2ac Blocks

Baylor Debate Workshops 1
Cisneros / DeFilippis Lab Blocks
1NC T V HEMP AFFS- INCENTIVES / INCREASE ...................................................................................................................3

1NC T V HEMP AFFS- INCENTIVES / INCREASE...............................................................................................3
1NC CP V HEMP AFF.....................................................................................................................................................4
1NC CP V HEMP AFF..................................................................................................................................................4
2NC SOLVENCY BLOCK...................................................................................................................................................5
2NC SOLVENCY BLOCK...........................................................................................................................................5
2NC SOLVENCY BLOCK...................................................................................................................................................6
2NC SOLVENCY BLOCK...........................................................................................................................................6
2NC EXTERNAL NET BENEFIT...........................................................................................................................................7
2NC EXTERNAL NET BENEFIT..............................................................................................................................7
2AC- TOPICALITY- “IN” OR “UNITED STATES”...................................................................................................................8
2AC- TOPICALITY- “IN” OR “UNITED STATES”................................................................................................8
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S................................................................................................................9
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S..............................................................................................9
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S.............................................................................................................10
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S...........................................................................................10
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S.............................................................................................................11
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS INTERNATIONAL CP’S...........................................................................................11
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP .........................................................................................................................12
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP ................................................................................................................12
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP..........................................................................................................................13
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP................................................................................................................13
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP..........................................................................................................................14
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS. STATES CP................................................................................................................14
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS STATES CP...........................................................................................................................15
2AC- US KEY BLOCK VS STATES CP.................................................................................................................15
2AC- SBSP KEY (AGAINST CP’S THAT DO DIFFERENT ENERGY).......................................................................................16
2AC- SBSP KEY (AGAINST CP’S THAT DO DIFFERENT ENERGY)............................................................16
2AC- FISCAL DISCIPLINE DA........................................................................................................................................20
2AC- FISCAL DISCIPLINE DA...............................................................................................................................20

2AC- OIL DA.............................................................................................................................................................23
2AC- OIL DA...............................................................................................................................................................23
2AC- OIL DA.............................................................................................................................................................24
2AC- OIL DA...............................................................................................................................................................24
2AC- OIL DA.............................................................................................................................................................25
2AC- OIL DA...............................................................................................................................................................25
2AC- HEIDEGGER DA..................................................................................................................................................26
2AC- HEIDEGGER DA.............................................................................................................................................26
1NC T v Hemp Affs- Incentives / Increase

A. Interpetation- Plan’s must provide monetary payments as incentives
Lindberg 07 [Christine, Mangaging Editor, Oxford College Dictionary 2nd Edition]
Incentive- a payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment.
Increase means to make greater
Oxford Dictionary of Current English 06
Increase: Make or become greater in size , amount, or intensity.
B. Violation- The plan merely changes the legal status of Hemp it does not provide monetary incentives and it
doesn’t increase the current amount of incentives given now.
C. Standards-
1. Limits- Our interpretation limits the mechanism of motivation to monetary incentives--- their
interpretation explodes the topic, allows an infinite number of case that enforces any action.
Their interpretation justifies the passage of any bill or mandate to coerce a particular type of
action.
2. Ground- Our interpretation is key to core negative ground—incentive bad DA’s, economy
DA’s, and politics are all reliant on monetary investment
3. Effects- Even if the plan eventually results in monetary payment to farmers the aff takes a
number of steps to get to that action. Effects T bad
a. Infinite Regression- Justifies an assassinate Bush aff and claiming that his successor
will implement alterative energy policies—kills limits because all affs can be topical
with a lot of internal links
b. Ground- it’s impossible to have offense for every small step and they can always no
Link are DA’s by saying their steps are too miniscule.
c. Independent voter for fairness.
D. Voter - Topicality is a voter for fairness and education and should be judged on the basis of competing
interpretations where whatever interpretation is best for debate should win.
1NC CP v Hemp Aff

CP Text: The United States federal government should fund the immediate development and deployment of
Space-Based Solar Power by removing gettingnecessary funding from current nuclear power programs.
Observation 1 Net Benefits: CP doesn’t link to Spending DA because it offsets money.
Observation 2 Solvency:
CP solves all of their advantages—Space Based Solar Power is key to Energy Independence, and
Environmental Security. AND, removing funding from Nuclear Fusion programs and putting them into Solar
development is enough to solve.
Hamilton, 2007 (Tyler, “Space-based solar power back in play,” Oct. 15, The Toronto Star, lexis)
High oil prices, energy security fears and the potentially devastating effects of climate change have prompted the U.S. government to again
explore the idea of placing millions of solar panels in orbit to beam immense amounts of clean power back to Earth. Seriously. An agency
called the National Security Space Office, which reports to the U.S. Department of Defence, released a feasibility
study last week recommending that "space-based solar power," an idea first proposed in the U.S. some 40 years ago, be pursued
in the name of national security. The sun, after all, shines more strongly and for 24 hours a day in space, outside the filters of Earth's clouds and
its relatively dirty atmosphere. There are also few real-estate problems up there, fewer people to complain and the potential of having a fuelling
post for Richard Branson and other private space travellers. According to the study, the energy collected would be electromagnetically beamed
back to Earth and connected to the electrical grid, or used in the manufacture of synthetic fuels. It even suggests that weaker beams could be
directed at individual households. Seriously. "A single kilometre-wide band of geosynchronous Earth orbit experiences
enough solar flux in one year to nearly equal the amount of energy contained within all known recoverable
conventional oil reserves on Earth today," the study states. "There is enormous potential for energy security, economic
development, improved environmental stewardship, advancement of general space faring, and overall national
security for those nations who construct and possess (the) capability." It also says that Canada, among others, has
expressed interest in such a project. Again, the discussion has come up before. NASA and the U.S. Department of Defence
have together spent about $80 million (U.S.) over the last three decades studying the idea. Seems like decent money,
until you see that the U.S. government has spent about $21 billion over 50 years on that elusive energy utopia called
nuclear fusion. Perhaps it is time to give space-based solar power another look, given that such a system might already exist
today had it received the money dumped into fusion. Oil has surged past $80 a barrel and there's a desperate need
for low- or zero-carbon energy sources. Lob a few bombs at Iran and the situation gets worse, not better.
2NC Solvency Block

CP solves 100% of the case- extend Hamilton- the funds currently used to develop nuclear energy could
fully facilitate the development and deployment of solar space technology. Solar space tech solves global
warming and energy independence because the sun has enough energy to provide everyone in the world
with enough environmentally friendly fuel.
And,
CP solves global energy independence- space based solar technology is key to limitless energy.
NSS 7 [National Space Society, October, “Space Solar Power—Limitless clean energy from space”,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm, DeFilippis]
The United States and the world need to find new sources of clean energy. Space Solar Power gathers energy from sunlight in space and transmits
it wirelessly to Earth. Space solar power can solve our energy and greenhouse gas emissions problems. Not just help, not just take a step in the
right direction, but solve. Space solar power can provide large quantities of energy to each and every person on Earth
with very little environmental impact. The solar energy available in space is literally billions of times greater than
we use today. The lifetime of the sun is an estimated 4-5 billion years, making space solar power a truly long-term energy solution. As Earth
receives only one part in 2.3 billion of the Sun's output, space solar power is by far the largest potential energy source available, dwarfing all
others combined. Solar energy is routinely used on nearly all spacecraft today. This technology on a larger scale, combined with already
demonstrated wireless power transmission (see 2-minute video of demo), can supply nearly all the electrical needs of our planet. Another need is
to move away from fossil fuels for our transportation system. While electricity powers few vehicles today, hybrids will soon evolve into plug-in
hybrids which can use electric energy from the grid. As batteries, super-capacitors, and fuel cells improve, the gasoline engine will gradually play
a smaller and smaller role in transportation — but only if we can generate the enormous quantities of electrical energy we need. It doesn't help to
remove fossil fuels from vehicles if you just turn around and use fossil fuels again to generate the electricity to power those vehicles. Space solar
power can provide the needed clean power for any future electric transportation system. While all viable energy options should be pursued with
vigor, space solar power has a number of substantial advantages over other energy sources. Advantages of Space Solar Power (also known as
Space-Based Solar Power, or SBSP) Unlike oil, gas, ethanol, and coal plants, space solar power does not emit greenhouse gases. Unlike coal
and nuclear plants, space solar power does not compete for or depend upon increasingly scarce fresh water resources. Unlike bio-ethanol or bio-
diesel, space solar power does not compete for increasingly valuable farm land or depend on natural-gas-derived fertilizer. Food can continue to
be a major export instead of a fuel provider. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power will not produce hazardous waste, which needs to
be stored and guarded for hundreds of years. Unlike terrestrial solar and wind power plants, space solar power is available 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, in huge quantities. It works regardless of cloud cover, daylight, or wind speed. Unlike nuclear power plants, space solar power does not
provide easy targets for terrorists. Unlike coal and nuclear fuels, space solar power does not require environmentally problematic mining
operations. eliminating a major Space solar power will provide true energy independence for the nations that
develop it, source of national competition for limited Earth-based energy resources. Space solar power will not
require dependence on unstable or hostile foreign oil providers to meet energy needs, enabling us to expend resources in
other ways. Space solar power can be exported to virtually any place in the world, and its energy can be converted
for local needs — such as manufacture of methanol for use in places like rural India where there are no electric power grids. Space solar
power can also be used for desalination of sea water. Space solar power can take advantage of our current and historic investment in aerospace
expertise to expand employment opportunities in solving the difficult problems of energy security and climate change. Space solar power can
provide a market large enough to develop the low-cost space transportation system that is required for its deployment. This, in turn, will also
bring the resources of the solar system within economic reach.
2NC Solvency Block
Second, CP solves Global Warming- there only solvency evidence just says the U.S. should do it which the CP
captures because it is U.S. action.
AND Ground-based solutions to climate change are ineffective—space-based energy is key to stop warming
their plan will fail .
Hanley 8 [Charles J, “'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy `Beam Me Down Some Energy': Giant Pentagon, Tiny
Palau Eye Space Solar Power”, AP Special Correspondent The Associated Press, The Associated Press,
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4045164, DeFilippis]
While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the U.N. climate conference was looking toward
the heavens for its energy. The annual meeting's corridors can be a sounding board for unlikely "solutions" to climate change
from filling the skies with soot to block the sun, to cultivating oceans of seaweed to absorb the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
Unlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether space-based solar power
beaming energy down from satellites will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind." Tommy
Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau. The Defense Department
this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space power collection of energy by
vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military operations. It could be done
with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of equipment into space makes it uneconomical.
That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders, comes in. In September, American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th
International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration
project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300
miles above Earth. That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty island the project would "be intended to show its safety for
everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California. Reed said he expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin
manufacturing the necessary ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial support from manufacturers wanting to show how
their technology launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology could make such a system work. He estimates project costs at $800 million
and completion as early as 2012. At the U.N. climate conference here this month, a Reed partner discussed the idea with the Palauans, who Reed
said could benefit from beamed-down energy if the project is expanded to populated areas. "We are keen on alternative energy," Palau's
Remengesau said. "And if this is something that can benefit Palau, I'm sure we'd like to look at it." Space power has been explored since the
1960s by NASA and the Japanese and European space agencies, based on the fundamental fact that solar energy is eight times more powerful in
outer space than it is after passing through Earth's atmosphere. The energy captured by space-based photovoltaic arrays would be converted into
microwaves for transmission to Earth, where it would be transformed into direct-current electricity. Low-orbiting satellites, as proposed for
Palau, would pass over once every 90 minutes or so, transmitting power to a rectenna for perhaps five minutes, requiring long-term battery
storage or immediate use for example, in recharging electric automobiles via built-in rectennas. Most studies have focused instead on
geostationary satellites, those whose orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth keeps them over a single location, to which they would transmit a
continuous flow of power. The scale of that vision is enormous: One NASA study visualized solar-panel arrays 3 by 6 miles in size, transmitting
power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth. Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5 gigawatts of power, more than twice the
output of a Hoover Dam. But how safe would those beams be? Patrick Collins of Japan's Azabu University, who participated in Japanese
government studies of space power, said a lower-power beam, because of its breadth, might be no more powerful than the energy emanating from
a microwave oven's door. The beams from giant satellites would likely require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft and people on the ground,
he said. Rising oil costs and fears of global warming will lead more people to look seriously at space power, boosters
believe. "The climate change implications are pretty clear. You can get basically unlimited carbon-free power
from this," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society in Washington. "You just have to find a way to make it
cost-effective." Advocates say the U.S. and other governments must invest in developing lower-cost space-launch vehicles. "It is imperative
that this work for `drilling up' vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately," concludes October's Pentagon
report. Some seem to hear the call. The European Space Agency has scheduled a conference on space-based solar power for next Feb. 29. Space
Island Group, another entrepreneurial U.S. endeavor, reports "very positive" discussions with a European utility and the
Indian government about buying future power from satellite systems. To Robert N. Schock, an expert on future energy
with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, space power doesn't look like science fiction.
2nc External Net Benefit

Pulling money from nuclear fusion energy programs solves nuclear proliferation and global conflicts.
NSSO 2007 [SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGY SECURITY, National
Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf , Date
Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s reliance
on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear
materials that will almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort
to meet their energy needs with carbon neutral sources….Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but
dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased use of
nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security mechanisms, it may be
of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges of wide proliferation of
enrichment-based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable niche might be attractive.
Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence. SBSP will avoid energy shortages and great power
conflict If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of Energy’s own Energy Information Agency
If alternatives do not come on-line fast enough,
has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity.
then prices and resource tensions will increase with a negative effect on the global economy, possibly
even pricing some nations out of the competition for minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for
failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the
extent SBSP is successful in tapping an energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative
in the third dimension” to lessen the chance of such conflicts.
Prolif sparks extinction

Utgoff 2, Victor, Deputy fo Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analysis, 02 (Survival)
http://survival.oupjournals.org, DeFilippis]
Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons and that such shoot-outs will
have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.
2AC- Topicality- “in” or “United States”

1. We Meet—we only need this argument—the resolution says the federal government should increase
INCENTIVES in the U.S. not that the alternative energy has to be implemented in the U.S. The plan mandates
incentives in the U.S. for the development of SBPS-- the end result of which is space development. We meet its
definition because the incentives BELONG to the U.S.
2. Reasonability- they didn’t lose any ground – all of their DA’s should be based on the MECHANISM of the
resolution which is incentives.
2AC- US Key Block vs International CP’s

1. Permutation: Do Both- permutation captures double the solvency.
2. Solvency Deficits
a. Hegemony- U.S. development of Space-Based Solar technology is key to American leadership in
international affairs. A world without U.S. dominance leads to several scenarios of extinction via
power wars, terrorism, economic collapse, and proliferation- that’s Thayer
b. Energy Independence- American energy needs in particular fuel terrorism because the money for
oil goes to Islamic terrorists. Furthermore, U.S. addiction to oil is destroying military readiness
and hampering effective troop deployment—U.S. action is key to secure military dominance—the
impact is nuclear war.
c. Space Colonization- U.S. development of space technology is key to getting American businesses
to latch onto space development. Only American action can spur colonization. That’s Space
Future.
3. The Plan leads to the Counterplan—U.S. leadership on space will spur international collaboration
which means we capture any reason why your counter-plan is good.
Mankins 2007 [October 10th, “Leading Scientists and Thinkers on Energy – John C. Mankins “, Qualifications: John
C. Mankins is the President of ARTEMIS Innovation Management Solutions LLC, a research and development management consulting start-up;
He is internationally recognized as a successful leader in space systems and technology innovation, as a highly effective manager of large-scale
technology R&D programs, and as an accomplished communicator. He is also one of the foremost authorities on the subject of space solar power
(SSP). Mr. Mankins led NASA’s SSP “Fresh Look Study” in the mid-1990s, managed the SSP Exploratory Research & Technology (SERT)
Program, and is the creator of several important SSP systems concepts, including the SunTower, the Solar Clipper, and others. He serves as the
President of the Sunsat Energy Council (also known as the “Space Power Association”), a non-profit international group founded in 1978 by Dr.
Peter Glaser, that promotes the potential of SSP for future application on Earth and in space. Mr. Mankins has authored numerous papers and
articles on the topic of SSP and has testified before the U.S. Congress on the topic on several occasions.
http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/10/12/leading-scientists-and-thinkers-on-energy-%E2%80%93-john-c-
mankins/,
Evolutionshift.com: Clearly, the U.S. government needs to lead the way on this. Should a new department be created or can
NASA and the DOE work together on this? Mankins: The question is, how best for the U.S. government to take a leadership role in space solar
power? That really depends on the policies worked out by the Administration and the Congress. NASA, DOE or any other Agency
will not work on space solar power unless the Administration gives them the assignment to do so. Lots of
organizations could take a hand in this; it is such an enormous challenge. During 2002-2004, NASA worked with the National Science
Foundation on space solar power R&D—a partnership that was very successful. Also in the past, DOD organizations such as DARPA, the Office
of Naval Research or the Air Force Research Laboratory have all played critical roles in national-scale innovations. On the government side, there
probably must be a formal office somewhere—just where and how remains an open question. Ultimately, the individuals involved (and the
charter of they receive) are more important that the details of the organization, or where it resides. However, it probably should not be
entirely a government responsibility. In the nearer term, companies should play key roles in innovation R&D—that’s
what they’re best at doing. Then, when the time comes for larger scale technology demonstration on the ground or in space, it probably
makes sense for these demos to be implemented through government, industry—and probably international—partnerships.
Evolutionshift.com: Sounds like what is needed is a massive effort similar to the Apollo Space project. Should this be a multi-national effort?
Should the U.S. take the lead? Mankins: I think that a better analogy for space solar power might be with a different example from the 1950s-
1960s: the development of communications satellites. Success in this arena required both high levels of technological
innovation, driven by economics, as well as organizational innovation (inside government, in industry and in partnerships of the
two). Apollo was a tremendous success, but it was very single-minded—and gave no real attention to economics-driven innovation. Space
solar power R&D MUST have these elements, or there’s no hope for the vision. Concerning international efforts: the
answer is a strong “YES”! The development of space solar power must be an international undertaking—and the
U.S. should definitely play the leadership role in pulling together that effort.

4. Turn: Economy
Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse and extinction is inevitable.
Draiman 2008 [Jay, “Mandatory Renewable Energy: The Energy Evolution”, Energy Consultant and Energy
Development Specialist with over 20 years experience in energy research,
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn12774-pentagon-backs-plan-to-beam-solar-
power-from-space.html, DeFilippis]
"We strive to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the worlds most powerful. Energy is the basis of this entire world wealth,
and for perhaps earth entire history, the sun energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early
humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests.
Without the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial
Revolution and no looming global catastrophe. In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better
economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America
utilization of energy sources must change. "Energy drives our entire economy. We must protect it. "Let's face
it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want
to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not
negotiable. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
5. Turn: Technological Competitiveness
a. SBSP is key to American technological and scientific leadership—boosts U.S. educational

competitiveness.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power: As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,”
October 10, Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)
FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that SBSP offers a path to address the concerns over US intellectual
competitiveness in math and the physical sciences expressed by the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report by providing
a true “Manhattan or Apollo project for energy.” In absolute scale and implications, it is likely that SBSP would ultimately
exceed both the Manhattan and Apollo projects which established significant workforces and helped the US
maintain its technical and competitive lead. The committee expressed it was “deeply concerned that the
scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic leadership are eroding at a time when
many other nations are gathering strength.” SBSP would require a substantial technical workforce of high‐
paying jobs. It would require expanded technical education opportunities, and directly support the underlying aims
of the American Competitiveness Initiative.

b. Dominance in education and technology is key to maintain leadership which solves
extinction
Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis, DeFilippis)
To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the
economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. In the past, developments such as the agricultural and industrial
revolutions produced fundamental changes positively affecting the relative position of those who were able to take
advantage of them and negatively affecting those who did not. Some argue that the world may be at the beginning of another such
transformation, which will shift the sources of wealth and the relative position of classes and nations. If the United States fails to recognize the
change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S.
economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, thus increasing real per capita income; by
strengthening education and training; and by generating and using superior science and technology.[…] Under the third
option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the
indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because
a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be
more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better
chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional
hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global
rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global
nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.
2AC- US Key Block vs. States CP

2. No Link to Federalism DA- the States have NEVER done military technological development. That’s
always the domain of the DOD.
a. Hegemony- U.S. development of Space-Based Solar technology is key to American leadership in
international affairs. State action will not be perceived as a unified governmental effort – enemy
countries will perceive that the federal government has abdicated its military duties and they will
signal an invitation to attack. - that’s Thayer
b. Energy Independence-
The plan leads to international cooperation to solve GLOBAL energy independence. The states cannot create
global partnerships.
mankins/,
c. Space Colonization- U.S. development of space technology is key to getting American businesses
to latch onto space development. Only government action can spur innovation not the states. .
That’s Space Future.

4. Only federal government incentives can spur private innovation in Space technology—state action
will not be perceived as a sincere commitment to alternative energy.
NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:

As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,” October 10,
Report to the Director, National Security Space Office Interim Assessment,
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm, accessed 7/7, JDC)
The business case is much more likely to close in the near future if the U.S. Government agrees to:
o Sign up as an anchor tenant customer, and o Make appropriate technology investment and risk‐
reduction efforts by the U.S. Government, and o Provide appropriate financial incentives to the SBSP
industry that are similar to the significant incentives that Federal and State Governments are providing for private
industry investments in other clean and renewable power sources. • The business case may close in the
near future with appropriate technology investment and risk-reduction efforts by the U.S. Government,
and with appropriate financial incentives to industry. Federal and State Governments are providing significant
financial incentives for private industry investments in other clean an renewable power sources. o Recommendation: The SBSP
Study Group recommends that in order to reduce risk and to promote development of SBSP, the U.S. Government
should increase and accelerate its investments in the development and demonstration of key
component, subsystem, and system level technologies that will be required for the creation of operational and
scalable SBSP systems. Finding: The SBSP Study Group found that a small amount of entry capital by
the US Government is likely to catalyze substantially more investment by the private sector. This
opinion was expressed many times over from energy and aerospace companies alike. Indeed, there is
anecdotal evidence that even the activity of this interim study has already provoked significant activity by at least three major
aerospace companies. Should the United States put some dollars in for a study or demonstration, it is
likely to catalyze significant amounts of internal research and development. Study leaders likewise heard
that the DoD could have a catalytic role by sponsoring prizes or signaling its willingness to become the
anchor customer for the product. These findings are consistent with the findings of the recent President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST) report which recommended the federal government “expand its role as an early adopter in
order to demonstrate commercial feasibility of advanced energy technologies.”

5. The Plan leads to the Counterplan—U.S. leadership on space will spur international collaboration
which means we capture any reason why your counter-plan is good.
mankins/,
2AC- US Key Block vs States CP

6. Turn: Economy
Absent government adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse and extinction is inevitable.
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the worlds most powerful. Energy is the basis of this entire world wealth,
and for perhaps earth entire history, the sun energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early
humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests.
Without the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial
Revolution and no looming global catastrophe. In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better
economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America
utilization of energy sources must change. "Energy drives our entire economy. We must protect it. "Let's face
it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want
to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not
negotiable. Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
2AC- SBSP Key (Against CP’s that do different energy)

a. Hegemony- Space-Based Solar technology is key to American leadership in international affairs.
Solar power allows military flexibility, provides military with a infinite energy supply, and
supports development of mobile force structures. All of which are key to military readiness and
hegemony. That’s NSS and Smith.
b. Global Energy Independence- SBSP is the only alternative fuel that provides direct and
unending clean energy that can be distributed throughout the world in a matter of seconds through
electromagnetic pulses. All other alternatives require massive transition periods from oil
dependence and do not result in GLOBAL energy independence. Without achieving global energy
independence—terrorists organization will still be sponsored through oil money.
c. Space Colonization- only SPS units can provide sustainable electricity to support lunar and
orbital colonization—without a power supply no technology can function in space.
3. Turn: Global Warming
A. Ground-based solutions to climate change are ineffective—space-based energy is key to stop

warming.
Hanley 8 [Charles J, “'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy `Beam Me Down Some Energy': Giant Pentagon, Tiny
Palau Eye Space Solar Power”, AP Special Correspondent The Associated Press, The Associated Press,
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=4045164, DeFilippis]
While great nations fretted over coal, oil and global warming, one of the smallest at the U.N. climate conference was looking toward
the heavens for its energy. The annual meeting's corridors can be a sounding board for unlikely "solutions" to climate change
from filling the skies with soot to block the sun, to cultivating oceans of seaweed to absorb the atmosphere's heat-trapping carbon dioxide.
Unlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether space-based solar power
beaming energy down from satellites will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind." Tommy
Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau. The Defense Department
this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space power collection of energy by
vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military operations. It could be done
with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of equipment into space makes it uneconomical. That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders,
comes in. In September, American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration
project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300 miles above Earth. That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty
island the project would "be intended to show its safety for everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California. Reed said he expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin manufacturing the necessary
ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial support from manufacturers wanting to show how their technology launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology could make such a system work. He estimates
project costs at $800 million and completion as early as 2012. At the U.N. climate conference here this month, a Reed partner discussed the idea with the Palauans, who Reed said could benefit from beamed-down energy if the project
is expanded to populated areas. "We are keen on alternative energy," Palau's Remengesau said. "And if this is something that can benefit Palau, I'm sure we'd like to look at it." Space power has been explored since the 1960s by
NASA and the Japanese and European space agencies, based on the fundamental fact that solar energy is eight times more powerful in outer space than it is after passing through Earth's atmosphere. The energy captured by space-
based photovoltaic arrays would be converted into microwaves for transmission to Earth, where it would be transformed into direct-current electricity. Low-orbiting satellites, as proposed for Palau, would pass over once every 90
minutes or so, transmitting power to a rectenna for perhaps five minutes, requiring long-term battery storage or immediate use for example, in recharging electric automobiles via built-in rectennas. Most studies have focused instead
on geostationary satellites, those whose orbit 22,300 miles above the Earth keeps them over a single location, to which they would transmit a continuous flow of power. The scale of that vision is enormous: One NASA study
Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5 gigawatts of power,

visualized solar-panel arrays 3 by 6 miles in size, transmitting power to similarly sized rectennas on Earth.
more than twice the output of a Hoover Dam. But how safe would those beams be? Patrick Collins of Japan's Azabu University, who
participated in Japanese government studies of space power, said a lower-power beam, because of its breadth, might be no more powerful than
the energy emanating from a microwave oven's door. The beams from giant satellites would likely require precautionary no-go zones for aircraft
and people on the ground, he said. Rising oil costs and fears of global warming will lead more people to look seriously at
space power, boosters believe. "The climate change implications are pretty clear. You can get basically unlimited
carbon-free power from this," said Mark Hopkins, senior vice president of the National Space Society in Washington. "You just have to
find a way to make it cost-effective." Advocates say the U.S. and other governments must invest in developing lower-cost space-launch vehicles.
"It is imperative that this work for `drilling up' vs. drilling down for energy security begins immediately," concludes
October's Pentagon report. Some seem to hear the call. The European Space Agency has scheduled a conference on space-based solar power for
next Feb. 29. Space Island Group, another entrepreneurial U.S. endeavor, reports "very positive" discussions with a European
utility and the Indian government about buying future power from satellite systems. To Robert N. Schock, an expert on
future energy with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, space power doesn't look like science
fiction.

B. Warming destroys all life on earth
Dr. John Brandenberg, Physicist, Dead Mars, Dying Earth, 1999, p. 232-3
The world goes on its merry way and fossil fuel use continues to power it. Rather than making painful or politically difficult choices such as
inventing in fusion or enacting a rigorous plan of conserving, the industrial world chooses to muddle through the temperature climb. Let’s
imagine that America and Europe are too worried about economic dislocation to change course. The ozone hole expands, driven by a monstrous
synergy with global warming that puts more catalytic ice crystals into the stratosphere, but this affects the far north and south and not the major
nations’ heartlands. The seas rise, the tropics roast but the media networks no longer cover it. The Amazon rainforest becomes the Amazon
desert. Oxygen levels fall, but profits rise for those who can provide it in bottles. An equatorial high pressure zone forms, forcing drought in
central Africa and Brazil, the Nile dries up and the monsoons fall. Then inevitably, at some unlucky point in time, a major unexpected event
occurs—a major volcanic eruption, a sudden and dramatic shift in ocean circulation or a large asteroid impact (those who think freakish accidents
do not occur have paid little attention to life on Mars), or a nuclear war that starts between Pakistan and India and escalates to involve China and
Russia… Suddenly, the gradual climb in global temperatures goes on a mad excursion as the oceans warm and
release large amounts of dissolved carbon dioxide from their lower depths into the atmosphere. Oxygen levels go down as
oxygen replaces lost oceanic carbon dioxide. Asthma cases double and then double again. Now a third of the world fears breathing. As the
oceans dump carbon dioxide, the greenhouse effect increases, which further warms the oceans, causing them to dump even
more carbon. Because of the heat, plants die and burn in enormous fires which release more carbon dioxide, and the
oceans evaporate, adding more water vapor to the greenhouse. Soon, we are in what is termed a runaway greenhouse effect, as happened to
Venus eons ago. The last two surviving scientists inevitably argue, one telling the other, “See, I told you the missing sink was in the ocean!”
Earth, as we know it, dies. After this Venusian excursion in temperatures, the oxygen disappears into the soil, the oceans evaporate and
are lost and the dead Earth loses its ozone layer completely. Earth is too far from the Sun for it to be a second Venus for long. Its atmosphere is
slowly lost – as is its water—because of the ultraviolet bombardment breaking up all the molecules apart from carbon dioxide. As the
atmosphere becomes thin, the Earth becomes colder. For a short while temperatures are nearly normal, but the ultraviolet
sears any life that tries to make a comeback. The carbon dioxide thins out to form a thin veneer with a few wispy
clouds and dust devils. Earth becomes the second Mars – red, desolate, with perhaps a few hardy
microbes surviving.
4. Turn: Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse and extinction is inevitable.
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the worlds most powerful. Energy is the basis of this entire world wealth, and
for perhaps earth entire history, the sun energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early humans did
not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests. Without the
continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial Revolution and no
looming global catastrophe. In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth
without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America utilization of energy
sources must change. "Energy drives our entire economy. We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the
whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an
important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable. Our
continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.

5. Turn: Nuclear Proliferation
A. SBSP solves nuclear proliferation and conflicts
NSSO 2007 [SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STRATEGY SECURITY, National
Security Space Office, http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf , Date
Accessed: 7/9/08, TJD]
The SBSP Study Group found that in the long run, SBSP offers a viable and attractive route to decrease mankind’s
reliance on fossil fuels, as well as provides a potential global alternative to wider proliferation of nuclear materials that
will almost certainly unfold if many more countries in the world transition to nuclear power with enrichment in an effort to meet
their energy needs with carbon neutral sources….Both fossil and fissile sources offer significant capabilities to our energy mix, but
dependence on the exact mix must be carefully managed. Likewise, the mix abroad may affect domestic security. While increased
use of nuclear power is not of particular concern in nations that enjoy the rule of law and have functioning internal security
mechanisms, it may be of greater concern in unstable areas of rouge states. The United States might consider the security challenges
of wide proliferation of enrichment-based nuclear power abroad undesirable. If so, having a viable alternative that fills a comparable
niche might be attractive. Overall, SBSP offers a hopeful path toward reduced fossil and fissile fuel dependence. SBSP will avoid
energy shortages and great power conflict If traditional fossil fuel production of peaks sometime this century as the Department of
Energy’s own Energy Information Agency has predicted, a first order effect would be some type of energy scarcity. If
alternatives do not come on-line fast enough, then prices and resource tensions will increase with a
negative effect on the global economy, possibly even pricing some nations out of the competition for
minimum requirements. This could increase the potential for failed states, particularly among the less developed and poor
nations. It could also increase the chances for great power conflict. To the extent SBSP is successful in tapping an
energy source with tremendous growth potential, it offers an “alternative in the third dimension” to lessen the
chance of such conflicts.
B. Prolif sparks extinction
Utgoff 2, Victor, Deputy fo Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analysis, 02
(Survival) http://survival.oupjournals.org, DeFilippis]
Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons and that such shoot-outs will
have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand.

6. Turn: Natural Disasters
B. SPS can provide quick response to devastating natural disasters.
Business Recorder, 2007 (“PENTAGON EXAMINES USE OF SOLAR UNIT IN SPACE,” December 25, lexis)
But it remains to be seen whether companies are willing to invest in research for space-based solar power because, even if the considerable
technical challenges of building and deploying a system can be overcome, profits would remain years - if not decades - away. Hopkins
acknowledges the real technical challenges space-based solar power would face, but said investment is needed now to
develop clean and renewable energy. The system would include building kilometre-sized arrays that would float in space and feed
energy into a satellite that would beam it back to earth with a laser or microwave. Antennas on the ground would collect it and turn it into
electricity. One of the major challenges would be building a satellite that would have to be many times larger than the International Space Station
and launching it into space. The NSSO, in a recent study, concluded that Congress should spend 10 billion dollars over the next 10
years to build a test satellite. The Pentagon's interest in the system also has simple strategic implications. The NSSO
study said fuel in Iraq is expensive and US soldiers lose their lives guarding fuel convoys. With space-based solar
power US bases would simply get the energy they need from space. "This may provide troops abroad in unfriendly or ill-
equipped territory with power," the study said. Space-based solar power could also support humanitarian or peacekeeping
missions in remote regions of the world, and could respond to areas where power has been knocked out by natural
disasters, the NSSO said. The US government first began exploring generating solar power from arrays in space in the late 1960s, but the idea
was abandoned because it was thought to be too expensive and the necessary technology was not available.
C. Natural Disasters culminate in extinction

SID-AHMED 2005 (Mohamed, Al-Ahram Online, Jan 6-12, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/724/op3.htm,
DeFilippis)
The human species has never been exposed to a natural upheaval of this magnitude within living memory. What
happened in South Asia is the ecological equivalent of 9/11. Ecological problems like global warming and climatic
disturbances in general threaten to make our natural habitat unfit for human life. The extinction of the species has
become a very real possibility, whether by our own hand or as a result of natural disasters of a much greater
magnitude than the Indian Ocean earthquake and the killer waves it spawned. Human civilisation has developed in
the hope that Man will be able to reach welfare and prosperity on earth for everybody. But now things seem to be
moving in the opposite direction, exposing planet Earth to the end of its role as a nurturing place for human life.
Today, human conflicts have become less of a threat than the confrontation between [Humanity] Man and Nature. At
least they are less likely to bring about the end of the human species. The reactions of Nature as a result of its
exposure to the onslaughts of human societies have become more important in determining the fate of the human
species than any harm it can inflict on itself. Until recently, the threat Nature represented was perceived as likely to
arise only in the long run, related for instance to how global warming would affect life on our planet. Such a threat
could take decades, even centuries, to reach a critical level. This perception has changed following the devastating
earthquake and tsunamis that hit the coastal regions of South Asia and, less violently, of East Africa, on 26
December. This cataclysmic event has underscored the vulnerability of our world before the wrath of Nature and
shaken the sanguine belief that the end of the world is a long way away. Gone are the days when we could comfort
ourselves with the notion that the extinction of the human race will not occur before a long-term future that will only
materialise after millions of years and not affect us directly in any way. We are now forced to live with the
possibility of an imminent demise of humankind.
2AC- Fiscal Discipline DA

1. <Insert any arguments that you would have normally run—i.e. non-unique, no internal link, no link, or
impact turns>
2. Plan solves economic collapse – several reasons.
a. Hegemony- U.S. leadership in international affairs is key to stable global economy- U.S.
perpetuation of democratic capitalist ideals is key to the free market which solves economic
collapse—that’s Thayer
b. Oil Dependency- Dependence on oil causes economic underperformance because of inability to
overcome high prices—plan solves oil dependency– that’s Bengston
c. Space- Plan facilitates space colonization which is key to creation of new markets – solves
economic collapse.
Collins 2006 [Patrick, Professor, Azabu University, “The Future of Lunar Tourism”, “Future Space Technology”,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tq8xz7ixIGsJ:www.koreAT050.net/unfforum/%3Fdoc%3Dbbs/gnuboard.php%26bo_table%3Dfuturet%26
sselect%3Dconcat(wr_subject%252Cwr_content)%26stext%3Djustice%26wr_id%3D287%26page%3D1+%22In+order+to+get+a+feel+for+why
+using+solar+energy+delivered%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us, DeFilippis]
Abstract Travel to and from the lunar surface has been known to be feasible since it was first achieved 34 years ago. Since that time there has
been enormous progress in related engineering fields, so there are no fundamental technical problems facing the development of lunar tourism --
only investment and business problems. The outstanding near-term problem is to reduce the cost of launch to low Earth orbit, which has been
famously described as "halfway to anywhere". Recently there has been major progress towards overturning the myth that launch costs are high
because of inescapable physical limits, as companies are planning sub-orbital flights at 0.1% of the cost of Alan Shepard's similar flight in 1961.
Market research shows strong demand for both sub-orbital flights and orbital services. Travel to the Moon will offer
further unique attractions: in addition to its allure arising from millennia of mythology in every country, bird-like
flying sports will surely become a powerful demand factor. The paper also explains that, far from being an activity of minor
economic importance, the progressive growth of tourism services from sub-orbital flights through lunar tourism, will
contribute greatly to economic growth on Earth and create new employment on a large scale, in the same way as the
development of tourism in Hawaii has enriched the US mainland and elsewhere. Tourism is still not a common subject at space conferences. This
paper argues that, far from being a trivial topic which "real" space engineers should ignore, it is the key to making space and lunar development
profitable -- and so unstoppable. There could hardly be a better place to discuss lunar tourism than Hawaii, because tourism is the largest business
activity in the state, and it generates huge wealth not only in Hawaii but also on the US mainland and in other places from where people trade or
invest in Hawaii. All this wealth creation starts for the simplest, most human of reasons: People enjoy being there. Many
millions of people have found that spending a few days in Hawaii makes them feel good. At first, people visited Hawaii spontaneously for its
delightful climate and scenery; this inspired entrepreneurs to work to make it convenient and affordable for more and more people to visit. This
has involved using their ingenuity to supply an ever-growing range of popular services, and has included supporting local governments to enforce
regulations as needed to protect the environment that visitors want to experience. Lunar tourism will be the same: as soon as they
can, many people will travel to the Moon for the same reason -- they will enjoy visiting there. Since the idea of space
tourism is known to be very popular; since the Moon has a unique place in the mythology and traditions of every
culture; and since there will clearly be many unique experiences during a trip to the Moon and back, it's clear that it
has the potential to become a major tourist destination. Unfortunately, many people in the space industry suffer from the mistaken idea that tourism has no economic value. They
believe that, unless people are working to make some kind of machine, their work is not really valuable. This belief is objectively wrong; the error of the "labour theory of value" is a long-standing issue in economics: work to supply a
product is not valuable if there is insufficient demand. To give a simple example, without demand for tourism services from billions of people handled by hundreds of airlines operating thousands of airliners, aircraft manufactures
could not produce them at a profit, thereby together creating millions of jobs in the civil aerospace industry. By contrast, making machines which no-one wants to buy, however technologically advanced they are, actually destroys
wealth instead of creating it, because it wastes skilled humans' efforts. The wealth in Hawaii generated by tourism depends on people continuing to want to visit. And that can fall for a number of reasons -- for example, if there is a
war, or a recession, or if the local government allowed the environment to be polluted, or if businesses there fell behind other tourist destinations. But demand in any industry is vulnerable to disruption and competition -- as the rapid
shrinking of US manufacturing employment, including particularly aerospace, shows clearly. Because of this way of thinking in the space industry, many of the general public have a "taboo" about the subject of lunar tourism, and
even orbital and sub-orbital tourism. They find it hard to imagine travel to and from the Moon becoming an important part of the travel industry. They consider the idea futuristic -- "maybe 100 years from now" -- forgetting that it was
already done more than 34 years ago. So this paper starts by clearing up some "myths" about space tourism. In doing so, criticism of government space agencies is unavoidable -- so it's useful to remember the story of the alcoholic's
friends: one says "Let's go for a drink", while the other says "You look terrible; let's get you some help." Readers will surely all agree that the one who brings help is the truer friend. The committee which investigated the Columbia
accident severely criticised Nasa, but no-one complains, because their objective was to help. In the same way, speaking the truth about lunar tourism requires facing some uncomfortable facts, but it is in the best of causes: to correct
, it is certain that travel to and from the Moon is

mistakes that are costing taxpayers very dearly -- especially in the USA. MYTH 1: "LUNAR TOURISM IS IMPOSSIBLE." First of all
possible -- because it was done 34 years ago. It is quite hard to list all the products that did not yet exist in 1969 -- not just recent
inventions like CDs, laptop computers, the internet, mobile telephones or carbon nanotubes, of course, but back in 1969 Boeing 747s, optical
fibres, video-cassettes, the walkman and even electronic calculators were yet to come; most people had never even seen a colour television. Since
1969, there have been literally generations of the fastest technological progress in history -- in materials engineering, production engineering,
combustion engineering, semiconductor technology, computing, communications and many other fields. So anything that was possible 34 years
ago is potentially very much easier today. In addition to 34 years of technological progress, since 1969 there has been about $1 billion of research
in lunar science and engineering, well summarised in the collected proceedings of the ASCE 's unique series of conferences at Albuquerque [1,
DeFilippis]. Technically there are no fundamental unknowns about lunar development -- except how rapidly the travel market will develop, and

<Continues>
how cheap lunar travel may ultimately become as passenger traffic builds up to large scale. MYTH 2: "IF SPACE TOURISM WAS POSSIBLE,
SPACE AGENCIES WOULD HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED IT." Many people today believe that the fact that space agencies
have not developed passenger launch vehicles proves that they are impossible with known technology. This is
perhaps the most damaging myth, but it is not true, as shown by two recent events.MYTH 3: "SPACE TOURISM HAS NO ECONOMIC
<CONTINUES>VALUE." Space agency staff often claim this, but now that applications satellites are a mature business there is nothing more
valuable to be done in space than to make it possible for the general public to travel there. How can Americans believe anything else?
Historically this was the source of the USA's strength: it was wealth created by vigorous, consumer-oriented US
businesses that over-powered the Soviet Union, not military prowess. With the commercial space industry
shrinking for lack of demand, space agencies are in denial about this. But the goal of economic development is
freedom: freedom to do what we want. Most people, once they reach a certain standard of living, like to travel,
which is one of the greatest educational activities: "travel broadens the mind." Everyone who has been to space says that it was the
greatest experience of their life, and market research shows that a majority of the population in all countries surveyed so far
say that they would like to take a trip to space. In democratic, capitalistic countries no other justification is necessary. It should be
sufficient reason that many people wish to pay for this life-enhancing experience. In addition to being unique fun, travelling to space and looking
in at the Earth, and out at the solar system and beyond towards the beckoning stars, is a profoundly educational and spiritual experience. Not only
is this wish to travel to space and to the Moon not "trivial", it is profoundly human and highly desirable for as many people to experience as
possible. However, as it happens, R&D in the aerospace industry is nearly all government-funded, and so without some effective
popular pressure being put on governments to facilitate the development of this activity, many more years are
likely to be wasted, at great cost to taxpayers, as discussed below. Economic value Space agency staff claim that their activities developing
space technology are more valuable than "ordinary people buying tickets to fly to space". However, without engaging popular consumer demand,
space activities cannot grow except on the backs of taxpayers. Economic value, that is new wealth, is created when someone
profitably supplies a service or product to someone who freely chooses to buy it from them; both sides in such a free
transaction become better off than they were, and the profit remaining which is saved for future investment is a rough measure of the benefit to
society as a whole. By contrast, when someone takes money forcibly away from another person - such as in taxation - and spends that money on
performing activities with little economic value, this destroys economic value and reduces the wealth of the society. There are, of course, cases
where people think some activity has no value, but in fact it has. (For example, compulsory health, life and unemployment insurance -- provided
that it is competently managed -- can be valuable, by compensating for people's over-optimistic expectations concerning the risks they face
during their life. Likewise, efficient redistributive policies can have value by maintaining social harmony by reducing injustices.) And space
agencies generally claim this about their activities -- that they are developing the technology necessary for opening the frontier of space for
humanity, so their expenditure, though loss-making in the short-term, will have value over the longer term. Sadly, however, this claim is mostly
unjustified. To date, OECD space agencies have spent about $1 trillion of taxpayers' money, with which they have developed a significant amount
of space-related technology and knowledge. But much of it is of little economic value, because it is far too expensive. Furthermore, space
agencies have made no effort to apply this technology to the most economically valuable use of space - which is to supply the passenger travel
services which large numbers of people around the world wish to purchase. Consequently, instead of a $1 trillion/year commercial
space industry, there is a commercial satellite services industry with a turnover of around $20 billion/year, which is
about 1/50 of what should result from $1 trillion investment. Commercial demand multiplies the economic activity arising from investment by
10x to 20x, as shown in Figure 1. Without some such source of large turnover, investment in space development cannot be repaid, and space
commercialisation is impossible.
d. Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse is inevitable.

3. No Link—plan saves money in the long run—we spend more than 200 billion on current oil dependence
and alternate types of energy like nuclear power—plan frees that money up.
4. No risk of an impact—SSP prevents the possibility of war.
Morgan 2007 [James, “Ray of Hope on Energy,” Science Notebook,

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do, July 9, BLS]
These dreams were always shot down by the costs - exorbitant when compared with the plentiful reserves of fossil fuels. Now, with spiraling
oil prices and the threat of runaway climate change, the balance has tipped, according to the National Security Space Office, part of the
Department of Defense. Its study claims that space-based solar power (SBSP) could be economically competitive in the near future. In just a
year, it calculates, satellites orbiting in a continuous sunlight could generate energy nearly equivalent to all of
the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Not only might that put the brakes on global warming, it
says, it could help to stifle the wars and political tension that the oil trade creates. The result - a
peaceful world."This is a solution for [humyn]mankind," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman
of the space f light advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation, at the unveiling of the report in Washington. The report
urges the US government to invest GBP5bn in a pilot project, to spur private investment in the concept. It argues that SBSP could generate so
much power it could transform the gas guzzling United States into an energy-exporting nation.
5. Empirically Denied- Oil shocks of the 60’s and 70’s proves that the economy is resilient—and not
susceptible to shocks.
2AC- Oil DA
1. <Insert your normal arguments—I could not put them in here because I don’t have the cards on my
computer—i.e. non-unique, no internal link, etc>
2. ZERO LINK- there argument is nonsensical—OPEC would not increase its price if the demand for oil
decreased—OPEC would be shooting itself in the foot by turning away even more consumers.
3. Plan solves economic collapse – several reasons.
a. Hegemony- U.S. leadership in international affairs is key to stable global economy- U.S.
perpetuation of democratic capitalist ideals is key to the free market which solves economic
collapse—that’s Thayer
b. Oil Dependency- Dependence on oil causes economic underperformance because of inability to
overcome high prices—plan solves oil dependency– that’s Bengston.
c. Space- Plan facilitates space colonization which is key to creation of new markets – solves
economic collapse.
Collins 2006 [Patrick, Professor, Azabu University, “The Future of Lunar Tourism”, “Future Space Technology”,
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:tq8xz7ixIGsJ:www.koreAT050.net/unfforum/%3Fdoc%3Dbbs/gnuboard.php%26bo_table%3Dfuturet%26
sselect%3Dconcat(wr_subject%252Cwr_content)%26stext%3Djustice%26wr_id%3D287%26page%3D1+%22In+order+to+get+a+feel+for+why
+using+solar+energy+delivered%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us, DeFilippis]
Abstract Travel to and from the lunar surface has been known to be feasible since it was first achieved 34 years ago. Since that time there has
been enormous progress in related engineering fields, so there are no fundamental technical problems facing the development of lunar tourism --
only investment and business problems. The outstanding near-term problem is to reduce the cost of launch to low Earth orbit, which has been
famously described as "halfway to anywhere". Recently there has been major progress towards overturning the myth that launch costs are high
because of inescapable physical limits, as companies are planning sub-orbital flights at 0.1% of the cost of Alan Shepard's similar flight in 1961.
Market research shows strong demand for both sub-orbital flights and orbital services. Travel to the Moon will offer
further unique attractions: in addition to its allure arising from millennia of mythology in every country, bird-like
flying sports will surely become a powerful demand factor. The paper also explains that, far from being an activity of minor
economic importance, the progressive growth of tourism services from sub-orbital flights through lunar tourism, will
contribute greatly to economic growth on Earth and create new employment on a large scale, in the same way as the
development of tourism in Hawaii has enriched the US mainland and elsewhere. Tourism is still not a common subject at space conferences. This
paper argues that, far from being a trivial topic which "real" space engineers should ignore, it is the key to making space and lunar development
profitable -- and so unstoppable. There could hardly be a better place to discuss lunar tourism than Hawaii, because tourism is the largest business
activity in the state, and it generates huge wealth not only in Hawaii but also on the US mainland and in other places from where people trade or
invest in Hawaii. All this wealth creation starts for the simplest, most human of reasons: People enjoy being there. Many
millions of people have found that spending a few days in Hawaii makes them feel good. At first, people visited Hawaii spontaneously for its
delightful climate and scenery; this inspired entrepreneurs to work to make it convenient and affordable for more and more people to visit. This
has involved using their ingenuity to supply an ever-growing range of popular services, and has included supporting local governments to enforce
regulations as needed to protect the environment that visitors want to experience. Lunar tourism will be the same: as soon as they
can, many people will travel to the Moon for the same reason -- they will enjoy visiting there. Since the idea of space
tourism is known to be very popular; since the Moon has a unique place in the mythology and traditions of every
culture; and since there will clearly be many unique experiences during a trip to the Moon and back, it's clear that it
has the potential to become a major tourist destination. Unfortunately, many people in the space industry suffer from the mistaken idea that tourism has no economic value. They
believe that, unless people are working to make some kind of machine, their work is not really valuable. This belief is objectively wrong; the error of the "labour theory of value" is a long-standing issue in economics: work to supply a
product is not valuable if there is insufficient demand. To give a simple example, without demand for tourism services from billions of people handled by hundreds of airlines operating thousands of airliners, aircraft manufactures
could not produce them at a profit, thereby together creating millions of jobs in the civil aerospace industry. By contrast, making machines which no-one wants to buy, however technologically advanced they are, actually destroys
wealth instead of creating it, because it wastes skilled humans' efforts. The wealth in Hawaii generated by tourism depends on people continuing to want to visit. And that can fall for a number of reasons -- for example, if there is a
war, or a recession, or if the local government allowed the environment to be polluted, or if businesses there fell behind other tourist destinations. But demand in any industry is vulnerable to disruption and competition -- as the rapid
shrinking of US manufacturing employment, including particularly aerospace, shows clearly. Because of this way of thinking in the space industry, many of the general public have a "taboo" about the subject of lunar tourism, and
even orbital and sub-orbital tourism. They find it hard to imagine travel to and from the Moon becoming an important part of the travel industry. They consider the idea futuristic -- "maybe 100 years from now" -- forgetting that it was
already done more than 34 years ago. So this paper starts by clearing up some "myths" about space tourism. In doing so, criticism of government space agencies is unavoidable -- so it's useful to remember the story of the alcoholic's
friends: one says "Let's go for a drink", while the other says "You look terrible; let's get you some help." Readers will surely all agree that the one who brings help is the truer friend. The committee which investigated the Columbia
accident severely criticised Nasa, but no-one complains, because their objective was to help. In the same way, speaking the truth about lunar tourism requires facing some uncomfortable facts, but it is in the best of causes: to correct
, it is certain that travel to and from the Moon is

mistakes that are costing taxpayers very dearly -- especially in the USA. MYTH 1: "LUNAR TOURISM IS IMPOSSIBLE." First of all
possible -- because it was done 34 years ago. It is quite hard to list all the products that did not yet exist in 1969 -- not just recent
inventions like CDs, laptop computers, the internet, mobile telephones or carbon nanotubes, of course, but back in 1969 Boeing 747s, optical
fibres, video-cassettes, the walkman and even electronic calculators were yet to come; most people had never even seen a colour television. Since
1969, there have been literally generations of the fastest technological progress in history -- in materials engineering, production engineering,
combustion engineering, semiconductor technology, computing, communications and many other fields. So anything that was possible 34 years
ago is potentially very much easier today. In addition to 34 years of technological progress, since 1969 there has been about $1 billion of research
in lunar science and engineering, well summarised in the collected proceedings of the ASCE 's unique series of conferences at Albuquerque [1,].
Technically there are no fundamental unknowns about lunar development -- except how rapidly the travel market will develop, and
2AC- Oil DA
<Continues>
how cheap lunar travel may ultimately become as passenger traffic builds up to large scale. MYTH 2: "IF SPACE TOURISM WAS POSSIBLE,
SPACE AGENCIES WOULD HAVE ALREADY DEVELOPED IT." Many people today believe that the fact that space agencies
have not developed passenger launch vehicles proves that they are impossible with known technology. This is
perhaps the most damaging myth, but it is not true, as shown by two recent events.MYTH 3: "SPACE TOURISM HAS NO ECONOMIC
<CONTINUES>VALUE." Space agency staff often claim this, but now that applications satellites are a mature business there is nothing more
valuable to be done in space than to make it possible for the general public to travel there. How can Americans believe anything else?
Historically this was the source of the USA's strength: it was wealth created by vigorous, consumer-oriented US
businesses that over-powered the Soviet Union, not military prowess. With the commercial space industry
shrinking for lack of demand, space agencies are in denial about this. But the goal of economic development is
freedom: freedom to do what we want. Most people, once they reach a certain standard of living, like to travel,
which is one of the greatest educational activities: "travel broadens the mind." Everyone who has been to space says that it was the
greatest experience of their life, and market research shows that a majority of the population in all countries surveyed so far
say that they would like to take a trip to space. In democratic, capitalistic countries no other justification is necessary. It should be
sufficient reason that many people wish to pay for this life-enhancing experience. In addition to being unique fun, travelling to space and looking
in at the Earth, and out at the solar system and beyond towards the beckoning stars, is a profoundly educational and spiritual experience. Not only
is this wish to travel to space and to the Moon not "trivial", it is profoundly human and highly desirable for as many people to experience as
possible. However, as it happens, R&D in the aerospace industry is nearly all government-funded, and so without some effective
popular pressure being put on governments to facilitate the development of this activity, many more years are
likely to be wasted, at great cost to taxpayers, as discussed below. Economic value Space agency staff claim that their activities developing
space technology are more valuable than "ordinary people buying tickets to fly to space". However, without engaging popular consumer demand,
space activities cannot grow except on the backs of taxpayers. Economic value, that is new wealth, is created when someone
profitably supplies a service or product to someone who freely chooses to buy it from them; both sides in such a free
transaction become better off than they were, and the profit remaining which is saved for future investment is a rough measure of the benefit to
society as a whole. By contrast, when someone takes money forcibly away from another person - such as in taxation - and spends that money on
performing activities with little economic value, this destroys economic value and reduces the wealth of the society. There are, of course, cases
where people think some activity has no value, but in fact it has. (For example, compulsory health, life and unemployment insurance -- provided
that it is competently managed -- can be valuable, by compensating for people's over-optimistic expectations concerning the risks they face
during their life. Likewise, efficient redistributive policies can have value by maintaining social harmony by reducing injustices.) And space
agencies generally claim this about their activities -- that they are developing the technology necessary for opening the frontier of space for
humanity, so their expenditure, though loss-making in the short-term, will have value over the longer term. Sadly, however, this claim is mostly
unjustified. To date, OECD space agencies have spent about $1 trillion of taxpayers' money, with which they have developed a significant amount
of space-related technology and knowledge. But much of it is of little economic value, because it is far too expensive. Furthermore, space
agencies have made no effort to apply this technology to the most economically valuable use of space - which is to supply the passenger travel
services which large numbers of people around the world wish to purchase. Consequently, instead of a $1 trillion/year commercial
space industry, there is a commercial satellite services industry with a turnover of around $20 billion/year, which is
about 1/50 of what should result from $1 trillion investment. Commercial demand multiplies the economic activity arising from investment by
10x to 20x, as shown in Figure 1. Without some such source of large turnover, investment in space development cannot be repaid, and space
commercialisation is impossible.
d. Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse is inevitable.
2AC- Oil DA
6. No risk of an impact—
a. Hegemony prevents great power wars—means no impact—that’s Thayer
b. SSP prevents the possibility of war.
Morgan 2007 [James, “Ray of Hope on Energy,” Science Notebook,

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do, July 9, BLS]
These dreams were always shot down by the costs - exorbitant when compared with the plentiful reserves of fossil fuels. Now, with spiraling
oil prices and the threat of runaway climate change, the balance has tipped, according to the National Security Space Office, part of the
Department of Defense. Its study claims that space-based solar power (SBSP) could be economically competitive in the near future. In just a
year, it calculates, satellites orbiting in a continuous sunlight could generate energy nearly equivalent to all of
the energy available in the world's oil reserves. Not only might that put the brakes on global warming, it
says, it could help to stifle the wars and political tension that the oil trade creates. The result - a
peaceful world."This is a solution for [humyn]mankind," said former astronaut Buzz Aldrin, chairman
of the space f light advocacy group, ShareSpace Foundation, at the unveiling of the report in Washington. The report
urges the US government to invest GBP5bn in a pilot project, to spur private investment in the concept. It argues that SBSP could generate so
much power it could transform the gas guzzling United States into an energy-exporting nation.
2AC- Heidegger DA
1. Fiat Good. The plan should able to be weighed against the K.

A) Aff Ground – rejecting fiat moots the 1AC forcing the 2AC to start from scratch with
offense for every word the 1AC says. An impossible research burden
B) Education – Fiat is critical to policy education necessary to translate into real world
change. It encourages knowledge about current events critical to the formation of ideas.
2. Our case is an IMPACT Turn to the kritik. We should use the environment as a resource to
prevent the extinction of all human and plant life—three reasons
A. Hegemony- Absent the use of the sun as a basis for energy—U.S. will its leadership
position because the military is currently immobilized by oil dependency. Collapse of
Hegemony means that other nations will perceive us as weak and will attack us causing
nuclear war and extinction—that’s Thayer.
B. Energy Independence- If we do not use the sun as an alternative to oil fuels – our
money will continue to be funneled into Islamic terrorists groups who control oil. The
plan is the only way to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack which would destroy all plant
and human life.
C. Space Colonization- Using the sun as a basis for energy is the only way to ensure the
perpetuation of human and plant life through space colonization. Natural Disasters like
Asteroids will inevitably destroy everything on Earth and unless we do the plan
everything including environment will be gone.
3. Our plan is a pre-requisite to the kritik—we must prevent nuclear war to preserve nature in the
first place. We can only appreciate nature if we stop an act that would destroy that possibility.
4. The impact to the kritik is inevitable— we currently exploit nature by mining for oil—the
alternative of “doing nothing” does not change human’s belief that we should dig up the earth to
fuel our hummers.
5. No Link- The plan stops the use exploitation of nature as a resource by stopping the use of fossil
fuels. (remember the hand demonstration!)

2ac Blocks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2ac Blocks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Baylor Debate Workshops 1

Cisneros / DeFilippis Lab Blocks

1NC T V HEMP AFFS- INCENTIVES / INCREASE ...................................................................................................................3

2AC- FISCAL DISCIPLINE DA........................................................................................................................................22

1NC T v Hemp Affs- Incentives / Increase

Lindberg 07 [Christine, Mangaging Editor, Oxford College Dictionary 2nd Edition]

Incentive- a payment or concession to stimulate greater output or investment.

Increase means to make greater

Oxford Dictionary of Current English 06

Increase: Make or become greater in size , amount, or intensity.

1NC CP v Hemp Aff

Observation 1 Net Benefits: CP doesn’t link to Spending DA because it offsets money.

2NC Solvency Block

2NC Solvency Block

2nc External Net Benefit

Prolif sparks extinction

2AC- Topicality- “in” or “United States”

2AC- US Key Block vs International CP’s

2AC- US Key Block vs International CP’s

5. Turn: Technological Competitiveness

a. SBSP is key to American technological and scientific leadership—boosts U.S. educational

2AC- US Key Block vs International CP’s

Khalilzad, 1995 (Zalmay, Washington Quarterly, Spring, lexis, DeFilippis)

2AC- US Key Block vs. States CP

2AC- US Key Block vs. States CP

NSSO, 07 (National Security Space Office, “Space‐Based Solar Power:

2AC- US Key Block vs. States CP

2AC- US Key Block vs States CP

2AC- SBSP Key (Against CP’s that do different energy)

3. Turn: Global Warming

A. Ground-based solutions to climate change are ineffective—space-based energy is key to stop

Each such mega-orbiter might produce 5 gigawatts of power,

2AC- SBSP Key (Against CP’s that do different energy)

2AC- SBSP Key (Against CP’s that do different energy)

B. Prolif sparks extinction

2AC- SBSP Key (Against CP’s that do different energy)

C. Natural Disasters culminate in extinction

2AC- Fiscal Discipline DA

, it is certain that travel to and from the Moon is

2AC- Fiscal Discipline DA

d. Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse is inevitable.

2AC- Fiscal Discipline DA

4. No risk of an impact—SSP prevents the possibility of war.

Morgan 2007 [James, “Ray of Hope on Energy,” Science Notebook,

, it is certain that travel to and from the Moon is

d. Absent U.S. adoption of Solar-Space power economic collapse is inevitable.

Morgan 2007 [James, “Ray of Hope on Energy,” Science Notebook,

1. Fiat Good. The plan should able to be weighed against the K.

You might also like