[eDebate] Space Topic - Near Earth, etc.

J T jtedebate
Sat Jan 17 00:16:05 CST 2004


a few things....

Brad Hall <hallbc2 at wfu.edu> wrote:
>>>One fear is that teams, especially at the beginning of the year/small
teams, will largely ignore the solvency questions of what is the best
way to achieve colonization, etc and instead just focus on the impact
level. 

That happens to some degree at the beginning of the year on most topics. Despite camps, etc, many teams still are banking on the backfiles or generics to get them through the first tournament until the topic unfolds a bit. If they do ignore the solvency-based questions, I would assume they might be losing to generic CPs and Ks...besides, if the goal is to best achieve long-term colonization, all their generic impact turns will be non-unique...Sometimes you find out the States/federalism strategy just doesn't work with specific cases, etc.

However, concern about a resolutional goal is an interesting approach to developing a topic. If we establish that, for example, long-term colonization is the goal, we can specifically address HOW to achieve that goal in areas such as transportation/access, commercial/private space ventures, NASA reforms, exploration & research...that also establishes a base for kritikal args in addressing the WHY? as a precursor to the 1AC action.

>>>Not only would this undercut many of the educational benefits of the space topic, but these debates will be repetitive especially with the space disad that people are debating now.


The current/recent space disad is centered on a narrow aspect of the space POLICY debate. Vague NASA reforms and lofty agenda-setting is not POLICY. Besides, space debates in general will get much deeper than the 1NR on politics.


>>>I haven't been following these threads as close as I should, but has a
resolution/plan mechanism been proposed for this topic? If not, there
seems to be a nearly unlimited number of mechanisms to explore space,
colonize, etc (I'm also unclear as to what the intended goal of this
topic would be) that the neg can't prepare for, so the above problems
will only be exacerbated.


While there are a huge amount of possible exploration missions, this should not affect predictability of policy issues. "Space exploration" was an overly broad phrase in the 1990-1991 HS topic.  Everything under the sun, every conceivable mission was a case.  The topic would never get old, constantly changing and always fresh...but hellish!...That would ruin any value of the topic, you're correct. But the actual POLICY issues involved would severely limit the number of those missions discussed. For example, an agenda or priority-setting topic would focus on whole areas of the missions: Earth monitoring, colonies, celestial threats, deep space missions, etc. The same is true of a NASA reforms topic. Negatives should always have commercialization/privatization issues, industry disads, Spending, Politics, climate debate, and several areas of criticism.


Brad



JT

Head Coach, Emporia State Univ. Debate

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20040116/d967e772/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list