason for the US and China to go to war Unless it is over space b. We cant physically invade china, they cant invade us Unless we use space power c. There is only one place where we have completely incompatible goals- that is space 17. Space gives governments legitimacy a. Even if people are oppressed, they will still feel nationalism when faced with some large scale accomplishments by the government b. The next engagement will be down towards the earth- space war can happen without us knowing- it would be machines vs. machines- space systems would no longer be working and we wouldnt know why c. Even if it is the fact that if you plan for war you get it, it is worse if you dont plan for war and you lose it 18.The Moral deficit a. War in space is beter than war here on earth- if the Chinese attacked our satellites we would have a hard time knowing- bombing a country is a ridiculous response and completely immoral b. Weapons in space probably dont lead to nuclear war 19.Space BMD a. The only viable option- the idea that the only defense that is viable would be completely vulnerable would be bad IF WE DONT WEAPONIZE SPACE WE WILL SEE AN ARMS RACE- OTHER COUNTRIES DO WANT TO WEAPONIZE SPACE, AND WE WILL JUST BE TRYING TO CATCH UP.

Debating and Researching Politics

1. Politics 101 a. What do we mean when we say politics? i. Deals with the political status quo as well as electoral politics b. Why is contemporary debate so concerned about politics? i. Politics has dominated all of debate c. What types of politics are there? i. A type of bill getting passed ii. Elections Disads 2. Terms you should Know a. Top of the docket= what issues are first on the legislative calendar b. Political capital= the measure of a politicians influence with other politicians c. Presidential leadership= the presidents exertion of pressure/influence to prioritize a particular agenda item d. Horse-trading/Arm-twisting= negotiating in order to secure ones priority e. Concessoins/Olive branch/compromise= supporting particular policies with the hopes of gaining the support from other groups or individuals f. Approval rating/job approval= a statistical measure of the presidents popular support g. Electoral votes/count= a projection of candidates political standing in the presidential race h. Battleground states= states that carry tremendous weight in elections i. Lobbies= groups of individuals who have strong legislative preferences and who also have significant political influence 3. Agenda Politics a. Obama Good b. Obama Bad 4. Should research using Google News or Lexis Nexis 5. What to do a. Need to identify the most salient political issue b. Be aware of electoral trends to identify whether to run elections c. Let the literature guide your politics scenario 6. Tips a. Start at least one week in advance, check websites daily- prioritize having at least 2 politics scenarios b. Prioritize aff answers- have generic evidence going both ways c. Do the vast majority of research on the Thursday before a tournament d. Do updates at each tournament e. Find out what scenarios are being run at the tournament 7. When you are negative a. Read a ton of evidence b. Know as much as you can about your scenario c. Choose a strategic/strong/logical politics scenario with a big impact/impact diversity. d. Have theory blocks and know how to answer aff theory args 8. Debating politics on the aff a. Read evidence, lots of evidence b. You must have offense, Link turns, impact turns, etc. c. Interrogate the internal link, it is always the weakest part of the disad d. Attack every aspect of the scenario in the 1NC

e. Utilize theory, but be willing to defend it f. Defend the aff- outweigh the disad!

Constructing your 1AC- Foley

1. The Tone of the 1AC is something that a judge will notice- if you have a poorly structured 1AC, that will turn a judge off 2. The 1AC is a complication of the most qualified pieces of evidence from your side of the literature 3. Be constantly updating your 1AC- never go to a tournament with the same 1AC 4. The judge wont write down every tag in your 1AC 5. Have a 2 word specific phrase do delineate your impacts 6. Pre-Empt the best warrants of common negative arguments 7. Set up 2AC add-ons to put pressure on the block without taking time out of your 2AC 8. At the end of the 2AR you only need one impact to win the debate 9. Have just like 2 advantages that are really deep and big on the impact/internal link level 10. Dont lazily construct your 1AC- make sure there is no redundancy 11. Read your most qualified evidence/read the qualifications in the 1AC 12.Dont have inconsistent impact alanlysis- have risk calculus set up 13.Maybe just throw in impact cards without internal links- then they will waste their time turning them and you can just be like haha, we dont solve this! 14.Plan Text/Advantages a. You should have a ton of modular advantages to your aff b. Part of constructing the 1AC may not be what you want in your 1AC, but deciding what advantages to put in and what plan texts to read c. The decision to read a new plan text (Like a small functional change) is kind of sneaky and a no cost option

Team Leadership Rubai & Sheila

1. Why does team leadership matter? a. There is a major deficit of leadership in todays debate community- there is a much larger focus on the individual i. Narcissism defeats empathy b. Legacy/Contributioni. Debate communities remember people who stood out, were nice, and were like a breath of fresh air in a very stagnant debate. ii. Great debate leaders leave a lasting impact on the community by being good debate citizens- you can try to build up and maintain your own team c. Successi. Teams that get along better tend to succeed more ii. People work longer and harder for people that they care about d. Funi. There should be lots of fun in functional teams- they give us VTL ii. Functional teams look and act like a team- they work together and remain a cohesive unit at the end of the day- when they win it is more enjoyable for the end of the day because you all feel invested in the win e. College/Graduate Schooli. Debate coaches will write you a letter of recommendation f. Life after debatei. Currently you sort of eat, sleep, and breathe debate- Not all of us will go on to be professional debaters, but all of us will go on to be a professional in some field ii. Technology leads to the displacement of jobs- the human component is fading away 2. Ways that you can demonstrate and practice good leadershipa. Recruitment and Retention i. Debate leaders should care deeply about recruitment and retentionwill sell debate to any poor soul who would listen ii. Recruitment is crucial to the long term success of the team iii. Elevate the middle- focus on helping out people in the middle and keep them on your team and move them toward the top1. Recognize the contributions of those team members 2. Give them more of your time and attention when they ask for help 3. Put in a good word for them with your coaches b. The Importance of being patient and sensitive to the needs of the other people on your team i. Be patient with other members of your team, debate breakthroughs come pretty rapidly c. Role Model i. Debate leaders present a consistently positive image of their team, school, and activity in general ii. When you are more successful, people inevitably look up to you d. Assign tasks realisticallyi. Create a larger work product than the people that came before ii. Guide the research of your team- how much time will you/can you spend on debate?

iii. How much time are other people on your team willing to spend on research? iv. How much can your team realistically accomplish given those time constraints? e. Be good to your coachesi. Think of your coaches as the generals of your team ii. Most of them are tired and exhausted because of your teammates iii. Dont say anything mean about your coaches f. Build a team model, not an individual modeli. Teams like Michigan and Northwestern build their entire teams on a team model, that is why they win debates ii. Know about yourself and what you need/what the team is and what the team needs iii. Who decides what needs to be done? g. Be Reliable i. Debate teams are a small-medium sized companies- the only reason that you are still in business is because you actually like each other ii. You dont need to lead by force, power, or fear, you should lead by example h. No Drama i. Every team has their problems, but not every team has drama. Dont keep talking/dwelling upon problems ii. Coaches are excellent at defusing drama i. Check your ego at the door i. Egotistical people dont succeed very often. ii. No matter how successful you become, humility helps you keep growing that sometimes starts to wane when you finally reach the top j. We are all special i. Coaches do like their debate leaders more, but you shouldnt think that you are better than anyone ii. You shouldnt get your way on everything within your team iii. Fake leaders abound in debate- they put themselves at the center of decision making k. Persist i. Even in times of great adversity ii. Persistence is the only way to win iii. Leaders reveal themselves when times are bad, not when they are good 3. Profiles in debate leadership a. Debate has several different kinds of leaders i. Sarah Stevens1. Contagious love for the game, no ego, and an unstoppable work ethic ii. Michelle Drake1. Strong leader for women in debate iii. Great leaders arent born, they are made iv. Martin Osborne 1. Only person to be top speaker at CEDAW and the NDT in the same year 2. Scrappy when he got to college 3. His love for the game and persistence was the trait that he displayed over and over and over again.

4. Not loud or commanding, and especially selfless v. Dtay & Ellis 1. You dont win the TOC twice without a lot of soft power vi. Lab leaders do talk to each other throughout the season 1. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer

1. Key termsa. AGW- Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis i. The idea that the earth is warming, it is primarily caused by humans, and it can be reversed b. The Planet Mars hypothesis i. We might turn earth into mars (brandenburgh)- the book planet mars c. Peer Reviewi. The academic terminology for an article that is submitted to a journal that is widely reviewed and accepted, rejected, or returned for edits. ii. A necessary, but not sufficient condition for truth seeking in science d. Consensusi. Four or Five large panels where thousands of scientists discuss this and agree on a common idea (usually in favor of AGW) ii. IPCC- (Inter-governmental panel on climate change)- Define the AGW hypothesis 1. Criticized for its lack of certainty (on the effects of GW) e. Climate Gatei. A series of emails between European scientists were hacked, the media took these emails as proof that science was made up ii. The emails were very derogatory toward climate skeptics iii. Trick the data- (Extend it beyond 2012 to 2020) f. The NIPCC- (Non-governmental international panel on climate change) i. Skeptics that are funded by Exon and other energy companies g. Positive Feedback i. Small amounts of global warming cause larger amounts of global warming- crossing a threshold leads to feedbacks in nature that cause it to increase 1. Polar Ice Caps- Reflect sunlight- if some of them melt then less sunlight will be reflected which positively feeds back into more warming 2. More forests dry out- more forest fires- more CO2 3. Methane Hydrates- The bottom of the ocean is frozen, once methane hydrates start to warm and it will be released and would accelerate warming at a ridiculous pace ii. Runaway warming- lots of bad and uncontrollable stuff happens h. Negative Feedbacksi. Nature comes up with ways to check global warming 1. Oceans- Chemical reactions make the ocean more capable of sucking in more heat and Co2 2. Clouds (the water vapor effect)- Richard Lindson- Once the world gets warmer more water evaporates and creates more clouds- those reflect the sun back ii. Use these in your favor if you are neg 2. Common Neg Arguments a. SO2 screwi. The more sulfur dioxide that we emit, the less warming happens because it will be reflected up ii. Enough pollution creates a natural barrier that prevents sunlight from getting in iii. AFF ANSWERS-

Global Warming- Bricker

1. If you win that warming is happening now, you have nonuniqued the link turn of SO2 screw 2. Win that humans are the cause of warming- (to win this argument they have to win that the sun is the larger cause of global warming than humans) 3. Win a pollution DA- Can win that pollution itself kills biodiversity b. CO2 Fertilization i. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more resilient plants we get ii. AFF ANSWERS1. Author Indicts (Most people are either very qualified and talking about hypothetical lab experiments, or they are very unqualified and have applied that science to the global warming hypothesis) a. Have aff ev that co2 fert only assumes lab experiments i. If the aff wins their advantage- it isnt an infinitely positive effect 2. Read Ag sector collapsing now because of warming 3. None of their evidence assumes the real world a. Warmer climates = more pests and agricultural diseases b. Warming changes where and when plants can be growncrop diversity goes away c. Read ag takeouts- (food supply resilient, alt cause to food crises, etc.) c. Adaptation i. Humans, instead of focusing on mitigation efforts, should learn to adapt 1. It is a lot cheaper to build a dam or move refugees 2. Like a politics DA- the more you focus on mitigation, the less you focus on adaptation 3. ANSWERS a. Global warming prevents adaptation if you win speed or positive feedback b. Adaptation assumes the first world i. How do you tell a 3rd world country that they need to spend billions of dollars developing a dam for an impact that happens in 50 years? ii. This could be a kritik c. Mitigation makes adaptation easier- the more we prevent CO2 and runaway warming, the more capable we are to adapt d. Ice Age i. Most Credible of the Four Neg DAs ii. Very few scientists write answers iii. Within the next 100 to 1000 years, we are due for an ice age iv. We just start on a downward trend, just a little gradual decrease v. Turn in how the earth functions vi. AFF ANSWERS1. Warming leads to a fast flip in temperature (causes an ice age) a. The negs stuff is slow b. Thermo-haline conveyor belt 2. Timeframe-

a. Even if an ice age hits us, we cant pinpoint it, and we dont know how quick the temp change would be b. The negative wont have ev that there is an immediate temp flip 3. Authors that you should know a. Exxoni. Cherry picked scientists ii. Singer iii. Ball iv. Balling v. ^3 people that are closely connected to Exxon b. Four other authors i. Avery- Founder of the heartland institute1. In defense of big agriculture- CO2 good for agriculture- Money that we could be using to solve GW we should just give to agricultural companies ii. Itsos1. Started their own foundation 2. Closely tied to Exxon 3. One of them actually has a PhD in some field iii. Lindson1. Clouds Dude 2. Aerosol Effect iv. Lomborg 1. The skeptical environmentalist 2. Cool It! 3. Professor at a sweedish institute 4. Lomborg Indict- the Lomborg Deception 5. Use moneys to adapt to climate 4. Negative Advice a. Defense wins championships i. Almost every warming debate was focused on an impact turn- makes the debate way too big ii. The smart arguments usually are the most defensive ones 1. Alt causes 2. Other countries getting involved (like china) 3. Intervening actors b. Question the extinction level of the impact c. Criticize the IPCC and the process of peer review d. DA turns case in the short term i. Co2 from a nuclear war is probably the same reason why warming would cause extinction 5. On the Affa. Argue that a shift from FF is inevitable, but action now is key i. We will peak in resources, all resources are finite- global warming will get really bad and we will cut emissions b. Warming should control all terminal impactsi. Nothing else can be solved if we win that global warming is inevitable c. Win that the Internal link chain is short term i. If you win tipping point, you have to stop it before that point or the impact becomes inevitable in the long term d. Aff should focus on qualification and consensus

e. Try or die should mean something new for you if you read a warming advantage i. What does it mean when human extinction happens?