369 cm affirmative blocks compiled

8/14/2019 369 CM Affirmative Blocks Compiled

1/141

DDI 2008

Written By: Clark-Martin Lab

Compiled by: Vikram Singh

^_^ SPS ^_^...............................................................................................................................................4

*************** TOPICALITY ***************..............................................................................5

2AC AT NASA=FED NO INCENTIVE ............................................................................................6

2AC T IN .................................................................................................................................................7*************** CPS ***************..............................................................................................8

2AC: RPS CP.............................................................................................................................................9

2AC: INTERNATIONAL CP.................................................................................................................10

2AC: DOD CP (1/2)..................................................................................................................................11

2AC: DOD CP (1/1).................................................................................................................................13

2AC PRIVATE SECTOR CP (1/3).........................................................................................................14



2AC: PRIVATE SECTOR (1/2)..............................................................................................................18

2AC A/T: PRIVATE SECTOR COUNTERPLAN................................................................................20

*************** KRITIKS ***************....................................................................................21

2AC: SPACE K (1/4)................................................................................................................................22

2AC: SPACE K (2/4)................................................................................................................................23

2AC: SPACE K (3/4)................................................................................................................................24

2AC: SPACE K (4/4)................................................................................................................................25

2AC: SECURITY K.................................................................................................................................26

AT: KATO SATELLITE K.....................................................................................................................34

2AC HEIDEGGER K..............................................................................................................................36

*************** DISADS ***************.......................................................................................37

A2: GERMAN TRADEOFF...................................................................................................................38

2AC SAUDI RELATIONS DA (1/2).......................................................................................................39

2AC SAUDI RELATIONS DA (2/2).......................................................................................................40

2AC SAUDI ARABIA DA (1/1)..............................................................................................................412AC F 22 TRADEOFF (1/3)....................................................................................................................42

2AC F 22 TRADEOFF (2/3)....................................................................................................................44

2AC F 22 TRADEOFF (3/3)....................................................................................................................45

2AC: F-22 TRADEOFF (1/5)..................................................................................................................46

2AC OCEANS DA ..................................................................................................................................51

2AC NASA BRAIN DRAIN DA ............................................................................................................52

1


2/141

DDI 2008



2AC NASA BRAIN DRAIN DA ............................................................................................................53

*************** POLITICS ***************..................................................................................54

2AC: PTX-OBAMA.................................................................................................................................55

2AC: PTX-CAFTA..................................................................................................................................60

2AC BUSH GOOD DA OCS DRILLING (1/3)..................................................................................64



*************** MILITARIZATION ***************...................................................................67

AT SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD ..................................................................................................68

2AC SPACE MILITARIZATION DA BQ...........................................................................................69

2AC A/T: SPACE WEAPONIZATION.................................................................................................70

*************** CASE*************** ...........................................................................................71IMPACT CALCULUS............................................................................................................................72

2AC: AT-NOT TECH OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE......................................................................73

2AC: AT-SPACE VIRUSES....................................................................................................................74

2AC: AT-SPACE DEBRIS.......................................................................................................................76

2AC: AT- 2050..........................................................................................................................................77

2AC: AT- FUNDING................................................................................................................................78

2AC: AT- COST COMPETITIVE..........................................................................................................79

2AC: AT- IMPOSSIBLE TO LAUNCH................................................................................................80

AT: GROUND SOLAR...........................................................................................................................81

AT: INEFFICIENTLY SHORT..............................................................................................................82

AT: ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE................................................................................................83

AT: TECH 40 YEARS AWAY.................................................................................................................84

^_^ REG-NEG ^_^.................................................................................................................................85

*************** TOPICALITY ***************............................................................................86

A2: T INCENTIVES = POSITIVE........................................................................................................87

A2: T INCENTIVES = MARKET BASED...........................................................................................88

T I-SPEC...............................................................................................................................................89

T: DIRECT...............................................................................................................................................90

T -- VAGUE..............................................................................................................................................91

*************** CPS ***************............................................................................................92

CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD CP.......................................................................................................93

2


3/141

DDI 2008



STATES CP..............................................................................................................................................94

*************** KRITKS ***************......................................................................................96

CT KRITIK..............................................................................................................................................97

*************** DISADS ***************.......................................................................................99

COMPETITIVENESS..........................................................................................................................100

TRADE DEFICITS...............................................................................................................................101

A2: CLEAN COAL................................................................................................................................102

GERMANY DA......................................................................................................................................103

DEMOCRACY D/A...............................................................................................................................104

*************** POLITICS ***************................................................................................106

OBAMA EVIL.......................................................................................................................................107

^_^ MILITARY ^_^..............................................................................................................................108*************** TOPICALITY ***************..........................................................................109

TOPICALITY TAX CREDITS............................................................................................................110

TOPICALITY- ASPEC..........................................................................................................................111

*************** CPS ***************............................................................................................112

COUNTERPLAN- OFFSETS...............................................................................................................113

STATES CP...........................................................................................................................................115

*************** KRITIKS ***************..................................................................................120

SECURITY KRITIK ............................................................................................................................121

HEIDEGGER .........................................................................................................................................124

*************** DISADS ***************.....................................................................................126

SPENDING.............................................................................................................................................127

SAUDI OIL DA......................................................................................................................................131

*************** POLITICS ***************................................................................................137

POLITICS- OBAMA GOOD ................................................................................................................138

3


4/141

DDI 2008



^_^ SPS ^_^

4


5/141

DDI 2008



*************** Topicality ***************

5


6/141

DDI 2008



2AC AT NASA=Fed No Incentive

1. We Meet We offer incentives to NASA, which functions as an independentorganization, they can choose to take the funding or not

2. Counter Interpretation Incentives allow the development of technologythrough policy actionWilliams, 07 - Nova Scotia Cooperative Council (Bob, Submission in Response to Consultation Paper: Renewed Energy Strategy2007, http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bca-e17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttype=)

Anyone who has a reasonable amount of experience or knowledge of renewable energy development knows that there are two generaapproaches. One being the RPS and tendering model and the other is one of fixed price incentives, commonly known as feed intariffs (FIT). It is also well recognized that if one is serious about local economic benefits being derived from renewable energy,indeed facilitating or stimulating sustainable prosperity, then the model known as Community Power or CBED, Community BasedEnergy Development, is one that must be considered. It is not co-incidental that FIT as an incentive based policy go hand-in-handwith CBED. The word incentive is paramount here because it makes clear the fact that the primary objective of thesemechanisms is not simply least direct cost, but is to achieve specific policy goals that are in addition to and complimentary to the

generation of clean energy. Such goals commonly include promotion of technologies, sitingof renewable energy projects andencouragement of new ownership models. In fact FITs were first designed and adopted in Europe to promote a specific ownershipmodel, that of community ownership through co-operatives.

3. We Meet we provide funding to NASA for the development of SPS

4. Limits The Aff over limits the topic by mandating that we go throughprivate actors. We lose all education of government actors which are key tothe topic

5. Predictability It is completely predictable to provide incentives for

technology because that is the best solvency

6. Reasonability checks as long as we are reasonably topical you should notvote us down, make them prove in round abuse

7. T is not a voter because clash checks

6
http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bca-e17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttypehttp://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bca-e17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttypehttp://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bca-e17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttypehttp://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bca-e17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttype


7/141

DDI 2008



2AC T In

1. We meet we give our plan funds NASA which is all completed in the US

2. Counter Interpretation Incentives must be in the US cross apply theirdefinition

3. We meet, we give incentives to NASA, which is in the US

4. Limits we limit down the resolution to only the cases the cases which giveincentives in the US, this is key to education because it include the policyoptions that are under the jurisdiction of the USFG

5. Grammar the resolution says incentives for alternative energy as aphrase therefore, only the incentives have to be in the US, Grammar isimportant to understanding the framers intentions for the resolution

6. Reasonability Checks abuse you will not vote us down as long as we arereasonably topical, make them prove in round abuse and ground loss

7. T is not a voter Clash checks

7


8/141

DDI 2008



*************** CPs ***************

8


9/141

DDI 2008



2AC: RPS CP

1. Solvency Deficita. The Counterplan doesnt guarantee the development of SPS, or

even alternative energy it could lead to clean coal.

b. Our evidence indicates that funding is the key internal link to SPS, ifthey dont federal incentives they cant foster development

c. Cant solve competitiveness- RPS dont guarantee the fostering ofinnovation and development.

d. Cant solve space colonizationRPS dont provide the necessaryinfrastructure to foster SPS development and space colonization.

2. Perm: Do both, the permutation avoids the links by ______

3. CP links to PoliticsAn RPS would create way more jobs triggering thelink

UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists, leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCScombines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible

changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. 11/02/2007, Cashing In on Clean Energy,http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html

Momentum continues to grow for a strong national standard . A 20 percent by 2020 standard was introduced in the Housein February 2007, and a 15 percent by 2020 standard is under consideration in the Senate. Using a model from the EnergyInformation Administration (EIA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined the long-term effects that a national20 percent by 2020 standard would have on the economy and the environment. 20 Percent by 2020: The Benefits of aNational Renewable Electricity Standard Job Creation 185,000 new jobs from renewable energy development EconomicDevelopment $66.7 billion in new capital investment, $25.6 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners,and $2 billion in new local tax revenues Consumer Savings $10.5 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020(growing to $31.8 billion by 2030) Climate Solutions Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking 36.4million cars off the road.

4. RPS fails--

9


10/141

DDI 2008



2AC: International CP

1. JAXA threatens China empirically doesnt solve.

Teruaki Ueno, staff writer for Reuters, 2/23/2008, Japan launches experimental internet society."About 95 percent of households in Japan are capable of having broadband Internet access. So, why now?" A communications experttold Reuters on condition of anonymity. Saturday's satellite launch is part of a bold space programme, which sent the nation's firstlunar probe into orbit around the moon last September. Keen to compete with its Asian rivals, China and India, in spaceexploration projects, the Japanese space agency has said it hopes to send astronauts to the moon by 2025 , although Japan has

not yet attempted manned space flight. Japan's space programme was in tatters in the late 1990s after two unsuccessful

launches of a previous rocket, the H-2. Disaster followed in 2003 when Japan had to destroy an H-2A rocket carrying two spysatellites minutes after launch as it veered off course.

2. INT ACTOR FIAT BAD

3. Perm Do BothThere is no reason why US cannot fund international efforts and NASA

development.

4. Cross Apply 1AC Segal 04 Continuation of Asian superiority causes the

collapse of the economy and hegemony. Thats our entire Competitiveness

ADV ending in the Mead 92 and Khalilzad 95 nuclear war impacts. They have

no way to solve for these, should both be considered DAs to the Counter-planand net benefits to the PERM.

5. Cross apply our 1AC Treder 06 evidence US hegemony also solves famine,

disease, poverty. These are further DAs to the Counter plan and net benefits

to the PERM

6. Conditionality BAD

7. Read card pile. (DA to Counter-plan solved by US hegemony)- (Japan and china stuff)

10


11/141

DDI 2008



2AC: DoD CP (1/2)

1. Perm do both The United States federal government should provideincentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and theDepartment of Defense for research, development, and implementation of

solar powered satellites.

2. The DoD is Cash strapped and cannot implement the Plan

3. Only NASA has the technology, if the DOD implements the plan, they will notbe able to develop the technology nearly as fast, because they will have tostart from scratch Thats our Mankin evidence from the 1AC

4. Experience NASA and the DOE have studied SPS in the past therefore TheDod would know nothing about SPS thats Berger from the 1AC

5. NASA KeyTaylorDinerman, Staff Writer, The Space Review, 5-19-04 http://thespacereview.com/article/1130/1

Eventually NASA will have to play a role, even if a small one, in the development of space solar power. The best option isthat it will be as part of an interagency process directly supervised from the White House, with lots of Congressional

and private sector input. The debate on this new energy source has hardly begun and these are lots of very smart people

with very strong opinions on the subject.

11


12/141

DDI 2008



6. Timeframe Every second that the DoD takes longer than NASA wouldcauses 100 Trillion deaths thats Bostron

7. If the DoD acts, it will kill the spillover to the Private sector, Companieswant to sell it to the military thats Rouge

8. Conditionality is Bad for debateA. Infinitely Regressive The negative can kick out of their advocacy at

anytime in the round

B. Moving Target - The affirmative cant stick the negative to thecounterplan, so any offense placed on the position is a waste of time

C. Reject the team for running such an abusive argument that hasdestroyed the fairness and education of the round

D. At least reject the argument

12


13/141

DDI 2008



2AC: DOD CP (1/1)

1. Perm Do Both

2. DOD cant solve DAVID 07

3. Perm Do the counter-plan

a. Agency Spec Irrelevant MANKINS 07

b. We defend USFG normal means, and within that the DOD would be the agency funding NASA.

c. Not textually competitive either disclosed plan text reads Plan Text: The United States federal

government should the Department of Defense for __. There is no reason why we cant

should the DOD and fund SPS.

4. TheirShactman solvency evidence is from a blog and is totally unwarranted. Also, it doesnt claim

solvency by 2020, it claims that the DOD is looking into that possibility, but makes no conclusion.

5. Plan Flaw

a. Violation the USFG cannot should the DOD for __

b. Standards

i. Grammar should is not a verb. Their destruction of grammar destroys the very medium

through which we debate, destroying debate itself. This is a real world impact and an

independent voter.

ii. Predictability We have absolutely no idea what that blank will turn into in round. They

literally could be advocating that the DOD could be doing anything, including the giving

of soccer balls to African children

iii. Even if you buy their predictability, their exact functioning prevents us from doing

meaningful research last night and preparing for an in-depth debate.

c. Voters Fairness, Education, and Abuse

13


14/141

DDI 2008



2AC Private Sector CP (1/3)

1. Perm Do Both - The United States federal government should provideincentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research,development, and implementation of solar powered satellites and The fifty

states and territorial governments of the United States should offer incentivesto private sector companies for the development and implementation of spacebased solar power.

2. Plan Spills over The Plan will spill over to the private sector, thats ourRouge evidence

3. US funding for Space Solar Power key to efficient research Studies

Insert card

4. Federal Government keyA. Federal support is key to get the SPS project off the ground, the

private sector will not invest until the technology seems less risky thatsBerger

B. Reliability cannot be handled by private markets or state policiesbecause government oversight is necessary, thats Gruenspecht

C. Leadership Key to solvency The USFG must lead in order for the SPSprogram to solve for space colonization thats Glaser

D. The Federal Government must do the plan to solve for hegemony, ifthe 50 states encourage different corporations, the US must act as a wholeto solve thats Dolman

14


15/141

DDI 2008



5. Time frame - Every second that the CP wastes because it desnt solve as fastas the Fed is 100 trillion lives thats Bostron

15


16/141

DDI 2008




6. Market forces ensure that states will race to the bottom only nationalguidelines prevent.Neal D. Woods, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, March 2006,Interstate

competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis, Science Quarterly 87.1.

Across a variety of policy realms, a good deal of recent literature has emphasized the role that interstate competition plays in theformation of state policy (Dye, 1990; Peterson and Rom, 1990; Peterson, 1995; Bailey and Rom, 2004). A foundational premise of thisliterature is that states engage in policy competition to attract taxpayers, industry, and other mobile units that benefit state economies(Tiebout, 1956). Industry is of high economic value to states, which have shown a willingness to pursue industrial plants through awide variety of location incentives, including tax abatements, enterprise zones, and tax-free financing for pollution-control equipment(Eisinger, 1988). States thus attempt to reduce the cost of doing business in the state in order to maintain current industrial productionwithin the state and attract new production.

One way of reducing production costs may lie in minimizing regulatory burdens, thereby sparking a potential RTB in areas likeenvironmental and workplace-safety regulation. Indeed, the potential for interstate policy competition has served as a lynchpin fortheories of environmental policy (e.g., Lowry, 1992) and forms an explicit rationale for pollution-control laws. The legislative history

of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, for instance, contains stark reference to the possibility of a RTB.
Withoutnational guidelines for the prevention of significant deterioration, a State deciding to protect its clean air resources will face a doublethreat. The prospect is very real that such a State would lose existing plants to more permissive States. But additionally the State willlikely become the target of "economic-environmental blackmail" from new industrial plants that will play one State off against anotherwith threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls.
7. State action cant solve deters investment, compliance, cooperation, whileencouraging litigation

Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia andGlobalization, 6/08, The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on

Renewable Energy and Climate Change

Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states over what counts asrenewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and how it may be traded clog

the [*454] renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a sink. Implementing agencies and stakeholders must grapple withinconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often arbitrary statutes.

To pick just a few prominent examples, Wisconsin set its target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose sixteenpercent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as "renewables," while the standard inPennsylvania includes coal gasification and fossil fueled distributed generation technologies.n244 Iowa, Minnesota, and Texasset their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to electricity sales.n245 Maine,New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits (RECs) under the New EnglandPower Pool, whereas California and Texas use their own REC trading systems. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntarystandards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different

noncompliance fees.n246

The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment, complicates compliance,discourages interstate cooperation and encourages tedious and expensive litigation.

16
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n244http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n244http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n245http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n245http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n246http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n246http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n244http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n245http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/frame.do?tokenKey=rsh-20.786328.172412908&target=results_DocumentContent&reloadEntirePage=true&rand=1216222207729&returnToKey=20_T4174556486&parent=docview#n246


17/141

DDI 2008




8. NASAs resources are necessary for development and implementationJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Governmentfunded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct some of theresearch would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia and corporate interests who could thencommercialize results into products would be even better. Using the resources of NASAs (former) ResearchPartnership Centers which have already done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other

concepts would be valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to match wellwith the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuable help and creativity to theresearch efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of expertise by giving students exciting and

impactful work to focus on while at unversity.

9. Conditionality is Bad for debateE. Infinitely Regressive The negative can kick out of their advocacy at

anytime in the round

F. Moving Target - The affirmative cant stick the negative to thecounterplan, so any offense placed on the position is a waste of time

G. Reject the team for running such an abusive argument that hasdestroyed the fairness and education of the round

H. At least reject the argument

17


18/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Private Sector (1/2)

1. Solvency Deficita. Cant solve Heg, states arent perceivedb. Cant solve Space Col, private sector is only focused on economic

impacts not colonizingc. Federal government controls who gets to launc what in states

2. Perm: Do Both, Avoids the links to the DAs by______

3. Government has to lead the way with demonstrations for the private sectorto sign onSpace News, Brian Berger, Staff Writer, 11/10/2007, Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power,http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.html, BB

Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to showthat space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs.Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power down

from space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq without relyingon vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it,"beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on thebattlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremelyflexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly reducingdependence on over-land fuel deliveries." Although the U.S. military wouldreap tremendous benefits from space-based solarpower, Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said,would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in thepast. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide apotentially robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain andthe business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closer than ever," hesaid. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private sectorwill not invest in space-based solar power until the United States buys down some of the risk through a technology

development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion research andperhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. "Demonstrations are key here," hesaid. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space Frontier Foundation'sdirectors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground . Miller told reporters here thatthe space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress embrace the

report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind ofincentives it offersthe nuclear power industry.

18
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.htmlhttp://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.htmlhttp://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_advocacy_050805.html


19/141

DDI 2008



4. Private Sector is only successful when working with NASAO. Glenn Smith, former manager of science and applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA's Johnson

Space Center, 7/23/2008, Harvest The Sun -- From Space, The New York Times, lexis, BBAS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources -- coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-basedsolar -- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is,

however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and canbe cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power. Science fiction? Actually, no -- the technology alreadyexists. A space solar power system would involve building large solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panelswould collect far more energy than land-based units, which are hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climesand, of course, the darkness of night. Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radiotransmission, where it would be received by antennas near cities and other places where large amounts of power are used. Thereceived energy would then be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing grid. Government scientists haveprojected that the cost of electric power generation from such a system could be as low as 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-

hour, which is within the range of what consumers pay now. In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for spacesolar power have been the expense of launching the collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the recentdevelopment of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensiveand return of energy much greater. Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies like SpaceExploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working in conjunction with NASA's public-private Commercial

Orbital Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity for very low cost launchings to the

International Space Station. This same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power satellite system.

5. C/A Rouge 2007, Case spillsover

19


20/141

DDI 2008



2AC A/T: Private Sector Counterplan

Nasas resources are necessary for development and implementationJoseph D. Rouge Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf

Governmentfunded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct some of theresearch would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia and corporate interests who could thencommercialize results into products would be even better. Using the resources of NASAs (former) ResearchPartnership Centers which have already done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other

concepts would be valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to match wellwith the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuable help and creativity to theresearch efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of expertise by giving students exciting and

impactful work to focus on while at unversity.

20


21/141

DDI 2008



*************** Kritiks ***************

21


22/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Space K (1/4)

1. Turn: There is only a risk that the development of SPS will tradeoff withother more subversive forms of techno-subjectivity, implicit in thegathering of biofuels

Isabella Kenfield, 3/6/2007, Brazils Ethanol Plan Breeds Rural Poverty, Environmental Degradation,http://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdf, BB

The era of biofuels will reproduce and legitimize the logic of the occupation of rural areas by multinationalagribusiness, and perpetuate the colonial project to subvert ecosystems and people to the service of the production and

maintenance of a lifestyle in other societies, states the Forum. The group alleges that Brazils effort to supply the GlobalNorth with ethanol is simply a repeat of the same model of economic growth via agro-export that has been practiced

since Portuguese colonization. Agricultural production for export in Brazil has traditionally been a model imposed onthe country by more powerful nations in the North, alongside a small group of Brazilian landowners . Agro-exportgenerates vast amounts of wealth for a few Brazilians, and exploitation and poverty for many others. Brazils high rate ofincome inequality is inseparable from the fact that it also has one of the most unequal rates of land distribution. The sugarindustry is a classic example of Brazils land and income inequality . A Bittersweet Future Brazilian ethanol is producedfrom sugarcane, which has always been a primary agricultural commodity for the country. Because ethanol relies onsugarcane as its primary material, the industry is linked to the social and economic dynamics in rural areas that have

developed from sugarcane production since the colonial era, most importantly labor exploitation and landconcentration.According to Marluce Melo of the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) in the northern Brazilian city of Recife,Pernambuco, Rural poverty has always been intrinsically related to the economy of sugarcane. Even in the 1970s, whenPernambuco was the largest national producer of sugarcane, the levels of poverty were amongst the highest in the

world.

2. Alt doesnt Solve the Case--a. Rejecting Techno-subjectivity fails to accommodate the positive

uses of technology that enable civilizations to coexist and operateon an equal level.

b. The alternative fails to create a space for further expansions beyondthe current bounds of exploration and science.

c.

3. We dont cause their impactsSPS are not used to examine the earth andenhance a system of techno subjectivity on to indigenous peoples. Thevery fact that we dont beam energy back down to earth, promotes theidea of indigineous autonomy.

4. We get to weigh our casea. plan focus- K is a legitimate criticism of the plan, but it still tests

the idea that the planb.

5. Case >a.

22
http://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdfhttp://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdfhttp://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdfhttp://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdfhttp://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdf


23/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Space K (2/4)

6. K doesnt turn the casea. We control the uniquenessAdvances in technology are inevitable,

and biofuel production proves that techno-subjectivity exists in the

squo, there is only a risk of the plan being better.b. The K link is predicated off the expansion of surveillance satellites,

at best it questions the uses of satellites in space.c.

7. Permutation: Indigineous people can use technology to accomplish theirmeans, while also maintaining sovereigntity.

Mongabay, June 12, 2008, Colombia creates rainforest reserve to protect medicinal plants,http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.html, BB

Indigenous groups used GPS units to map the occurrence of yoco plants and other important medicinal plants identified

by shamans, or indigenous healers. By combining technology with traditional plant knowledge, the effort helpedstrengthen cultural ties between indigenous youths and elders at a time when such cultures are disappearing even faster

than rainforests. "GPS can help you mark the geographic coordinates of a location but all the technology in the world isnot going to explain to you the spiritual significance of a spot or identify what plants can be used for what purpose ," saidMaria Elvira Molano, an anthropologist who has been working in the process of creating Orito on the part of the National ParksService and is the liaison with ACT. "This is where the elders come in -- they are the ones with the knowledge. Now we'reseeing the shamans appreciated as tremendous sources of knowledge by the younger generation as well as government

agencies seeking to protect forest areas." ACT calls this approach, which protects biodiversity, improves traditionalhealth systems, and helps preserve culture in a holistic and synergistic way, "biocultural conservation." "Biocultural

conservation has been the most overlooked approach to rainforest conservation, and the establishment of the Inge-Ande

Reserve shows that this methodology is finally gained traction," said Mark Plotkin, president of ACT. "It's our strong beliefthat the people who best know, use, and protect biodiversity are the indigenous people who live in these forests.

8. Alt doesnt solve the Ka. Simply rejecting the AFFs techno-subjectivity fails to address the

problems of surveillance satellites around the worldb. Rejecting AFF implementation doesnt solve for the ongoing

subjection of the third world to meet the first worlds demands foralternative energy

c. Rejecting Techno-Subjectivity doesnt bring the voice of the otherback , as long as the first world exists, it can always establish an Usversus Them delineation of superiority.

23
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.htmlhttp://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.htmlhttp://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.html


24/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Space K (3/4)

9. Attempts to ban technology will only result in technological backlash, wemust use good technology

NickBostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003 World Transhumanist Association, For the ethical use of

technology for human development, Society and Politics, http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/68/Many of the responses to Joys article pointed out that there is no realistic prospect of a worldwide ban on thesetechnologies; that they have enormous potential benefits that we would not want to forgo; that the poorest people may havea higher tolerance for risk in developments that could improve their condition; and that a ban may actually increase thedangers rather than reduce them, both by delaying the development of protective applications of these technologies, and

by weakening the position of those who choose to comply with the ban relative to less scrupulous groups who defy it. Amore promising alternative than a blanket ban is differential technological development, in which we would seek to

influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, we would strive to retard the development of

harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially

those that offer protection against the harmful ones. Fortechnologies that have decisive military applications, unlessthey can be verifiably banned, we may seek to ensure that they are developed at a faster pace in countries we regard asresponsible than in those that we see as potential enemies.

10.Turn: The Colonizing space is the only way we can break our endlesscycle of colonialism with the third world. By spreading out into space wecan shift the focus of natural resources to space and create separatecommunities for different societies.

11.Turn: The Negatives unabashed criticism of satellites forecloses anydiscussion of the positive aspects and perpetuates technophobia

George F Kellner, Philosophy of Education Chair, Social Sciences and Comparative Education, UCLA, 1998, Illuminations,Virilio, War, and Technology: Some Critical Reflections ,

Yet Virilio has never really theorized technologyper se, and uses the same model and categories to analyze war technology

to characterize new information technology. Thus, he has not really unravelled the riddle of technology which would have to interrogate itsfascination, power, and complexity, and not just its negativity. Virilio criticizes the discourses of technophilia, that would celebrate technology

as salvation, that are totally positive without critical reservations, but he himself is equally one-sided, developing a highly technophobic

and negative discourse that fails to articulate any positive aspects or uses for new technologies, claiming that negative and

critical discourses like his own are necessary to counter the overly optimistic and positive discourses. In a sense, this is true and justifies Virilio'spredominantly technophobic discourse, but raises questions concerning the adequacy of Virilio's perspectives on technology as a

whole and the extent to which his work is of use in theorizing the new technologies with their momentous and dramatic

transformation of every aspect of our social and everyday life.

24


25/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Space K (4/4)

12.Turn: Satellites have lead to a rethinking of spatial-temporality, the eraof the nation-state and colonialism is on the decline. Satellites are key tocreating global and national systems.

Saskia Sassen, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and is Centennial Visiting Professor at the London School ofEconomics, Spatialities and Temporalities of the Global: Elements for a Theorization, Public Culture 12.1 (2000) 215-232, muse,BB

The multiple processes that constitute economic globalization inhabit and shape specific structurations of the economic,

the political, the cultural, and the subjective. Among the most vital of their effects is the production of new spatialities

and temporalities. These belong to both the global and the national, if only to each in part. This "in part" is an especiallyimportant qualification, as in my reading the global is itself partial, albeit strategic. The global does not (yet) fully encompassthe lived experience of actors or the domain of institutional orders and cultural formations; it persists as a partial condition.

This, however, should not suggest that the global and the national are discrete conditions that mutually exclude each

other. To the contrary, they significantly overlap and interact in ways that distinguish our contemporary moment.

These overlaps and interactions have consequences for the work of theorization and research. Much of social science

has operated with the assumption of the nation-state as a container, representing a unified spatiotemporality. Much ofhistory, however, has failed to confirm this assumption. Modern nation-states themselves never achieved spatiotemporal

unity, and the global restructurings of today threaten to erode the usefulness of this proposition for what is anexpanding arena of sociological reality. The spatiotemporality of the national, upon closer inspection, reveals itself to becomposed of multiple spatialities [End Page 215] and temporalities that are at best organizable into something approximating aspatiotemporal order--one, for instance, that can now be distinguished from the global. Crucial to the project of this essay willbe its conception of the dynamics of interaction and overlap that operate both within the global and the national and betweenthem. Each sphere, global and national, describes a spatiotemporal order with considerable internal differentiation andgrowing mutual imbrication with the other. Their internal differences interpenetrate in ways that are variously

conflictive, disjunctive, and neutralizing. The theoretical and methodological task of this essay will be one ofdetecting/constructing the social thickness and specificity of these dimensions with the aim of developing a suitably texturedunderstanding of dynamic spaces of overlap and interaction. Given the complexity and specificity of both the global and thenational, their interlacing suggests the existence of frontier zones--from the perspective of research and theorization,

these analytic borderlands are sure to require independent theoretical and methodological specificity. Given the

historically constructed meaning of the national as a dominant condition that mutually excludes both other nationals

and the nonnational, these frontier zones are likely to be marked by operations of power and domination. A possibleoutcome of these dynamics of interaction between the global and the national, I suggest, is an incipient and partial

denationalization of domains once understood and/or constructed as national.

25


26/141

DDI 2008



2AC: Security K

1. Case outweighs the risk of extinction, even if constructed, is still greaterin magnitude than the nebulous impact claims of the negative. Vote aff toaffirm life. We present the most meaningful relationship to existence by

trying to preserve life.

2. Realism prevents extinction

John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power PoliticsPolitics,http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-

M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1. [T-Jacob].It should be apparent from this discussion that offensive realism is mainly a descriptive theory. It explains how great powers havebehaved in the past and how they are likely to behave in the future. But it is also a prescriptive theory. States should behave accordingto the dictates of offensive realism, because it outlines the best way to survive in a dangerous world. One might ask, if the theorydescribes how great powers act, why is it necessary to stipulate how they should act? The imposing constraints of the system should

leave great powers with little choice but to act as the theory predicts. Although there is much truth in this description of great powersas prisoners trapped in an iron cage, the fact remains that they sometimesalthough not oftenact in contradiction to the theory.These are the anomalous cases discussed above. As we shall see, such foolish behavior invariably has negative consequences. In short,if they want to survive, great powers should always act like good offensive realists.

3. Competition between states and military buildup will always exist.

John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, The Tragedy of Great Power PoliticsPolitics,http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-

M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1. [T-Jacob].The optimists' claim that security competition and war among the great powers has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact, all

of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power and are destined to compete for power amongthemselves for the foreseeable future. Consequently, realism will offer the most powerful explanations of international politics overthe next century, and this will be true even if the debates among academic and policy elites are dominated by non-realist theories. Inshort, the real world remains a realist world. States still fear each other and seek to gain power at each other's expense, becauseinternational anarchythe driving force behind great-power behaviordid not change with the end of the Cold War, and there arefew signs that such change is likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still no nightwatchman standing above them. For sure, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a major shift in the global distribution of power. Butit did not give rise to a change in the anarchic structure of the system, and without that kind of profound change, there is no reason toexpect the great powers to behave much differently in the new century than they did in previous centuries. Indeed, considerableevidence from the 1990s indicates that power politics has not disappeared from Europe and Northeast Asia, the regions in which thereare two or more great powers, as well as possible great powers such as Germany and Japan. There is no question, however, that thecompetition for power over the past decade has been low-key. Still, there is potential for intense security competition among the greatpowers that might lead to a major war.

26
http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1


27/141

DDI 2008



4. A shift away from realism creates a power war.

John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, The Tragedy of Great PowerPolitics Politics,

http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1

[T-Jacob].The possible consequences of falling victim to aggression further amplify the importance of fear as a motivating force inworld politics. Great powers do not compete with each other as if international politics were merely an economicmarketplace. Political competition among states is a much more dangerous business than mere economic intercourse; theformer can read to war, and war often means mass killing on the battlefield as well a5 mass murder of civilians. Inextreme cases, war can even lead to the destruction of states. The horrible consequences of war sometimes cause states toview each other not just as competitors, but as potentially deadly enemies. Political antagonism, in short, tends to beintense, because the stakes are great. States in the international system also aim to guarantee their own survival. Becauseother states are potential threats, and because there is no higher authority to come to their rescue when they dial 911,states can t just depend on others for their own security. Each state tends to see itself as vulnerable and alone, andtherefore it aims to provide for its own survival . In international politics, God helps those who help themselves. This

emphasis on self-help does not preclude states from forming alliances. But alliances are only temporary marriages ofconvenience: todays alliance partner might be tomorrows enemy, and todays enemy might be tomorrows alliancepartner. For example, the United States fought with China and the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan in WorldWar II, but soon thereafter flip-flopped enemies and partners and allied with West Germany and Japan against China andthe Soviet Union during the Cold War.

27
http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1


28/141

DDI 2008



5. Turn A. Security rhetoric is key to heg

Yaseen Noorani (Assistant Professor in Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona) 2005 "The Rhetoric of Security" CR:The New Centennial Review 5.1 (2005) 13-41 Muse

The rhetoric of security, then, provides the moral framework for U.S. political hegemony through its grounding in the idea of

national agency and in the absolute opposition between the state of civility and the state of [End Page 371 war. Designating the United Statesas the embodiment of the world order's underlying principle and the guarantor of the world order's existence, rhetoric places both the United States andterrorism outside the normative relations that should inhere within the world order as a whole. The United States is the supreme agent of theworld's war against war; other nations must simply choose &. As long as war threatens to dissolve the peaceful order of nations, thesenations must submit to the politics of "the one, instead of the many." They must accept the united States -as "something

godlike," in that in questions of its own security-which are questions of the world's security-they can have no authority to influence or oppose its actions. These

questions can be decided by the United States alone. Other nations must, for the foreseeable future, suspend their agency when it comes to their existence. Therefore,rhetoric of securitv allows the United States to totalize world politics within itselfin a manner that extends from the relations among states downto the inner moral struggle experienced bv every human being .

B. Cross-apply Heg Impact Card

5. Perm do Both -- The distinction between the alternative and plan is non-existent the philosophies behind both are constructed approaches to the problem ofotherness. Only a combination of the ideologies can break down theinadequacies of both of the theories.

6.

28


29/141

DDI 2008



7. Perm do the plan and the alternative in all other instances

8. Alt fails - Discursive focus generates epistemological blind spots and wont altersecurity structures

Adrian Hyde-Price (Professor of International Politics at Bath) 2001 Europes newsecurity challenges p. 39

Securitization thus focuses almost exclusively on the discursive domain and eschews any attempt to determine

empirically what constitutes security concerns. It does not aspire to comment on the reality behind a securitization

discourse or on the appropriate instruments for tackling security problems. Instead, it suggests that security studies or what Waever calls securitization studies should focus on the discursive moves whereby issues are securitized. TheCopenhagen school thus emphasizes the need to understand the speech acts that accomplish a process of securitization.Their focus is on the linguistic and conceptual dynamics involved, even though they recognize the importance of the

institutional setting within which securitization takes place. The concept of securitization offers some important insightsfor security studies. However, it is too epistemologically restricted to contribute to a significant retooling of securitystudies. On the positive side, it draws attention to the way in which security agendas are constructed bgy

politicians and other political actors. It also indicates the utility of discourse analysis as an additional tool of analysisfor security studies. However, at best, securitization studies can contribute one aspect of security studies. It cannotprovide the foundations for a paradigm shift in the subdiscipline. Its greatest weakness is its epistemological

hypochondria. That is, its tendency to reify epistemological problems and push sound observations about

knowledge claims to their logical absurdity. Although it isimportant to understand the discursive moves involved inperception of security in, say, the Middle East, it is also necessary to make some assessment of nondiscursive factorslike the military balance or access to freshwater supplies. For the Copenhagen school, however, these nondiscursivefactors are relegated to second place. They are considered only to the extent that they facilitate or impede the speech act.In this way, the Copenhagen school is in danger of cutting security studies off from serious empirical research and settingit adrift on a sea of floating signifiers.

29


30/141

DDI 2008



9. Alt cant solve the case focus on the future is critical for meaningfulpolitical change

vibeke Pederson, Associate Professor, Department of Danish, University of Copenhagen,2003 ["in search of monsters to

destroy?"international relations 17:2]This forces us in turn to consider the role of post-structural theory in bringing such remaking about. For a while now, the mostcommon answer on offer has been reflective of a Derriderian commitment to ethics as dissidence, intervention and resistance:62revealing our historicity and the contingent paths through whichwe got here, the post-structural ethos is primarily concerned with thetemporal process of critique and the positions it makes possible.63 Performing such criticism constitutes an ethical act, withpractical implications for future action, for in revealing that we do not need to be what we are, we are set free to imagine

alternative modes of existence. There is little point in contesting this: surely, exposing contingency is a first and necessary

precondition for wilful change. The question, however, is whether it is politically effective to leave ones political interventions

at that. However sympathetic to the claim that in re-historicizing a potentially different future is made possible, I am inclined

to doubt whether such potentiality constitutes in itself an improvement; if not, post-structuralism needs to engage more

actively in the definition of preferable futures if change is to be for the better.

10. Turn The alternative makes conflict inevitable. Only immediateaction can solve.

PH Liotta, Professor of Humanities and Executive Director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, SalveRegina University,2005 [security dialogue 36:1 "through the looking glass:creeping vulnerabilities and the reordering of security" ]

Although it seems attractive to focus on exclusionary concepts that insist on desecuritization, privileged referent objects, and thebelief that threats and vulnerabilities are little more than social constructions (Grayson, 2003), all these concepts work intheory but fail in practice. While it may be true that national security paradigms can, and likely will, continue to dominate issues thatinvolve human security vulnerabilities and even in some instances mistakenly confuse vulnerabilities as threats there aredistinct linkages between these security concepts and applications. With regard to environmental security, for example, Myers(1986: 251) recognized these linkages nearly two decades ago: National security is not just about fighting forces and weaponry. It

relates to watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate and other factors that rarely figure in the minds of militaryexperts and political leaders, but increasingly deserve, in their collectivity, to rank alongside military approaches as crucial in

a nations security. Ultimately, we are far from what OHanlon & Singer (2004) term a global intervention capability on behalf ofhumanitarian transformation. Granted, we now have the threat of mass casualty terrorism anytime, anywhere and states andregions are responding differently to this challenge. Yet, theglobal community today also faces many of the same problems of the 1990s: civil wars, faltering states, humanitarian crises. We arenowhere closer to addressing how best to solve these challenges, even as they affect issues of environmental, human, national

(and even embedded) security. Recently, there have been a number of voices that have spoken out on what the InternationalCommission on Intervention and State Sovereignty has termed the responsibility to protect:10 the responsibility of some agency orstate (whether it be a superpower such as the United States or an institution such as the United Nations) to enforce the principle ofsecurity that sovereign states owe to their citizens. Yet, the creation of a sense of urgency to act even on some issues that may nothave some impact for years or even decades to come is perhaps the only appropriate first response. The real cost of not

investing in the right way and early enough in the places where trends and effects are accelerating in the wrong direction is

likely to be decades and decades of

economic and political frustration and, potentially, military engagement.Rather than justifying intervention (especially military), we ought to bejustifying investment.

30


31/141

DDI 2008



11. Thinking of the environment as a security threat stimulates positiveenvironmental activism and cooperative dialogue

Edward A. Page, Government @ London School of Economics, and M. R. Redclift, Social Sciences @ Kings College, 2002,HumanSecurity and the Environment: International Comparisons, 261-262

Continues

31
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Edward%20A.%20Pagehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=M.%20R.%20Redclifthttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Edward%20A.%20Pagehttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=M.%20R.%20Redclift


32/141

DDI 2008



32


33/141

DDI 2008



12. Security is a prerequistite to meaningful individual liberty

Erika George 1995 30 HARVARD CIVIL RIGHTS CIVIL LIBERTIES LAW REVIEW 577, Summer, lexis

While the Pratt Court's decision falls squarely within the confines of existing Fourth Amendment cases such as Skinner n102 or Silverman n103 (which govern an individual's privacy interest), the level of abstraction employed in the decision ignores, and

thereby devalues, the realities of public housing residents. Those unfortunate enough to inhabit the "other si de of town" do not enjoy a level of security comparable to residents of "Gold Coast high-rises." n104 That individuals must, in

addition to civil liberties, have basic needs met is well established. n105 Security and freedom from fear are among the [*592]most elemental of human needs , n106 and they must be acquired before social or moral needs may be actualized . AbrahamMaslow argues that an individual cannot begin to concern herself with higher social and moral needs until her very basicmaterial needs of life are met. n107 A good society, in Maslow's view, is one that permits the highest purposes of human existence to emerge by satisfying all basic needs. n108 As evidenced by t he Pratt litigation, negativenotions of the content of freedom can impede the realization of basic human needs. Another scholar, John Galtung, argues that "a constitutional scheme of liberties cannot reasonably or lawfully blind itself to the distributive relation of the liberty intereststhat it cherishes." n109 He offers the insight that "[ a] constitution is a rule of law. To speak of liberties established by a rule of law is to speak of a general scheme of liberties for all; it is to invite the question of distribution." n110 The Pratt Court'sreasoning dodges this notion of distribution. It is an issue that if addressed directly would require the Pratt Court to reevaluate its formalistic protections of liberty and to question the content of what classical liberalism protects. n111 The Pratt Court

ignores the reality that poor people's ability to exercise and enjoy rights is severely curtailed by the conditions under which they live. Society's failure to meet basic economic and social rights orneeds diminishes poor citizens' capacity to exercise the civil and political rights Pratt strains to protect. Social and economicneeds are inextricably linked to civil and political rights and require concurrent fulfillment. By focusing first and fundamentally on whatthe residents of public housing have a right to be free from, namely governmental intrusion, the court neglected precisely what public housing residents are

entitled to, freedom to flourish. The lack of one of life's most basic necessities -- security -- prevents residents of public housing fromexperiencing substantive freedom.

33


34/141

DDI 2008



AT: KATO SATELLITE K

1. TURN: SATELLITES EMPOWER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MAP THEIR LANDRIGHTS AND DOCUMENT THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN ENVIRONMENTALDESTRUCTION AND DEMOCRATIZE EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY

Martin Hewson[Associate at the York Centre for International and Security Studies, York University] & Timothy Sinclair[Associate Professor of International Political Economy at the University of Warwick], 1999, SUNY Press,Approaches toGlobal Governance Theory, p. 87

Moreover, ERS data can facilitate the localization of control in some surprising ways. Perhaps most interesting is the useof satellite data by indigenous peoples for mapping their customary land rights and documenting the role of the state andmultinational corporations in environmental destruction. Environmental advocacy groups and indigenous rights groups inIndonesia, Nepal, Thailand, and the Pacific Northwest are using satellite-generated data to reterritorialize their political

practice to an extent previously inconceivable. Although ERS data may deterritorialize political practice at the level ofthe nation-state, when used for counter-mapping by indigenous peoples it seems to be have exactly the opposite effect.

We should note, however, that while spatial information technologies may facilitate claims of local people against the state, that

power comes with a price it destroys the fluid and flexible nature of their traditional perimeters. The democratization of

epistemic authority through the use of ERS data validates a particular technologically mediated perspectiveon the natural world.

2. NO LINK ALL OF KATOS ARGUMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO SATELLITES USEDFOR CLIMATE PREDICTION IMAGING, WE USE THE SATELLITES TO INCREASEALTERNATIVE ENERGY

3. PERM: DO THE PLAN AND REEVALUATE OUR FORMS OF TECHNOSUBJECTIVITYTO OVERCOME THE DOMINATING NATURE OF OUR SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

4. THE PERM SOLVES: COMBINING THE UNITING POWER OF SATELLITES ANDTHE DECENTRALIZED GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES SOLVES FORECOLOGICAL INTERDEPENDENCE

Martin Hewson[Associate at the York Centre for International and Security Studies, York University] & Timothy Sinclair[Associate Professor of International Political Economy at the University of Warwick], 1999, SUNY Press,Approaches toGlobal Governance Theory, p. 87

As a multifaceted power/knowledge complex, ERS incorporates sometimes contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, the global

view afforded from the vantage point of space seems especially conducive to the notions of planetary management and thecentralization of power. Indeed, in the discourse surrounding ERS, terms like managing the planet and global managementabound. Yet global science is inherently decentralized, depending on countless loosely knit and continually shifting networks

of individual researchers most of whom resist outside intervention in communication that crisscrosses the borders of well

over a hundred sovereign nations. The decentralized nature of global science is likely to have important social and political

implications for efforts to cope with global ecological interdependence.

34


35/141

DDI 2008



5. ALT CANT SOLVE THE LINK A. REEVALUATING TECHNOSUBJECTIVITY WONT BRING DOWN THE

THOUSANDS OF SATELLITES THAT ACTUALLY ARE IN SPACE FOR SURVEILLANCEB. REJECTING AFF IMPLEMENTATION DOESNT SOLVE FOR THE ONGOING

SUBJECTION OF THE THIRD WORLD TO MEET THE FIRST WORLDS DEMANDS

FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGYC. REJECTING TECHNO-SUBJECTIVITY DOESNT BRING THE VOICE OF THE

OTHER BACK , AS LONG AS THE FIRST WORLD EXISTS, IT CAN ALWAYSESTABLISH AN US VERSUS THEM DELINEATION OF SUPERIORITY

6. TURN: ATTEMPTS TO BAN TECHNOLOGY WILL ONLY RESULT INTECHNOLOGICAL BACKLASH, WE MUST USE GOOD TECHNOLOGY

NickBostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003 World Transhumanist Association, For the ethical use oftechnology for human development, Society and Politics, http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/68/

Many of the responses to Joys article pointed out that there is no realistic prospect of a worldwide ban on thesetechnologies; that they have enormous potential benefits that we would not want to forgo; that the poorest people may have

a higher tolerance for risk in developments that could improve their condition; and that a ban may actually increase thedangers rather than reduce them, both by delaying the development of protective applications of these technologies, and

by weakening the position of those who choose to comply with the ban relative to less scrupulous groups who defy it. Amore promising alternative than a blanket ban is differential technological development, in which we would seek to

influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, we would strive to retard the development of

harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially

those that offer protection against the harmful ones. Fortechnologies that have decisive military applications, unlessthey can be verifiably banned, we may seek to ensure that they are developed at a faster pace in countries we regard asresponsible than in those that we see as potential enemies.

7. WE STILL GET TO WEIGH OUR CASE NEG CAN USE KS TO PROVE WHY THEAFF IS BAD, IF WE CAN PROVE THAT THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OUTWEIGH THEN

WE WIN

8. ALT CANT SOLVE THE CASE REJECTING TECHNO-SUBJECTIVITY FAILS TOACCOMMODATE THE POSITIVE USES OF TECHNOLOGY THAT ENABLECIVILIZATIONS TO COEXIST AND OPERATE ON AN EQUAL LEVEL

35


36/141

DDI 2008



2AC Heidegger K

1. Plan Focus - The Focus of the debate is the Affirmative plan, meaning thatwe get to weigh the impacts of our case against the impacts of the K.

2. Case Outweighs - The Aff outweighs the case because two scenarios ofNuclear war along with the deaths of 100 trillion people a second faroutweighs the devaluing of nature

3. Turn the plan embraces nature and causes us to embrace nature andcoexist because we build Solar powered Satellites which transform the sunsenergy rather than harm nature. Instead of devaluing nature as standing inreserves, we are able to utilize the suns rays with maximum efficiency ratherthan allow them to be wasted.

4. No Link We dont use modern renewables, we use a new technology that we

develop

5. No Turn - The Criticism does not turn the case, SPS is not the root cause ofthe devaluing of nature, Biofuels and Wind power are far worse

6.Alt does not solve - The Alternative does not solve the case, we must actnow to solve for SPS. Cross Apply Engdahl from the 1AC that we have a narrowwindow to get into space. Also Dolman, that we must act now before othernations beat us to it collapsing hegemony

7. Permute Do the plan and realize that capture nature for subjective human

desires, but embrace a process in order to rethink our relationship in the worldand ourselves for everything else.

8. No Impact - even if we do steal the intrinsic values of nature, we still dontlink to their impact because we realize that it isnt standing in reserves

36


37/141

DDI 2008



*************** Disads ***************

37


38/141

DDI 2008



A2: German Tradeoff

1. Uniqueness overwhelms the link nothing in their evidence indicates that funding NASA

would be enough to deter the German alternative energy economy from growing

2. No link their evidence is only specific to funding corporations and privates to do the plan doesntassume SBSP development and funding to NASA

3. No link their DOE evidence does not talk about the German alternative energy economy in the contextof American solar development no trade-off

4. No internal l

369 cm affirmative blocks compiled

Documents