Advantages

(1) Environmental collapse/overpopulation
(2) Overview Effect
(3) Economy/Competitiveness
(4) Space militarization Good / Bad / Intl. Cooperation/Peace
(5) Hegemony Good
(6) Post-Humanism
(7) Science
(a) Scientific Advancement
(b) International Science Cooperation

Plans/Affirmatives

(1) Mars Colonization
(2) Moon Base
(3) Asteroid Colonization
(4) Solar Powered Satellites
(5) Space Plane
(6) Space Station
(7) International Cooperation
(8) Space Tourism
(9) Space Nuclear Systems
(10) R& D
(11) Helium-3
(12) Human exploration
(13) Pluto-Water
(14) Satellite Clean Up
(15) Space Junk
(16) Solar Flares
(17) Global Warming
(18) Aliens
(19) Communication Technologies
(20) Asteroids
(21) Planetary Protection
(22) Weather Control Technology
(23) Overpopulation

Disadvantages

(1) Politics
(2) Spending
(a) Fiscal Discipline
(3) Japan
(4) Europe/EU
(5) China
(6) Russia
(7) Private Sector Crowd-Out/Trade Off
(8) Space Junk/Debris
(9) Space Diseases
(10) Space Militarization Good/Bad
(11) Inflation
(12) Hegemony bad
(13) Space Nuclearization
(14) Plutonium shortage/trade-off
(15) Aliens
(16) EarthGov

Counterplans

(1) European Union (EU)
(2) China
(3) Russia
(4) Japan
(5) International Cooperation/UN
(6) Private action/tax incentives
(7) Consultation
(8) Ban NASA
(9) Courts
(10) Executive Order
(11) Unmanned/Manned Craft PIC
(12) Rocket PIC
(13) Technologies PIC
(14) X-Prize PIC
(15) India

Kritiks

(1) Capitalism
(2) Post-Humanism
(3) Edelman
(4) Zizek
(5) Futurism
(6) Baudrillard
(7) Marcuse
(8) Nietzsche
(9) Heidegger
(10) Feminism
(11) Apocalypse Rhetoric
(12) Colonization
(13) Development
(14) Anthropocentrism
(15) Militarism

5. The Gigantic Space Cannon

4. The Atom-Bomb Powered Spacecraft

3. Buzz Aldrin’s Martian Gravity Express

2. Farming Man-Made Space Meat

1. Project Daedalus

Top Ten Reasons for Going Into Space

Reason Number 10

Colonization – in another twenty years it is estimated the population of the earth will reach over 8 billion. We could use a place to live.

 

Reason Number 9

Place a spy satellite over the Miss Hawaiian Tropics contest.

 

Reason Number 8

International Diplomacy – we went to the moon to beat the Russians, now we’re building the International Space Station as a way to work with the Russians. Go figure. In any event, prestige and international relations are among the most powerful reasons we’ve had for going into space.

 

Reason Number 7

Natural Resources – some day we may be able to mine the Moon for green cheese and the asteroids for minerals and ores.

 

Reason Number 6

Researching the universe – orbiting observatories like Hubble Space Telescope, Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), and Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) to study the stars, galaxies, and the structure of the universe.

 

Reason Number 5

Technology Spin-Offs from NASA-developed technology like small solid-state lasers which led to Compact Discs, cordless power tools, solar power cells, laptop computers AND TANG.

 

Reason Number 4

Researching the sun, moon, and planets – deep-space planetary probes and manned exploration to study the atmosphere, composition, and physics of other bodies in the solar system.

 

Reason Number 3

Get Marvin the Martian’s autograph  

Reason Number 2

Many applications that can be accomplished only from orbit, for example – telephone & TV communications around the world, weather observation and prediction (notably hurricanes), land surveys, and navigation (notably the Global Positioning System, GPS).

 

Reason Number 1

BECAUSE IT’S THERE.

For the space exploration debate topic of 2011-2012, we might see the X-Prize exist as affirmative ‘funding’ (since a competition-based prize for the development of new technology costs less than other alternatives) or as a PIC (a CP) where the negative says “Do the plan, but use the NASA X-Prize as funding instead of ___”, etc. Now, the X-Prize might be status quo; that just depends on the inherency cards of NASA for next year. Nevertheless, debaters need to be aware of the unique aspect of NASA. I’m sure it’ll make its way into main stream debate next year, since cards were already cut for the alternative energy topic, and may be seen in affirmative’s as a funding/plan mechanism and/or a PIC. Nevertheless, here’s a link to get you started.

All right, what about a CP text of “do the plan but instead imple­ment it using heavy-lift rockets”?

The pol­i­tics DA links are out there:

Wednesday’s dis­pute over rocket pri­or­i­ties revived a bat­tle that Con­gress waged last year.

Law­mak­ers largely favored a heavy-lift rocket to suc­ceed the space shut­tle pro­gram sched­uled to end later this year. But Pres­i­dent Barack Obama urged greater sup­port for com­mer­cial rock­ets to ferry peo­ple to the Inter­na­tional Space Sta­tion within a few years.

Last year’s pol­icy law called for $3 bil­lion in fis­cal 2012 for a heavy-lift rocket and cap­sule, and $500 mil­lion to develop com­mer­cial rock­ets. But Obama’s fis­cal 2012 bud­get pro­poses $2.8 bil­lion for the heavy-lift rocket and $850 mil­lion for com­mer­cial rockets.

The pol­icy law calls on NASA to launch a heavy-lift rocket by 2016, butNASA offi­cials said in Jan­u­ary that’s prob­a­bly impos­si­ble, even with the extra money in the law.

T-Development (Growth) Violation 1NC Shell

A. Interpretation

“Development” means development and not growth, according to _________________.

B. Violation

The affirmative increases the growth of _____, but does not the development.

C. Standards

1. Fair Limits: Definition is better because it fairly limits both teams to an acceptable amount of ground.
2. Bright Line: Definition is better because it draws a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not whereas aff definition is vague.
3. Education: Definition is better because it allows both sides to gain a greater education of the issues at hand.
4. Ground: The negative team’s interpretation of the resolution restricts the number of cases that fall within the topic; therefore, the affirmative team cannot come here and run any case they choose.  By doing this you, as the judge, increase the educational value of this debate round.
5. Grammatical Context: Definition is better because it fits into the resolution and still works.
6. Each Word: Each word of the resolution must have a unique meaning.  The affirmative cannot make a term moot through its definitions.
7. Best Definition: Neg definition is from an expert source (legal dictionary, political books, etc.)  The aff source is not, and the best definition in the round should prevail.
8. Scientific Superiority: Definition is better because the debate round is about science, so we should use scientific definitions.
9. Context: Definition is better because it uses the word in the way that experts in the field use it.
10. Infinite prep time: The affirmative has had an unlimited amount of prep time to come up with a topical case.
11. Breadth v. Depth: We preserve educational value by having an in-depth debate on core topic issues.  It is more educational to read one book than the titles of seven.

D. Voters

1. Stock issues: Topicality is a stock issue of debate; if a case is not topical, you must vote against it.
2. Fairness: You cannot promote unfair treatment of the neg by the aff by granting them your ballot.
3. Clash: We could not present effective clash not because of our own lack of skill or preparation but because they presented a case that we had no way of preparing for.
4. Jurisdiction: It is not within your jurisdiction as judge to vote for a nontopical case.
5. Education: Debate is supposed to be about education, and we can learn only by being able to debate cases that we can prepare for and argue effectively.  You, as the judge, should not vote for a case that impedes education rather than promotes it.
6. Debatability: We can prepare for only those cases that fall under the resolution and should not be voted against because we could not debate a nontopical case.
7. Predictability: Affirmative interpretation forces the negative to debate trivial issues that it is impossible to prepare for.  Your ballot should support only those cases that the neg can predict and prepare for.
8. Tradition: Topicality has traditionally been a voting issue.

Berkeley Debate Institute (CNDI): (Berkeley, CA)
4 Week Program – June 19-July 16
Residential cost $3450
Commuter cost $1800
3 Week Program – June 19-July 9
Residential cost $2750
Commuter cost $1500
2 Week Program – June 26-July 9
Residential cost $2000
Commuter cost $1250

Dartmouth Debate Institute: (Hanover, NH)
The fee for the four week session is $4150. This covers tuition, housing, and a declining-balance meal plan.
July 17 – August 14, 2011

Emory Debate Institute (Atlanta, GA)
Emory 4-week Sophomore Debate Institute
4-week ENDI: June 26-July 23, 2011 (Resident: $3150/Commuter: $2150)
The 6-week Juniors Program (Resident: $4350/Commuters: $2850)
6-week ENDI: June 12-July 23, 2011
The 6-week Seniors Program
6-week ENDI: June 12-July 23, 2011
2-week ENDI Program June 12-25, 2011 (Resident: $1850/Commuter: $1250)
(I assume all the emory 6 week programs cost the same–if you decide to participate, be sure to double-check)

Georgetown Debate Seminar (Washington DC)
June 19th-July 10th, 2011
Cost: $2875

Also through Georgetown: the Hoya/Spartan 7 Week Workshop
June 19th-July 10th – Georgetown University
July 10th – August 5th – Michigan State University
Price: as low as $5900 ($350 savings in tuition)

Gonzaga Debate Institute: (Spokane, Washington)
Five Week Scholars Program – June 19th – July 23rd ($1500/$2350/$3000/$3250)
Five Week Sophomores Program – June 19th – July 23rd ($1500/$2350/$3000/$3250)
Four Week Varsity Program – June 25th – July 23rd ($1300/$2000/$2500/$2700)
Debate Track Program – July 6th – 23rd ($1000/$1300/$1600/$1750)
2 Week Juniors and Seniors Program – July 9th – 23rd ($900/$1200/$1500/$1600)
2 Week Sophomores – July 9th – 23rd ($900/$1200/$1500/$1600)
Novice Program – July 9th- 23rd ($700/$1100/$1300/$1400)

Kansas Debate Institute (Lawrence, KS)
2 week $1400 (with room & board) $800 (without room & board)
3 week $1800 (with room & board) $1000 (without room & board)
4 week $2800 (with room & board) $2200 (without room & board)

Kentucky Debate Institute (based on last years northwestern tuition, which is not expected to change substantially)
Juniors $5450 ($1300 Kentucky, $4150 Northwestern)
Senior Fellows $5400 ($900 Kentucky, $4500 Northwestern)
Seniors $6300 ($1800 Kentucky, $4500 Northwestern)
Sophomores $6300 ($1800 Kentucky, $4500 Northwestern)

Michigan State University–Spartan Debate Institute (SDI)
2-week program: July 10-22 ($1150)
3-week program: July 10-29 ($1650)
4-week program: July 10 – August 5 ($3500)

Michigan University Debate Institute (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
MNDI is $2,200.
The total fee for the MNDI Extension Week are $3000
The cost of participating in a Seven Week Lab is $5500 plus a $60 Application Fee.

Samford Debate Institute (Birmingham, AL)
Sunday, June 26-Saturday, July 9, 2011
Residents $1,350 (including $50 deposit)
Commuters with meals $1,000 (including $50 deposit)
Commuters without meals $850 (including $50 deposit)

UNT Policy Debate Institute (Mean Green in Denton, TX):
4 Weeks: June 19 – July 16, 2011, $3200
3 Weeks: June 19 – July 9, 2011, $2400
2 Weeks (A): June 19 – July 2, 2011, $1600
2 Weeks (B): July 3 – July 16, 2011, $1600

University of Texas (Austin, TX)
Skills Intensive $1,850 (includes room and board)
Research Intensive $2,950 (includes room and board)
Session 1: June 24—July 14, 2011
Session 2: July 16— August 5, 2011

Whitman Debate Camp: (Walla Walla, WA)

3 week Policy or LD Camp: $2095
(includes tuition, room, 3 meals a day, and $150 non-refundable deposit)
2 week Policy or LD Camp: $1595
(includes tuition, room, 3 meals a day, and $150 non-refundable deposit)

Dynasty Debate ECamp: Online!

Entire summer Policy Camp: $50
(includes videos, files for next year, overviews, worksheets, and a bunch of other material)

• Heidegger on Wikipedia
• Heidegger on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Beckman et al, 2000, “Martin Heidegger and Environmental Ethics”
• Dreyfus, “Heidegger on the Connection between Nihilism, Art, Technology and Politics”
• Heidegger, “The Question Concerning Technology”
• “Understanding Heidegger’s ‘The Question Concerning Technology’”
• Sabatino, “A Heideggerian Reflection on the Prospects of Technology”
• Feenberg, 2005, “Heidegger, Marcuse and the Philosophy of Technology”
• …and a website with a number of different links to other sites on Heidegger.

International Space Leadership, Roger Launius (NASA Historian)

The Space Show, Dr. Livingston

NASA Watch, NASA

2011 CX State Tournament Results

And here are links to the top speaker awards, teams advancing to quarterfinals  (4A/5A) (1A/2A/3A) and the same for octofinals (4A/5A) (1A/2A/3A).