[eDebate] Re: Topic 5 - GET A CLUE ON SPACE!

[J T]

Space debates have gotten a bad rap for years...primarily because they are often coupled with
spark or wipeout (OK, stick your nose in the air). Along these lines, many of you hear those
"crazy arguments" like ETs, etc. Resolution #4 (coop) DOES NOT lend itself to these debates.

1. UQ problems...casey talks about "mind-bogglingly stupid debates", and that we "cannot refute
the obvious." Simple-minded at best. I'm not sure how many space debates you've been in, but the
simple fact is that it's inevitable...sure there will be bumps in the road and disasters to be
sure, but we are on a clear path to the stars. Why be scared of non-unique impacts?...People who
bank on time travel as a disad to your aff will have problems...they will lose.

2. TF...Replicating probes will take hundreds of years...Alife is nowhere near realization (and
space wouldn't help it)...no sign of ETs...nano is largely resigned to medicine
research...wormholes and time travel a purely theroretical...pretty sure your nuclear wars would
kill the planet before any of that happens...

3. TRY OR DIE! We've all heard this many times..."space solves all"...maybe so, but not when you
stick to debate 101 impact calculus: Timeframe, probability and magnitude...one alone rarely wins
rounds

4. Casey Et al are aliens! (I have a list) I'm callin' out the conspiracy! This explains their
utter refusal to seriously consider one of the most prolific issues in human history and one of
the largest set of interactions between the u.s. & china outside of pure economic ones (but not if
you ONLY pay attention to the major papers of lexis...go to think tanks for the most extensive and
qualified writings). 

A few alternatives to uneducated anti-space hacks:

-go cut some cards...I'm tired of people whining about "those crazy space debates" while they make
no real effort to cut answers. The bulk does not come from fringe web sites, but scholarly
journals  with articles from PhDs in astrophysics...and those things called books too!

-Check out the newest issue of Ad Astra...The entire issue is devoted to engaging/cooperating with
China on space (just in case your worse fears come true...there are some answers too).

-"K them 'til they bleed!" I've come across a myriad of anti-space criticisms, including an
application of Spanos, cultural imperialism, techno-fixes, feminist space, etc. Also some cases
will require or effectually reform international law aggreements...

-Cut indicts....there are lts of people who writing well-articulated critiques of the major space
authors, like Carl Sagan...If these people are "mind-bogglingly stupid", then ya'll might think
you're smarter, so think of something to say other than uneducated put downs...Find a card that
says "this is all fantasy/impossible"...it's not THAT difficult...have you thought of performance?

-Raise the bar! Show people that these debates are uneducational by beating teams with good
answers...pretty soon ET will pail in comparison to your developed 3 card internal link turn
scenario...set an example, lead...don't whine.


The solvency-based literature is largely focused on how (multiple ways) the u.s. can coop, without
giving up sensitive dual use technology...that sane enough? A good chunk deals with the
International Space Station and several ways to go about the coop...also, china has some good tech
we need, especially in the area of launch vehicles.

It amazes me that people will complain about those "crazy space arguments" but stand up in the 2nr
and wax philosophic about their Mead evidence, or that bullshit Beardon 2000 card (that was often
read devoid of it's full meaning), Chalko, etc....why are these any better? Is space milz ok? What
if we don't read the Mitchell Et al orbiting death stars card, and instead run our India ASATs
turn (7-10 year TF)? Would that cut the mustard?


Yeah, maybe this post has been a little bastard-ish..I apologize in advance...not wait, no I
don't.
Quit complaining and get to work! Whatever resolution we pick, I have a solvency advocate for a
us-china space case (except 7 & 8)...Emporia isn't worried...but that's not my concern. Flippant
dismissals of #4 because you hate the standard space debates Ironically, Cormack used to gripe
about space debates...but at least he cut some answers. 


JT

--- Casey Daniel Harrigan <harriga8 at msu.edu> wrote:

> <4. Why not rez 4??? It is govt-to-govt (and it is
> actually w/ China--a huge plus) and requires increased
> cooperation. I thinkt hat g2g coop is about the same
> limits as g2g engagement, tell me what DA you can't
> run on #4 that you can on #5? It seems like
> increasing US-China cooperation on proliferation is an
> actual debate w/ evidence instead of "integrating
> china into prolif treaties". If you want to debate
> prolif, this is your rez. > 
> 
> Space = mind-bogglingly stupid debates. Whatever you and Austin have written 
> about this before cannot refute the obvious. 




JT

Asst. Debate Coach
Emporia State University


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. 
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250