DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh ^_^ SPS ^_^...............................................................................................................................................

4 *************** TOPICALITY ***************..............................................................................5 2AC AT – NASA=FED – NO INCENTIVE ............................................................................................6 2AC T – IN .................................................................................................................................................7 *************** CP’S ***************..............................................................................................8 2AC: RPS CP.............................................................................................................................................9 2AC: INTERNATIONAL CP.................................................................................................................10 2AC: DOD CP (1/2)..................................................................................................................................11 2AC: DOD CP (1/1).................................................................................................................................13 2AC PRIVATE SECTOR CP (1/3).........................................................................................................14 2AC PRIVATE SECTOR CP (2/3).........................................................................................................16 2AC PRIVATE SECTOR CP (3/3).........................................................................................................17 2AC: PRIVATE SECTOR (1/2)..............................................................................................................18 2AC A/T: PRIVATE SECTOR COUNTERPLAN................................................................................20 *************** KRITIKS ***************....................................................................................21 2AC: SPACE K (1/4)................................................................................................................................22 2AC: SPACE K (2/4)................................................................................................................................23 2AC: SPACE K (3/4)................................................................................................................................24 2AC: SPACE K (4/4)................................................................................................................................25 2AC: SECURITY K.................................................................................................................................26 AT: KATO SATELLITE K.....................................................................................................................34 2AC HEIDEGGER K..............................................................................................................................36 *************** DISADS ***************.......................................................................................37 A2: GERMAN TRADEOFF...................................................................................................................38 2AC SAUDI RELATIONS DA (1/2).......................................................................................................39 2AC SAUDI RELATIONS DA (2/2).......................................................................................................40 2AC SAUDI ARABIA DA (1/1)..............................................................................................................41 2AC F 22 TRADEOFF (1/3)....................................................................................................................42 2AC F 22 TRADEOFF (2/3)....................................................................................................................44 2AC F 22 TRADEOFF (3/3)....................................................................................................................45 2AC: F-22 TRADEOFF (1/5)..................................................................................................................46 2AC OCEANS DA ..................................................................................................................................51 2AC NASA BRAIN DRAIN DA ............................................................................................................52
1

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 2AC NASA BRAIN DRAIN DA ............................................................................................................53 *************** POLITICS ***************..................................................................................54 2AC: PTX-OBAMA.................................................................................................................................55 2AC: PTX-CAFTA..................................................................................................................................60 2AC BUSH GOOD DA – OCS DRILLING (1/3)..................................................................................64 2AC BUSH GOOD DA – OCS DRILLING (2/3)..................................................................................65 2AC BUSH GOOD DA – OCS DRILLING (3/3)..................................................................................66 *************** MILITARIZATION ***************...................................................................67 AT SPACE MILITARIZATION BAD ..................................................................................................68 2AC SPACE MILITARIZATION DA –BQ...........................................................................................69 2AC A/T: SPACE WEAPONIZATION.................................................................................................70 *************** CASE*************** ...........................................................................................71 IMPACT CALCULUS............................................................................................................................72 2AC: AT-NOT TECH OR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE......................................................................73 2AC: AT-SPACE VIRUSES....................................................................................................................74 2AC: AT-SPACE DEBRIS.......................................................................................................................76 2AC: AT- 2050..........................................................................................................................................77 2AC: AT- FUNDING................................................................................................................................78 2AC: AT- COST COMPETITIVE..........................................................................................................79 2AC: AT- IMPOSSIBLE TO LAUNCH................................................................................................80 AT: GROUND SOLAR...........................................................................................................................81 AT: INEFFICIENTLY SHORT..............................................................................................................82 AT: ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE................................................................................................83 AT: TECH 40 YEARS AWAY.................................................................................................................84 ^_^ REG-NEG ^_^.................................................................................................................................85 *************** TOPICALITY ***************............................................................................86 A2: T INCENTIVES = POSITIVE........................................................................................................87 A2: T INCENTIVES = MARKET BASED...........................................................................................88 T – I-SPEC...............................................................................................................................................89 T: DIRECT...............................................................................................................................................90 T -- VAGUE..............................................................................................................................................91 *************** CP’S ***************............................................................................................92 CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD CP.......................................................................................................93
2

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh STATES CP..............................................................................................................................................94 *************** KRITKS ***************......................................................................................96 CT KRITIK..............................................................................................................................................97 *************** DISADS ***************.......................................................................................99 COMPETITIVENESS..........................................................................................................................100 TRADE DEFICITS...............................................................................................................................101 A2: CLEAN COAL................................................................................................................................102 GERMANY DA......................................................................................................................................103 DEMOCRACY D/A...............................................................................................................................104 *************** POLITICS ***************................................................................................106 OBAMA EVIL.......................................................................................................................................107 ^_^ MILITARY ^_^..............................................................................................................................108 *************** TOPICALITY ***************..........................................................................109 TOPICALITY TAX CREDITS............................................................................................................110 TOPICALITY- ASPEC..........................................................................................................................111 *************** CPS ***************............................................................................................112 COUNTERPLAN- OFFSETS...............................................................................................................113 STATES CP...........................................................................................................................................115 *************** KRITIKS ***************..................................................................................120 SECURITY KRITIK ............................................................................................................................121 HEIDEGGER.........................................................................................................................................124 *************** DISADS ***************.....................................................................................126 SPENDING.............................................................................................................................................127 SAUDI OIL DA......................................................................................................................................131 *************** POLITICS ***************................................................................................137 POLITICS- OBAMA GOOD................................................................................................................138

3

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

^_^ SPS ^_^

4

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

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

5

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC AT – NASA=Fed – No Incentive
1. We Meet – We offer incentives to NASA, which functions as an independent organization, they can choose to take the funding or not 2. Counter Interpretation – Incentives allow the development of technology through policy action Williams, 07 - Nova Scotia Cooperative Council (Bob, Submission in Response to Consultation Paper: Renewed Energy Strategy
2007, http://www.gov.ns.ca/energy/Download.aspx?serverfn=./files/drm/f0c518e8-c38f-4d7f-9bcae17ccc2b0b8b.pdf&downloadfn=submission%20-%2007%20-%20Bob%20Williams%20-%2020071212.pdf&contenttype=) Anyone who has a reasonable amount of experience or knowledge of renewable energy development knows that there are two general approaches. One being the RPS and tendering model and the other is one of fixed price incentives, commonly known as feed in tariffs (FIT). It is also well recognized that if one is serious about local economic benefits being derived from renewable energy, indeed facilitating or stimulating ‘sustainable prosperity’, then the model known as ‘Community Power’ or CBED, Community Based Energy Development, is one that must be considered. It is not co-incidental that FIT as an incentive based policy go hand-in-hand with CBED. The word incentive is paramount here because it makes clear the fact that the primary objective of these mechanisms is not simply least direct cost, but is to achieve specific policy goals that are in addition to and complimentary to the generation of clean energy. Such goals commonly include promotion of technologies, siting of renewable energy projects and encouragement of new ownership models. In fact FITs were first designed and adopted in Europe to promote a specific ownership model, that of community ownership through co-operatives.

3. We Meet – we provide funding to NASA for the development of SPS 4. Limits – The Aff over limits the topic by mandating that we go through private actors. We lose all education of government actors which are key to the topic 5. Predictability – It is completely predictable to provide incentives for technology because that is the best solvency 6. Reasonability checks – as long as we are reasonably topical you should not vote us down, make them prove in round abuse 7. T is not a voter because clash checks

6

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC T – In
1. We meet – we give our plan funds NASA which is all completed in the US 2. Counter Interpretation – Incentives must be in the US – cross apply their definition 3. We meet, we give incentives to NASA, which is in the US 4. Limits – we limit down the resolution to only the cases the cases which give incentives in the US, this is key to education because it include the policy options that are under the jurisdiction of the USFG 5. Grammar – the resolution says “incentives for alternative energy” as a phrase therefore, only the incentives have to be in the US, Grammar is important to understanding the framer’s intentions for the resolution 6. Reasonability Checks abuse – you will not vote us down as long as we are reasonably topical, make them prove in round abuse and ground loss 7. T is not a voter – Clash checks

7

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

*************** CP’s ***************

8

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: RPS CP
1. Solvency Deficit— a. The Counterplan doesn’t guarantee the development of SPS, or even alternative energy it could lead to clean coal. b. Our evidence indicates that funding is the key internal link to SPS, if they don’t federal incentives they can’t foster development c. Can’t solve competitiveness- RPS don’t guarantee the fostering of innovation and development. d. Can’t solve space colonization—RPS don’t provide the necessary infrastructure to foster SPS development and space colonization. 2. Perm: Do both, the permutation avoids the links by ______ 3. CP links to Politics—An RPS would create way more jobs triggering the link UCS, Union of Concerned Scientists, leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS
combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices. 11/02/2007, “Cashing In on Clean Energy”, http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/cashing-in.html Momentum continues to grow for a strong national standard. A 20 percent by 2020 standard was introduced in the House in February 2007, and a 15 percent by 2020 standard is under consideration in the Senate. Using a model from the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) examined the long-term effects that a national 20 percent by 2020 standard would have on the economy and the environment. 20 Percent by 2020: The Benefits of a National Renewable Electricity Standard Job Creation 185,000 new jobs from renewable energy development Economic Development $66.7 billion in new capital investment, $25.6 billion in income to farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners, and $2 billion in new local tax revenues Consumer Savings $10.5 billion in lower electricity and natural gas bills by 2020 (growing to $31.8 billion by 2030) Climate Solutions Reductions in global warming pollution equal to taking 36.4 million cars off the road.

4. RPS fails--

9

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: International CP
1. JAXA threatens China – empirically doesn’t solve. Teruaki Ueno, staff writer for Reuters, 2/23/2008, “Japan launches experimental internet society”.
"About 95 percent of households in Japan are capable of having broadband Internet access. So, why now?" A communications expert told Reuters on condition of anonymity. Saturday's satellite launch is part of a bold space programme, which sent the nation's first lunar probe into orbit around the moon last September. Keen to compete with its Asian rivals, China and India, in space exploration projects, the Japanese space agency has said it hopes to send astronauts to the moon by 2025, although Japan has not yet attempted manned space flight. Japan's space programme was in tatters in the late 1990s after two unsuccessful launches of a previous rocket, the H-2. Disaster followed in 2003 when Japan had to destroy an H-2A rocket carrying two spy satellites minutes after launch as it veered off course.

2. INT ACTOR FIAT BAD 3. Perm – Do Both There is no reason why US cannot fund international efforts and NASA development.

4. Cross Apply 1AC Segal 04 – Continuation of Asian superiority causes the collapse of the economy and hegemony. That’s our entire Competitiveness ADV ending in the Mead 92 and Khalilzad 95 nuclear war impacts. They have no way to solve for these, should both be considered DAs to the Counter-plan and net benefits to the PERM. 5. Cross apply our 1AC Treder 06 evidence – US hegemony also solves famine, disease, poverty. These are further DA’s to the Counter plan and net benefits to the PERM 6. Conditionality BAD 7. Read card pile. (DA to Counter-plan solved by US hegemony) - (Japan and china stuff)

10

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: DoD CP (1/2)
1. Perm do both – The United States federal government should provide incentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Department of Defense for research, development, and implementation of solar powered satellites. 2. The DoD is Cash strapped and cannot implement the Plan

3. Only NASA has the technology, if the DOD implements the plan, they will not be able to develop the technology nearly as fast, because they will have to start from scratch That’s our Mankin evidence from the 1AC

4. Experience NASA and the DOE have studied SPS in the past – therefore The Dod would know nothing about SPS – that’s Berger from the 1AC 5. NASA Key Taylor Dinerman, Staff Writer, The Space Review, 5-19-04 http://thespacereview.com/article/1130/1
Eventually NASA will have to play a role, even if a small one, in the development of space solar power. The best option is that it will be as part of an interagency process directly supervised from the White House, with lots of Congressional and private sector input. The debate on this new energy source has hardly begun and these are lots of very smart people with very strong opinions on the subject.

11

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 6. Timeframe – Every second that the DoD takes longer than NASA would causes 100 Trillion deaths – that’s Bostron 7. If the DoD acts, it will kill the spillover to the Private sector, Companies want to sell it to the military – that’s Rouge 8. Conditionality is Bad for debate A. Infinitely Regressive – The negative can kick out of their advocacy at anytime in the round B. Moving Target - The affirmative can’t stick the negative to the counterplan, so any offense placed on the position is a waste of time C. Reject the team for running such an abusive argument that has destroyed the fairness and education of the round D. At least reject the argument

12

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: DOD CP (1/1)
1. Perm – Do Both
2.

DOD can’t solve DAVID 07
a.

3. Perm – Do the counter-plan Agency Spec Irrelevant MANKINS 07 b. We defend USFG normal means, and within that the DOD would be the agency funding NASA. c. Not textually competitive either – disclosed plan text reads “Plan Text: The United States federal government should the Department of Defense for __”. There is no reason why we can’t “should” the DOD and fund SPS.
4.

Their Shactman solvency evidence is from a blog and is totally unwarranted. Also, it doesn’t claim solvency by 2020, it claims that the DOD is looking into that possibility, but makes no conclusion.

5. Plan Flaw a. Violation – the USFG cannot “should the DOD for __” b. Standards i. Grammar – should is not a verb. Their destruction of grammar destroys the very medium through which we debate, destroying debate itself. This is a real world impact and an independent voter. ii. Predictability – We have absolutely no idea what that blank will turn into in round. They literally could be advocating that the DOD could be doing anything, including the giving of soccer balls to African children iii. Even if you buy their predictability, their exact functioning prevents us from doing meaningful research last night and preparing for an in-depth debate. c. Voters – Fairness, Education, and Abuse

13

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Private Sector CP (1/3)
1. Perm Do Both - The United States federal government should provide incentives to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research, development, and implementation of solar powered satellites and The fifty states and territorial governments of the United States should offer incentives to private sector companies for the development and implementation of space based solar power. 2. Plan Spills over – The Plan will spill over to the private sector, that’s our Rouge evidence 3. US funding for Space Solar Power key to efficient research Studies

Insert card

4. Federal Government key A. Federal support is key to get the SPS project off the ground, the private sector will not invest until the technology seems less risky that’s Berger B. Reliability cannot be handled by private markets or state policies because government oversight is necessary, that’s Gruenspecht C. Leadership Key to solvency – The USFG must lead in order for the SPS program to solve for space colonization – that’s Glaser D. The Federal Government must do the plan to solve for hegemony, if the 50 states encourage different corporations, the US must act as a whole to solve – that’s Dolman
14

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 5. Time frame - Every second that the CP wastes because it desnt solve as fast as the Fed is 100 trillion lives – that’s Bostron

15

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Private Sector CP (2/3)
6. Market forces ensure that states will race to the bottom – only national guidelines prevent. Neal D. Woods, Department of Political Science, University of South Carolina, March 2006, Interstate competition and environmental regulation: a test of the race-to-the-bottom thesis, Science Quarterly 87.1.
Across a variety of policy realms, a good deal of recent literature has emphasized the role that interstate competition plays in the formation of state policy (Dye, 1990; Peterson and Rom, 1990; Peterson, 1995; Bailey and Rom, 2004). A foundational premise of this literature is that states engage in policy competition to attract taxpayers, industry, and other mobile units that benefit state economies (Tiebout, 1956). Industry is of high economic value to states, which have shown a willingness to pursue industrial plants through a wide variety of location incentives, including tax abatements, enterprise zones, and tax-free financing for pollution-control equipment (Eisinger, 1988). States thus attempt to reduce the cost of doing business in the state in order to maintain current industrial production within the state and attract new production. One way of reducing production costs may lie in minimizing regulatory burdens, thereby sparking a potential RTB in areas like environmental and workplace-safety regulation. Indeed, the potential for interstate policy competition has served as a lynchpin for theories of environmental policy (e.g., Lowry, 1992) and forms an explicit rationale for pollution-control laws. The legislative history of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, for instance, contains stark reference to the possibility of a RTB.</p> <pre> Without national guidelines for the prevention of significant deterioration, a State deciding to protect its clean air resources will face a double threat. The prospect is very real that such a State would lose existing plants to more permissive States. But additionally the State will likely become the target of "economic-environmental blackmail" from new industrial plants that will play one State off against another with threats to locate in whichever State adopts the most permissive pollution controls.

7. State action can’t solve – deters investment, compliance, cooperation, while encouraging litigation Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, 6/08, “The Best of Both Worlds: Environmental Federalism and the Need for Federal Action on Renewable Energy and Climate Change”
Contrary to enabling a well-lubricated national renewable energy market, inconsistencies between states over what counts as renewable energy, when it has to come online, how large it has to be, where it must be delivered, and how it may be traded clog the [*454] renewable energy market like coffee grounds in a sink. Implementing agencies and stakeholders must grapple with inconsistent state RPS goals, and investors must interpret competing and often arbitrary statutes. To pick just a few prominent examples, Wisconsin set its target at 2.2 percent by 2011, while Rhode Island chose sixteen percent by 2020. In Maine, fuel cells and high efficiency cogeneration units count as "renewables," while the standard in Pennsylvania includes coal gasification and fossil fueled distributed generation technologies. n244 Iowa, Minnesota, and Texas set their purchase requirements based on installed capacity, whereas other states set them relative to electricity sales. n245 Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, and Rhode Island trade renewable energy credits (RECs) under the New England Power Pool, whereas California and Texas use their own REC trading systems. Minnesota and Iowa have voluntary standards with no penalties, whereas Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania all levy different noncompliance fees. n246 The result is a renewable energy market that deters investment, complicates compliance, discourages interstate cooperation and encourages tedious and expensive litigation.

16

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Private Sector CP (3/3)
8. NASA’s resources are necessary for development and implementation Joseph D. Rouge – Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf Government‐funded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct some of the research would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia and corporate interests who could then commercialize results into products would be even better. Using the resources of NASA’s (former) Research Partnership Centers – which have already done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other concepts would be valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to match well with the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuable help and creativity to the research efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of expertise by giving students exciting and impactful work to focus on while at unversity.

9. Conditionality is Bad for debate E. Infinitely Regressive – The negative can kick out of their advocacy at anytime in the round F. Moving Target - The affirmative can’t stick the negative to the counterplan, so any offense placed on the position is a waste of time G. Reject the team for running such an abusive argument that has destroyed the fairness and education of the round H. At least reject the argument

17

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Private Sector (1/2)
1. Solvency Deficit— a. Can’t solve Heg, states aren’t perceived b. Can’t solve Space Col, private sector is only focused on economic impacts not colonizing c. Federal government controls who gets to launc what in states 2. Perm: Do Both, Avoids the links to the DAs by______ 3. Government has to lead the way with demonstrations for the private sector to sign on Space News, Brian Berger, Staff Writer, 11/10/2007, “Report Urges U.S. to Pursue Space-Based Solar Power”,
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/071011-pentagon-space-solarpower.html, BB Nearer term, the U.S. government should fund in depth studies and some initial proof-of-concept demonstrations to show that space-based solar power is a technically and economically viable to solution to the world's growing energy needs. Aside from its potential to defuse future energy wars and mitigate global warming, Damphousse said beaming power down from space could also enable the U.S. military to operate forward bases in far flung, hostile regions such as Iraq without relying on vulnerable convoys to truck in fossil fuels to run the electrical generators needed to keep the lights on. As the report puts it, "beamed energy from space in quantities greater than 5 megawatts has the potential to be a disruptive game changer on the battlefield. [Space-based solar power] and its enabling wireless power transmission technology could facilitate extremely flexible 'energy on demand' for combat units and installations across and entire theater, while significantly reducing dependence on over-land fuel deliveries." Although the U.S. military would reap tremendous benefits from space-based solar power, Damphousse said the Pentagon is unlikely to fund development and demonstration of the technology. That role, he said, would be more appropriate for NASA or the Department of Energy, both of which have studied space-based solar power in the past. The Pentagon would, however, be a willing early adopter of the new technology, Damphousse said, and provide a potentially robust market for firms trying to build a business around space-based solar power. "While challenges do remain and the business case does not necessarily close at this time from a financial sense, space-based solar power is closer than ever," he said. "We are the day after next from being able to actually do this." Damphousse, however, cautioned that the private sector will not invest in space-based solar power until the United States buys down some of the risk through a technology development and demonstration effort at least on par with what the government spends on nuclear fusion research and perhaps as much as it is spending to construct and operate the international space station. "Demonstrations are key here," he said. "If we can demonstrate this, the business case will close rapidly." Charles Miller, one of the Space Frontier Foundation's directors, agreed public funding is vital to getting space-based solar power off the ground. Miller told reporters here that the space-based solar power industry could take off within 10 years if the White House and Congress embrace the report's recommendations by funding a robust demonstration program and provide the same kind of incentives it offers the nuclear power industry.

18

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 4. Private Sector is only successful when working with NASA O. Glenn Smith, former manager of science and applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA's Johnson Space Center, 7/23/2008, “Harvest The Sun -- From Space”, The New York Times, lexis, BB
AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative energy sources -- coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based solar -- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is, however, one potential future energy source that is environmentally friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost competitive with any renewable source: space solar power. Science fiction? Actually, no -- the technology already exists. A space solar power system would involve building large solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panels would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes and, of course, the darkness of night. Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be received by antennas near cities and other places where large amounts of power are used. The received energy would then be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric power generation from such a system could be as low as 8 to 10 cents per kilowatthour, which is within the range of what consumers pay now. In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for space solar power have been the expense of launching the collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive and return of energy much greater. Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working in conjunction with NASA's public-private Commercial Orbital Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power satellite system.

5. C/A Rouge 2007, Case spillsover

19

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC A/T: Private Sector Counterplan
Nasa’s resources are necessary for development and implementation Joseph D. Rouge – Acting Director, National Security Space Office; 10-10-07; National Security Space Office;
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf Government‐funded research is necessary and may be mandatory. Using academia to conduct some of the research would be desirable. Sharing costs between government, academia and corporate interests who could then commercialize results into products would be even better. Using the resources of NASA’s (former) Research Partnership Centers – which have already done some of the research into SBSP, launch, materials and other concepts would be valuable. DARPA also has existing relationships with universities that are likely to match well with the research goals resulting from his study. Not only does this provide valuable help and creativity to the research efforts, but it could build up the future workforce of expertise by giving students exciting and impactful work to focus on while at unversity.

20

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

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

21

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Space K (1/4)
1. Turn: There is only a risk that the development of SPS will tradeoff with other more subversive forms of techno-subjectivity, implicit in the gathering of biofuels Isabella Kenfield, 3/6/2007, “Brazil’s Ethanol Plan Breeds Rural Poverty, Environmental Degradation”, http://americas.irconline.org/pdf/papers/0703ethanol.pdf, BB “The era of biofuels will reproduce and legitimize the logic of the occupation of rural areas by multinational agribusiness, and perpetuate the colonial project to subvert ecosystems and people to the service of the production and maintenance of a lifestyle in other societies,” states the Forum. The group alleges that Brazil’s effort to supply the Global North with ethanol is simply a repeat of the same model of economic growth via agro-export that has been practiced since Portuguese colonization. Agricultural production for export in Brazil has traditionally been a model imposed on the country by more powerful nations in the North, alongside a small group of Brazilian landowners. Agro-export generates vast amounts of wealth for a few Brazilians, and exploitation and poverty for many others. Brazil’s high rate of income inequality is inseparable from the fact that it also has one of the most unequal rates of land distribution. The sugar industry is a classic example of Brazil’s land and income inequality. A Bittersweet Future Brazilian ethanol is produced from sugarcane, which has always been a primary agricultural commodity for the country. Because ethanol relies on sugarcane as its primary material, the industry is linked to the social and economic dynamics in rural areas that have developed from sugarcane production since the colonial era, most importantly labor exploitation and land concentration. According to Marluce Melo of the Pastoral Land Commission (CPT) in the northern Brazilian city of Recife, Pernambuco, “Rural poverty has always been intrinsically related to the economy of sugarcane. Even in the 1970s, when Pernambuco was the largest national producer of sugarcane, the levels of poverty were amongst the highest in the world.”

2. Alt doesn’t Solve the Case-a. Rejecting Techno-subjectivity fails to accommodate the positive uses of technology that enable civilizations to coexist and operate on an equal level. b. The alternative fails to create a space for further expansions beyond the current bounds of exploration and science. c.

3. We don’t cause their impacts—SPS are not used to examine the earth and enhance a system of techno subjectivity on to indigenous peoples. The very fact that we don’t beam energy back down to earth, promotes the idea of indigineous autonomy. 4. We get to weigh our case a. plan focus- K is a legitimate criticism of the plan, but it still tests the idea that the plan b. 5. Case > a.

22

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Space K (2/4)
6. K doesn’t turn the case— a. We control the uniqueness—Advances in technology are inevitable, and biofuel production proves that techno-subjectivity exists in the squo, there is only a risk of the plan being better. b. The K link is predicated off the expansion of surveillance satellites, at best it questions the uses of satellites in space. c.

7. Permutation: Indigineous people can use technology to accomplish their means, while also maintaining sovereigntity. Mongabay, June 12, 2008, “ Colombia creates rainforest reserve to protect medicinal plants”,
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.html, BB Indigenous groups used GPS units to map the occurrence of yoco plants and other important medicinal plants identified by shamans, or indigenous healers. By combining technology with traditional plant knowledge, the effort helped strengthen cultural ties between indigenous youths and elders at a time when such cultures are disappearing even faster than rainforests. "GPS can help you mark the geographic coordinates of a location but all the technology in the world is not going to explain to you the spiritual significance of a spot or identify what plants can be used for what purpose," said Maria Elvira Molano, an anthropologist who has been working in the process of creating Orito on the part of the National Parks Service and is the liaison with ACT. "This is where the elders come in -- they are the ones with the knowledge. Now we're seeing the shamans appreciated as tremendous sources of knowledge by the younger generation as well as government agencies seeking to protect forest areas." ACT calls this approach, which protects biodiversity, improves traditional health systems, and helps preserve culture in a holistic and synergistic way, "biocultural conservation." "Biocultural conservation has been the most overlooked approach to rainforest conservation, and the establishment of the Inge-Ande Reserve shows that this methodology is finally gained traction," said Mark Plotkin, president of ACT. "It's our strong belief that the people who best know, use, and protect biodiversity are the indigenous people who live in these forests.

8. Alt doesn’t solve the K a. Simply rejecting the AFF’s techno-subjectivity fails to address the problems of surveillance satellites around the world b. Rejecting AFF implementation doesn’t solve for the ongoing subjection of the third world to meet the first world’s demand’s for alternative energy c. Rejecting Techno-Subjectivity doesn’t bring the voice of the other back , as long as the first world exists, it can always establish an Us versus Them delineation of superiority.

23

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Space K (3/4)
9. Attempts to ban technology will only result in technological backlash, we must use good technology Nick Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003 World Transhumanist Association, For the ethical use of
technology for human development, “Society and Politics,” http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/68/ Many of the responses to Joy’s article pointed out that there is no realistic prospect of a worldwide ban on these technologies; that they have enormous potential benefits that we would not want to forgo; that the poorest people may have a higher tolerance for risk in developments that could improve their condition; and that a ban may actually increase the dangers rather than reduce them, both by delaying the development of protective applications of these technologies, and by weakening the position of those who choose to comply with the ban relative to less scrupulous groups who defy it. A more promising alternative than a blanket ban is differential technological development, in which we would seek to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, we would strive to retard the development of harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful ones. For technologies that have decisive military applications, unless they can be verifiably banned, we may seek to ensure that they are developed at a faster pace in countries we regard as responsible than in those that we see as potential enemies.

10.Turn: The Colonizing space is the only way we can break our endless cycle of colonialism with the third world. By spreading out into space we can shift the focus of natural resources to space and create separate communities for different societies. 11.Turn: The Negatives unabashed criticism of satellites forecloses any discussion of the positive aspects and perpetuates technophobia George F Kellner, Philosophy of Education Chair, Social Sciences and Comparative Education, UCLA, 1998, Illuminations,
“Virilio, War, and Technology: Some Critical Reflections ,” Yet Virilio has never really theorized technology per se, and uses the same model and categories to analyze war technology to characterize new information technology. Thus, he has not really unravelled the riddle of technology which would have to interrogate its fascination, power, and complexity, and not just its negativity. Virilio criticizes the discourses of technophilia, that would celebrate technology as salvation, that are totally positive without critical reservations, but he himself is equally one-sided, developing a highly technophobic and negative discourse that fails to articulate any positive aspects or uses for new technologies, claiming that negative and critical discourses like his own are necessary to counter the overly optimistic and positive discourses. In a sense, this is true and justifies Virilio's predominantly technophobic discourse, but raises questions concerning the adequacy of Virilio's perspectives on technology as a whole and the extent to which his work is of use in theorizing the new technologies with their momentous and dramatic transformation of every aspect of our social and everyday life.

24

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Space K (4/4)
12.Turn: Satellites have lead to a rethinking of spatial-temporality, the era of the nation-state and colonialism is on the decline. Satellites are key to creating global and national systems. Saskia Sassen, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago and is Centennial Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics, “Spatialities and Temporalities of the Global: Elements for a Theorization”, Public Culture 12.1 (2000) 215-232, muse,
BB The multiple processes that constitute economic globalization inhabit and shape specific structurations of the economic, the political, the cultural, and the subjective. Among the most vital of their effects is the production of new spatialities and temporalities. These belong to both the global and the national, if only to each in part. This "in part" is an especially important qualification, as in my reading the global is itself partial, albeit strategic. The global does not (yet) fully encompass the lived experience of actors or the domain of institutional orders and cultural formations; it persists as a partial condition. This, however, should not suggest that the global and the national are discrete conditions that mutually exclude each other. To the contrary, they significantly overlap and interact in ways that distinguish our contemporary moment. These overlaps and interactions have consequences for the work of theorization and research. Much of social science has operated with the assumption of the nation-state as a container, representing a unified spatiotemporality. Much of history, however, has failed to confirm this assumption. Modern nation-states themselves never achieved spatiotemporal unity, and the global restructurings of today threaten to erode the usefulness of this proposition for what is an expanding arena of sociological reality. The spatiotemporality of the national, upon closer inspection, reveals itself to be composed of multiple spatialities [End Page 215] and temporalities that are at best organizable into something approximating a spatiotemporal order--one, for instance, that can now be distinguished from the global. Crucial to the project of this essay will be its conception of the dynamics of interaction and overlap that operate both within the global and the national and between them. Each sphere, global and national, describes a spatiotemporal order with considerable internal differentiation and growing mutual imbrication with the other. Their internal differences interpenetrate in ways that are variously conflictive, disjunctive, and neutralizing. The theoretical and methodological task of this essay will be one of detecting/constructing the social thickness and specificity of these dimensions with the aim of developing a suitably textured understanding of dynamic spaces of overlap and interaction. Given the complexity and specificity of both the global and the national, their interlacing suggests the existence of frontier zones--from the perspective of research and theorization, these analytic borderlands are sure to require independent theoretical and methodological specificity. Given the historically constructed meaning of the national as a dominant condition that mutually excludes both other nationals and the nonnational, these frontier zones are likely to be marked by operations of power and domination. A possible outcome of these dynamics of interaction between the global and the national, I suggest, is an incipient and partial denationalization of domains once understood and/or constructed as national.

25

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: Security K
1. Case outweighs – the risk of extinction, even if constructed, is still greater in magnitude than the nebulous impact claims of the negative. Vote aff to affirm life. We present the most meaningful relationship to existence by trying to preserve life. 2. Realism prevents extinction John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” Politics”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZERM&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1. [T-Jacob]. It should be apparent from this discussion that offensive realism is mainly a descriptive theory. It explains how great powers have behaved in the past and how they are likely to behave in the future. But it is also a prescriptive theory. States should behave according to the dictates of offensive realism, because it outlines the best way to survive in a dangerous world. One might ask, if the theory describes how great powers act, why is it necessary to stipulate how they should act? The imposing constraints of the system should leave great powers with little choice but to act as the theory predicts. Although there is much truth in this description of great powers as prisoners trapped in an iron cage, the fact remains that they sometimes—although not often—act in contradiction to the theory. These are the anomalous cases discussed above. As we shall see, such foolish behavior invariably has negative consequences. In short, if they want to survive, great powers should always act like good offensive realists.

3. Competition between states and military buildup will always exist. John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” Politics”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFCAZERM&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1. [T-Jacob]. The optimists' claim that security competition and war among the great powers has been burned out of the system is wrong. In fact, all of the major states around the globe still care deeply about the balance of power and are destined to compete for power among themselves for the foreseeable future. Consequently, realism will offer the most powerful explanations of international politics over the next century, and this will be true even if the debates among academic and policy elites are dominated by non-realist theories. In short, the real world remains a realist world. States still fear each other and seek to gain power at each other's expense, because international anarchy—the driving force behind great-power behavior—did not change with the end of the Cold War, and there are few signs that such change is likely any time soon. States remain the principal actors in world politics and there is still no night watchman standing above them. For sure, the collapse of the Soviet Union caused a major shift in the global distribution of power. But it did not give rise to a change in the anarchic structure of the system, and without that kind of profound change, there is no reason to expect the great powers to behave much differently in the new century than they did in previous centuries. Indeed, considerable evidence from the 1990s indicates that power politics has not disappeared from Europe and Northeast Asia, the regions in which there are two or more great powers, as well as possible great powers such as Germany and Japan. There is no question, however, that the competition for power over the past decade has been low-key. Still, there is potential for intense security competition among the great powers that might lead to a major war.

26

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 4. A shift away from realism creates a power war. John Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago, 2001, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” Politics”,
http://books.google.com/books?id=jOV9HuCppqwC&dq=the+tragedy+of+great+power+politics&pg=PP1&ots=KwFC AZER-M&sig=ypB6mg7nbEPxLvjYUPR5PMBzPds&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA18,M1.

[T-Jacob].
The possible consequences of falling victim to aggression further amplify the importance of fear as a motivating force in world politics. Great powers do not compete with each other as if international politics were merely an economic marketplace. Political competition among states is a much more dangerous business than mere economic intercourse; the former can read to war, and war often means mass killing on the battlefield as well a5 mass murder of civilians. In extreme cases, war can even lead to the destruction of states. The horrible consequences of war sometimes cause states to view each other not just as competitors, but as potentially deadly enemies. Political antagonism, in short, tends to be intense, because the stakes are great. States in the international system also aim to guarantee their own survival. Because other states are potential threats, and because there is no higher authority to come to their rescue when they dial 911, states can’ t just depend on others for their own security. Each state tends to see itself as vulnerable and alone, and therefore it aims to provide for its own survival. In international politics, God helps those who help themselves. This emphasis on self-help does not preclude states from forming alliances.” But alliances are only temporary marriages of convenience: today’s alliance partner might be tomorrow’s enemy, and today’s enemy might be tomorrow’s alliance partner. For example, the United States fought with China and the Soviet Union against Germany and Japan in World War II, but soon thereafter flip-flopped enemies and partners and allied with West Germany and Japan against China and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

27

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 5. Turn – A. Security rhetoric is key to heg Yaseen Noorani (Assistant Professor in Near Eastern Studies at the University of Arizona) 2005 "The Rhetoric of Security" CR:
The New Centennial Review 5.1 (2005) 13-41 Muse The rhetoric of security, then, provides the moral framework for U.S. political hegemony through its grounding in the idea of national agency and in the absolute opposition between the state of civility and the state of [End Page 371 war. Designating the United States as the embodiment of the world order's underlying principle and the guarantor of the world order's existence, rhetoric places both the United States and terrorism outside the normative relations that should inhere within the world order as a whole. The United States is the supreme agent of the world's war against war; other nations must simply choose &. As long as war threatens to dissolve the peaceful order of nations, these nations must submit to the politics of "the one, instead of the many." They must accept the united States -as "something godlike," in that in questions of its own security-which are questions of the world's security-they can have no authority to influence or oppose its actions. These questions can be decided by the United States alone. Other nations must, for the foreseeable future, suspend their agency when it comes to their existence. Therefore, rhetoric of securitv allows the United States to totalize world politics within itself in a manner that extends from the relations among states down to the inner moral struggle experienced bv every human being.

B. Cross-apply Heg Impact Card
5. Perm do Both -- The

distinction between the alternative and plan is non-existent – the philosophies behind both are constructed approaches to the problem of otherness. Only a combination of the ideologies can break down the inadequacies of both of the theories.
6.

28

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

7.

Perm do the plan and the alternative in all other instances

8. Alt fails - Discursive focus generates epistemological blind spots and won’t alter security structures Adrian Hyde-Price (Professor of International Politics at Bath) 2001 “Europes new security challenges” p. 39
Securitization thus focuses almost exclusively on the discursive domain and eschews any attempt to determine empirically what constitutes security concerns. It does not aspire to comment on the reality behind a securitization discourse or on the appropriate instruments for tackling security problems. Instead, it suggests that security studies – or what Waever calls securitization studies –should focus on the discursive moves whereby issues are securitized. The Copenhagen school thus emphasizes the need to understand the “speech acts” that accomplish a process of securitization. Their focus is on the linguistic and conceptual dynamics involved, even though they recognize the importance of the institutional setting within which securitization takes place. The concept of securitization offers some important insights for security studies. However, it is too epistemologically restricted to contribute to a significant retooling of security studies. On the positive side, it draws attention to the way in which security agendas are constructed bgy politicians and other political actors. It also indicates the utility of discourse analysis as an additional tool of analysis for security studies. However, at best, securitization studies can contribute one aspect of security studies. It cannot provide the foundations for a paradigm shift in the subdiscipline. Its greatest weakness is its epistemological hypochondria. That is, its tendency to reify epistemological problems and push sound observations about knowledge claims to their logical absurdity. Although it isimportant to understand the discursive moves involved in perception of security in, say, the Middle East, it is also necessary to make some assessment of nondiscursive factors like the military balance or access to freshwater supplies. For the Copenhagen school, however, these nondiscursive factors are relegated to second place. They are considered only to the extent that they facilitate or impede the speech act. In this way, the Copenhagen school is in danger of cutting security studies off from serious empirical research and setting it adrift on a sea of floating signifiers.

29

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 9. Alt can’t solve the case – focus on the future is critical for meaningful political change
vibeke Pederson, Associate Professor, Department of Danish, University of Copenhagen, 2003 ["in search of monsters to destroy?"international relations 17:2] This forces us in turn to consider the role of post-structural theory in bringing such remaking about. For a while now, the most common answer on offer has been reflective of a Derriderian commitment to ethics as dissidence, intervention and resistance:62 revealing our historicity and the contingent paths through whichwe got here, the post-structural ‘ethos is primarily concerned with the temporal process of critique and the positions it makes possible’.63 Performing such criticism constitutes an ethical act, with practical implications for future action, for in revealing that we do not need to be what we are, we are set free to imagine alternative modes of existence. There is little point in contesting this: surely, exposing contingency is a first and necessary precondition for wilful change. The question, however, is whether it is politically effective to leave one’s political interventions at that. However sympathetic to the claim that in re-historicizing a potentially different future is made possible, I am inclined to doubt whether such potentiality constitutes in itself an improvement; if not, post-structuralism needs to engage more actively in the definition of preferable futures if change is to be for the better.

10. Turn – The alternative makes conflict inevitable. Only immediate action can solve.
PH Liotta, Professor of Humanities and Executive Director of the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy, Salve Regina University, 2005 [security dialogue 36:1 "through the looking glass: creeping vulnerabilities and the reordering of security" ] Although it seems attractive to focus on exclusionary concepts that insist on desecuritization, privileged referent objects, and the ‘belief’ that threats and vulnerabilities are little more than social constructions (Grayson, 2003), all these concepts work in theory but fail in practice. While it may be true that national security paradigms can, and likely will, continue to dominate issues that involve human security vulnerabilities – and even in some instances mistakenly confuse ‘vulnerabilities’ as ‘threats’ – there are distinct linkages between these security concepts and applications. With regard to environmental security, for example, Myers (1986: 251) recognized these linkages nearly two decades ago: National security is not just about fighting forces and weaponry. It relates to watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate and other factors that rarely figure in the minds of military experts and political leaders, but increasingly deserve, in their collectivity, to rank alongside military approaches as crucial in a nation’s security. Ultimately, we are far from what O’Hanlon & Singer (2004) term a global intervention capability on behalf of ‘humanitarian transformation’. Granted, we now have the threat of mass casualty terrorism anytime, anywhere – and states and regions are responding differently to this challenge. Yet, the global community today also faces many of the same problems of the 1990s: civil wars, faltering states, humanitarian crises. We are nowhere closer to addressing how best to solve these challenges, even as they affect issues of environmental, human, national (and even ‘embedded’) security. Recently, there have been a number of voices that have spoken out on what the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty has termed the ‘responsibility to protect’:10 the responsibility of some agency or state (whether it be a superpower such as the United States or an institution such as the United Nations) to enforce the principle of security that sovereign states owe to their citizens. Yet, the creation of a sense of urgency to act – even on some issues that may not have some impact for years or even decades to come – is perhaps the only appropriate first response. The real cost of not investing in the right way and early enough in the places where trends and effects are accelerating in the wrong direction is likely to be decades and decades of economic and political frustration – and, potentially, military engagement. Rather than justifying intervention (especially military), we ought to be justifying investment.

30

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 11. Thinking of the environment as a security threat stimulates positive environmental activism and cooperative dialogue
Edward A. Page, Government @ London School of Economics, and M. R. Redclift, Social Sciences @ Kings College, 2002, Human Security and the Environment: International Comparisons, 261-262

Continues……

31

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

32

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 12. Security is a prerequistite to meaningful individual liberty
Erika George

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

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

individuals must, in addition to civil liberties, have basic needs met is well established. n105 Security and freedom from fear are among the [*592] most elemental of human needs, n106 and they must be acquired before social or moral needs may be actualized. Abraham Maslow argues that an individual cannot begin to concern herself with higher social and moral needs until her very basic material needs of life are met. n107 A good society, in Maslow's view, is one that permits the highest purposes of human existence to emerge by satisfying all basic needs. n108 As evidenced by the Pratt litigation, negative
thereby devalues, the realities of public housing residents. Those unfortunate enough to inhabit the "other side of town" do not enjoy a level of security comparable to residents of "Gold Coast high-rises." n104 That notions of the content of freedom can impede the realization of basic human needs. Another scholar, John Galtung, argues that "a constitutional scheme of liberties cannot reasonably or lawfully blind itself to the distributive relation of the liberty interests that it cherishes." n109 He offers the insight that "[a] constitution is a rule of law. To speak of liberties established by a rule of law is to speak of a general scheme of liberties for all; it is to invite the question of distribution." n110 The Pratt Court's reasoning dodges this notion of distribution. It is an issue that if addressed directly would require the Pratt Court to reevaluate its formalistic protections of liberty and to question the content of what classical liberalism protects. n111 The Pratt Court

Society's failure to meet basic economic and social rights or needs diminishes poor citizens' capacity to exercise the civil and political rights Pratt strains to protect. Social and economic needs are inextricably linked to civil and political rights and require concurrent fulfillment. By focusing first and fundamentally on what
ignores the reality that poor people's ability to exercise and enjoy rights is severely curtailed by the conditions under which they live.

the residents of public housing have a right to be free from, namely governmental intrusion, the court neglected precisely what public housing residents are entitled to, freedom to flourish. The lack of one of life's most basic necessities -- security -- prevents residents of public housing from

experiencing substantive freedom.

33

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

AT: KATO SATELLITE K
1. TURN: SATELLITES EMPOWER INDIGENOUS PEOPLES TO MAP THEIR LAND RIGHTS AND DOCUMENT THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION AND DEMOCRATIZE EPISTEMIC AUTHORITY
Martin Hewson [Associate at the York Centre for International and Security Studies, York University] & Timothy Sinclair [Associate Professor of International Political Economy at the University of Warwick], 1999, SUNY Press, Approaches to Global Governance Theory, p. 87 Moreover, ERS data can facilitate the localization of control in some surprising ways. Perhaps most interesting is the use of satellite data by indigenous peoples for mapping their customary land rights and documenting the role of the state and multinational corporations in environmental destruction. Environmental advocacy groups and indigenous rights groups in Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, and the Pacific Northwest are using satellite-generated data to reterritorialize their political practice to an extent previously inconceivable. Although ERS data may deterritorialize political practice at the level of the nation-state, when used for “counter-mapping” by indigenous peoples it seems to be have exactly the opposite effect. We should note, however, that while spatial information technologies may facilitate claims of local people against the state, that power “comes with a price – it destroys the fluid and flexible nature of their traditional perimeters.” The democratization of

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

2. NO LINK – ALL OF KATO’S ARGUMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO SATELLITES USED FOR CLIMATE PREDICTION IMAGING, WE USE THE SATELLITES TO INCREASE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 3. PERM: DO THE PLAN AND REEVALUATE OUR FORMS OF TECHNOSUBJECTIVITY TO OVERCOME THE DOMINATING NATURE OF OUR SOCIAL MOVEMENTS 4. THE PERM SOLVES: COMBINING THE UNITING POWER OF SATELLITES AND THE DECENTRALIZED GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES SOLVES FOR ECOLOGICAL INTERDEPENDENCE
Martin Hewson [Associate at the York Centre for International and Security Studies, York University] & Timothy Sinclair [Associate Professor of International Political Economy at the University of Warwick], 1999, SUNY Press, Approaches to Global Governance Theory, p. 87 As a multifaceted power/knowledge complex, ERS incorporates sometimes contradictory tendencies. On the one hand, the global view afforded from the vantage point of space seems especially conducive to the notions of “planetary management” and the centralization of power. Indeed, in the discourse surrounding ERS, terms like “managing the planet” and “global management” abound. Yet global science is inherently decentralized, depending on “countless loosely knit and continually shifting networks of individual researchers – most of whom resist outside intervention – in communication that crisscrosses the borders of well over a hundred sovereign nations.” The decentralized nature of global science is likely to have important social and political implications for efforts to cope with global ecological interdependence.

34

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 5. ALT CAN’T SOLVE THE LINK – A. “REEVALUATING TECHNOSUBJECTIVITY” WON’T BRING DOWN THE THOUSANDS OF SATELLITES THAT ACTUALLY ARE IN SPACE FOR SURVEILLANCE B. REJECTING AFF IMPLEMENTATION DOESN’T SOLVE FOR THE ONGOING SUBJECTION OF THE THIRD WORLD TO MEET THE FIRST WORLD’S DEMAND’S FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY C. REJECTING TECHNO-SUBJECTIVITY DOESN’T BRING THE VOICE OF THE OTHER BACK , AS LONG AS THE FIRST WORLD EXISTS, IT CAN ALWAYS ESTABLISH AN US VERSUS THEM DELINEATION OF SUPERIORITY 6. TURN: ATTEMPTS TO BAN TECHNOLOGY WILL ONLY RESULT IN TECHNOLOGICAL BACKLASH, WE MUST USE GOOD TECHNOLOGY
Nick Bostrom, Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University, 2003 World Transhumanist Association, For the ethical use of technology for human development, “Society and Politics,” http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/faq21/68/ Many of the responses to Joy’s article pointed out that there is no realistic prospect of a worldwide ban on these technologies; that they have enormous potential benefits that we would not want to forgo; that the poorest people may have a higher tolerance for risk in developments that could improve their condition; and that a ban may actually increase the dangers rather than reduce them, both by delaying the development of protective applications of these technologies, and by weakening the position of those who choose to comply with the ban relative to less scrupulous groups who defy it. A more promising alternative than a blanket ban is differential technological development, in which we would seek to influence the sequence in which technologies developed. On this approach, we would strive to retard the development of harmful technologies and their applications, while accelerating the development of beneficial technologies, especially those that offer protection against the harmful ones. For technologies that have decisive military applications, unless they can be verifiably banned, we may seek to ensure that they are developed at a faster pace in countries we regard as responsible than in those that we see as potential enemies.

7. WE STILL GET TO WEIGH OUR CASE – NEG CAN USE K’S TO PROVE WHY THE AFF IS BAD, IF WE CAN PROVE THAT THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OUTWEIGH THEN WE WIN 8. ALT CAN’T SOLVE THE CASE – REJECTING TECHNO-SUBJECTIVITY FAILS TO ACCOMMODATE THE POSITIVE USES OF TECHNOLOGY THAT ENABLE CIVILIZATIONS TO COEXIST AND OPERATE ON AN EQUAL LEVEL

35

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Heidegger K
1. Plan Focus - The Focus of the debate is the Affirmative plan, meaning that we get to weigh the impacts of our case against the impacts of the K. 2. Case Outweighs - The Aff outweighs the case because two scenarios of Nuclear war along with the deaths of 100 trillion people a second far outweighs the devaluing of nature 3. Turn – the plan embraces nature and causes us to embrace nature and coexist because we build Solar powered Satellites which transform the sun’s energy rather than harm nature. Instead of devaluing nature as standing in reserves, we are able to utilize the sun’s rays with maximum efficiency rather than allow them to be wasted. 4. No Link We don’t use modern renewables, we use a new technology that we develop 5. No Turn - The Criticism does not turn the case, SPS is not the root cause of the devaluing of nature, Biofuels and Wind power are far worse 6.Alt does not solve - The Alternative does not solve the case, we must act now to solve for SPS. Cross Apply Engdahl from the 1AC that we have a narrow window to get into space. Also Dolman, that we must act now before other nations beat us to it collapsing hegemony 7. Permute – Do the plan and realize that capture nature for subjective human desires, but embrace a process in order to rethink our relationship in the world and ourselves for everything else. 8. No Impact - even if we do steal the intrinsic values of nature, we still don’t link to their impact because we realize that it isn’t standing in reserves

36

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

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

37

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

A2: German Tradeoff

1. Uniqueness overwhelms the link – nothing in their evidence indicates that funding NASA would be enough to deter the German alternative energy economy from growing

2. No link – their evidence is only specific to funding corporations and privates to do the plan – doesn’t assume SBSP development and funding to NASA 3. No link – their DOE evidence does not talk about the German alternative energy economy in the context of American solar development – no trade-off 4. No internal link – the German economy is resilient and is not dependent on alternative energy production The Independent, 5-16-2008, How to weather the financial storms; LEADING ARTICLE; GERMANY, lexis
The economic news around much of the rich world is causing policymakers sleepless nights, but there was at least one source of optimism out there yesterday. According to Germany's Federal Statistics Office, the eurozone's largest economy is growing at its fastest rate since 1996. German gross national product expanded by 1.5 per cent in the first three months of this year - double the predictions of many analysts. So why is Germany bucking the miserable trend? The country seems to be benefiting from labour market reforms of recent years and a resurgence of exports. Unemployment has fallen and consumer demand has risen. Analysts are also arguing that the milder weather in January and February boosted the domestic construction industry. We must not get carried away. Schadenfreude in Berlin at the calamity that has befallen the "Anglo-Saxon" economies would be a most inappropriate reaction. German investment banks have lost a lot of money in the financial meltdown, thanks to their foolish investments in US sub-prime mortgage packages. And even after the necessary recalculations are made in the light of this surge in output, German growth is still projected to be lower in 2008 than it was in 2007. The credit crunch and higher commodity prices will see to that. Moreover, the country is particularly vulnerable to a decline in demand for German products in the US. And the rising value of the euro will act to depress exports. But, nevertheless, Germany does seem to be proving rather more resilient in the face of these malign economic forces than many other European countries, notably Britain. And these latest figures should give us pause to consider the merits of a balanced economy. 5. Cross-apply impact calc

38

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Saudi Relations DA (1/2)
1. No Link - We don’t affect the demand of crude oil in the US, our plan uses SPS to receive power for space colonization 2. NO RISK OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SINO-SAUDI RELATIONS. COOPERATION WITH US MORE LIKELY Nawaf Obaid, The Gracia Group, “The Sino-Saudi Energy Rapprochement:Implications for US National Security January 8th, 2002 http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/SinoSaudiStudyFinal.pdf In short, enhanced and tightening ties between China and Saudi Arabia with respect to energy trade and investment could have a negative impact on both US-China and US-Saudi relations. But these consequences are not at all likely. The most likely consequences of heightened China- Saudi ties are those that will have benefits for the US and for global stability, even if there is a loss of US influence over the Kingdom as Saudi Arabia looks to the growing oil markets of East Asia. China will almost certainly have an increased concern over the stability of the Middle East region and on the protection of long haul sea-lanes. Changed circumstances are likely to push China toward greater cooperation with the US in all of these regards. 3. Their uniqueness indicates that ties with Saudi Arabia are strong, not tenuous 4. Terrorism Turn A. Low U.S.-Saudi relations prevent Middle East Terrorism The Jerusalem Post; 7-29-08; “Al-Qaida video calls to kill Saudi King” http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331134546&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In the past few years, al-Qaida has openly denounced the Saudi royal family for its cooperation with the United States. A series of al-Qaida attacks on Saudi soil in 2003 and 2004, aimed at destabilizing US-Saudi relations. In May 2003, suicide bombers killed 34 people, including eight Americans, at a housing compound for Westerners. A year later, the organization attacked oil installations, taking foreign workers hostage and leaving 22 people dead, including an American. In June 2004, three American nationals were killed during a single week, and in December of that year, terrorists stormed the American consulate, killing five staff members. Since then, the Saudi security authorities have launched multiple waves of arrests against people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Last year, an al-Qaida terror cell was caught and charged with planning a series of mega-terror attacks against Saudi gas and oil installations, aiming at bringing down the regime. A group member confessed they acted upon a religious decree issued by Osama Bin Ladin. They said they believed that by cutting off the oil and gas supply to the West, the American forces would have been lured into Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida could then fight them directly.

39

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Saudi Relations DA (2/2)
B. Terrorism risks extinction
Kirkus Reviews 99
[“New Terrorism, Fanaticism, Arms, Destruction”, http://www.amazon.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/productdescription/0195118162]
Terrorism is nothing new. Fanatical groups have been wreaking havoc from time immemorial. Today

two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind.'' First terrorists be they Islamic extremists in the Middle East, ultranationalists in the US, or any number of other possible permutations seem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do, who and how many they are willing to kill. Second, these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons where and when they wish. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless, rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. In addition to the destruction of countless lives, panic can grip any targeted society, unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. To combat such terrorist activities, states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. In short, terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations. On all of this, Laqueur is quite
convincing. Useful, too, is his elaboration on the nature of the various terrorist threats we face. Yet he too often falls back on questionable, if not offensive, opinion. He asserts, for instance, that in non-Western countries ``human lives count for less,'' and so the danger of terrorism in these countries is greater. This is simply unacceptable doggerel. Useful in pointing out the terrorist danger, but be wary of the author's more outlandish pronouncements.

5. No I/L – their card says that if Saudi Arabia no longer felt protected by the US, then the impact scenario would happen, a decline in oil consumption would not make them feel unsafe 6. NO RISK OF NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA- MULTIPLE WARRANTS
Thomas W. Lippman , member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Middle East correspondent and a diplomatic and national security reporter for The Washington Post, 2/9/08 “Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy” http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/080209-lippman-nuclear.html It is widely believed among policymakers and strategic analysts in Washington and in many Middle Eastern capitals that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will feel compelled to do the same. In some ways this belief makes sense because Saudi Arabia is as vulnerable as it is rich, and it has long felt threatened by the revolutionary ascendancy of its Shi‘ite rival across the Gulf. Moreover, some senior Saudi officials have said privately that their country’s hand would be forced if it became known beyond doubt that Iran had become nuclear weapons capable. The publication in late 2007 of portions of a US National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had abandoned a program to weaponize nuclear devices in 2003 did not put an end to the speculation about a Saudi Arabian response; the NIE made clear that Iran was continuing its effort to master the uranium enrichment process, and could resume a weapons program on short notice. It is far from certain, however, that Saudi Arabia would wish to acquire its own nuclear arsenal or that it is capable of doing so. There are compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia would not undertake an effort to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely event that Iran achieves a stockpile and uses this arsenal to threaten the Kingdom. Money is not an issue -- if destitute North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia surely has the resources to pursue such a program. In the fall of 2007, the Saudis reported a budget surplus of $77 billion, and with oil prices above $90 a barrel, Riyadh is flush with cash. But the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would be provocative, destabilizing, controversial and extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia, and ultimately would likely weaken the kingdom rather than strengthen it. Such a course would be directly contrary to the Kingdom’s longstanding stated goal of making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone. According to Sultan bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Defense Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons by their nature contravene the tenets of Islam. Pursuing nuclear weapons would be a flagrant violation of Saudi Arabia’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and would surely cause a serious breach with the United States. Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and technological base to develop such weapons on its own. An attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them, perhaps from Pakistan, would launch Saudi Arabia on a dangerously inflammatory trajectory that could destabilize the entire region, which Saudi Arabia’s leaders know would not be in their country’s best interests. The Saudis always prefer stability to turmoil.

40

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Saudi Arabia DA (1/1)
Turn – low U.S.-Saudi relations prevent Middle East Terrorism The Jerusalem Post; 7-29-08; “Al-Qaida video calls to kill Saudi King” http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1215331134546&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
In the past few years, al-Qaida has openly denounced the Saudi royal family for its cooperation with the United States. A series of al-Qaida attacks on Saudi soil in 2003 and 2004, aimed at destabilizing US-Saudi relations. In May 2003, suicide bombers killed 34 people, including eight Americans, at a housing compound for Westerners. A year later, the organization attacked oil installations, taking foreign workers hostage and leaving 22 people dead, including an American. In June 2004, three American nationals were killed during a single week, and in December of that year, terrorists stormed the American consulate, killing five staff members. Since then, the Saudi security authorities have launched multiple waves of arrests against people suspected of involvement in terrorist activities. Last year, an al-Qaida terror cell was caught and charged with planning a series of mega-terror attacks against Saudi gas and oil installations, aiming at bringing down the regime. A group member confessed they acted upon a religious decree issued by Osama Bin Ladin. They said they believed that by cutting off the oil and gas supply to the West, the American forces would have been lured into Saudi Arabia, where al-Qaida could then fight them directly.

And terrorism risks extinction
Kirkus Reviews 99
[“New Terrorism, Fanaticism, Arms, Destruction”, http://www.amazon.com/New-Terrorism-Fanaticism-Arms-Destruction/dp/productdescription/0195118162]
Terrorism is nothing new. Fanatical groups have been wreaking havoc from time immemorial. Today

two things have changed that together transform terrorism from a ``nuisance'' to ``one of the gravest dangers facing mankind.'' First terrorists be they Islamic extremists in the Middle East, ultranationalists in the US, or any number of other possible permutations seem to have changed from organized groups with clear ideological motives to small clusters of the paranoid and hateful bent on vengeance and destruction for their own sake. There are no longer any moral limitations on what terrorists are willing to do, who and how many they are willing to kill. Second, these unhinged collectivities now have ready access to weapons of mass destruction. The technological skills are not that complex and the resources needed not too rare for terrorists to employ nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons where and when they wish. The consequences of such weapons in the hands of ruthless, rootless fanatics are not difficult to imagine. In addition to the destruction of countless lives, panic can grip any targeted society, unleashing retaliatory action which in turn can lead to conflagrations perhaps on a world scale. To combat such terrorist activities, states may come to rely more and more on dictatorial and authoritarian measures. In short, terrorism in the future may threaten the very foundations of modern civilizations. On all of this, Laqueur is quite
convincing. Useful, too, is his elaboration on the nature of the various terrorist threats we face. Yet he too often falls back on questionable, if not offensive, opinion. He asserts, for instance, that in non-Western countries ``human lives count for less,'' and so the danger of terrorism in these countries is greater. This is simply unacceptable doggerel. Useful in pointing out the terrorist danger, but be wary of the author's more outlandish pronouncements.

41

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC F 22 Tradeoff (1/3)
1. No Link – We aren’t military spending, we fund NASA 2. A trade-off with military spending is overdue; the F-22 is ineffective and expensive. Ethan Heitner, Staff writer for Tom Paine Common Sense. 7/27/06 “The Other F-22 Problem” http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/27/the_f22s_other_problem.php
What do you do when you've got the world's most expensive fighter jet and its canopy won't open correctly so you have to chainsaw free the hapless pilot? If you're the U.S. government, you sign up for an extended three-year contract to ensure you get even more of them than you originally wanted Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan elucidates the cost of the Pentagon's outdated thinking about defense spending today in an article on TomPaine.com about the bloated and unloved F-22 Raptor fighter jet: Political leaders in Washington are so scared of being labeled “weak on defense” that they rarely object at all to defense expenditures, even ones like the F-22 that are widely regarded as wasteful. In fact, it’s an open secret in Washington that tens of billions of dollars are going down the drain at the Pentagon. At the same time, it’s also an open secret that millions of American kids lack health insurance, public schools around the country are falling down, and our nation continues to rely on petroleum—a national vulnerability that could set us up for a serious economic collapse. And how much is the federal government spending on renewable energy research? About as much as we’re spending on the F-22 fighter jet. And less than a third as much as we spend on national missile defense.

3. No Impact – Current fighter planes would be able to make up for the lack of F-22s. 4. Investing in alternative energy is a more effective way to promote security. The neg authors don’t assume the new type of war being fought. Frida Berrigan, s a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center. 5/18/06 “Smart Defense” http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/18/smart_defense.php
The U.S. should align its spending with approaches that have real promise for achieving security. The task force suggests a $10 billion increase in spending for overseas economic development; a $1 billion increase in U.S. contributions to international organizations, $1.8 billion in additional funds for diplomatic operations; tripling what is allocated for proven nonproliferation programs like those designed to lock down or destroy excess nuclear weapons and bomb-making materials around the world; $8.8 billion more for alternative energy sources; and a $10 billion increase in spending on the nation’s basic public health infrastructure. They assert that this diversification can be accomplished by reallocating money already in the Pentagon budget. Among the systems they propose trimming or eliminating are: the F-22 combat aircraft, the Virginia-class submarine, the DD(X) destroyer, and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. These Cold War-era systems eat up billions in the Pentagon budget and are irrelevant to the threats posed in the 21st century. Additionally, the task force proposes cutting the unnecessary and unworkable Star Wars program from $10.4 to $2.4 billion per year, and reducing nuclear weapons spending from $18 billion per year to $5 billion per year. In an era of war that pits the $3 million Bradley fighting vehicle against a $3 improvised-explosive device, the project to expand the definition of security (and increase number of tools we have to build it) could not be more timely. At a time when the Democratic leadership is too timid to propose cuts in our bloated military budget, the USB report—which humbly suggests that reallocating some of that funding will be a more judicious use of taxpayer money and a more effective defense of the homeland—deserves as large an audience as possible.

42

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 5. Japan Rearms either way, either we sell them the fighter planes, or we don’’t and they take and alternate route

43

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC F 22 Tradeoff (2/3)
6. Turn – a.) Fermilab, a key particle lab, is on the edge; the plan will trade off. Scientific American 7/7/08 “Fermilab Saved from Chopping Block--For Now” http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fermilab-saved-from-chopp
A spending package signed into law last week by President Bush will provide enough cash to stave off the sacking of 90 employees at financially strapped Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Ill., the nation's leading particle physics lab. Acting Deputy Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Kupfer told Fermilab it will receive a $29.5-million infusion, including $9.5 million for a key neutrino experiment planned to be completed in 2014. But it remains to be seen whether Congress will dole out enough funds to keep the lab operating at its current capacity in fiscal year 2009. The emergency spending measure was passed after Fermilab offered employee buyouts to ease a nearly six-month budget crunch triggered when lawmakers cut its funding by $20 million from the year before. Judy Jackson, a lab spokesperson, said that 50 workers took the buyout two weeks ago, even though the Senate had passed the bill and the president had signaled he would sign it. But she notes that Fermilab would have had to ax another 90 employees if the new funds, part of $62.5 million forked over to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science, had not been approved. Despite a huge sense of relief, Jackson says there is still concern about next year's budget, although there are promising signs: The House Appropriations Committee approved a budget of $805 million for particle physics in FY 2009, nearly $117 million more than this year's allocation. "This is the most encouraging thing, because this is where we came to grief last year, in the House appropriations process," Jackson said. The proposal may yet fizzle, however, as it did in December when Congress cut physics funding to meet a spending cap imposed by the president. Fermilab became more vulnerable when its most vocal congressional booster, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.–Ill.), who represented Fermilab's Congressional district, stepped down in November. Jackson said the lab is "very encouraged" by support from Illinois congressional Democrats, Sen. Richard Durbin and Rep. Bill Foster, a former Fermilab physicist who won Hastert's seat in a special election in March. Another positive sign, she says: the appropriations committee used language in its budget proposal from a May report by the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5), which laid out a strategy for the coming decade to ensure the U.S. "maintain[s] a leadership role in worldwide particle physics." "We don't feel our challenges are over," Jackson said. "But we feel our challenges have fundamentally shifted."

44

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC F 22 Tradeoff (3/3)
b.) Particle accelerators will create strange matter; which will consume the entire earth into a mass of strange matter killing everybody. Richard J. Wagner, Ph. D. in Engineering and Science. 3/8/2000 “The Strange Matter of Planetary Destruction” http://chess.captain.at/strangelets-matter.html
Scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) have started to operate the new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in order to investigate the deepest nature of matter. The RHIC, in colliding gold ions with gold ions, will generate temperatures not seen in the universe anywhere since the expansion of the initial singularity (the "Big Bang") except in supernovas. These temperatures occur neither in thermal-nuclear explosions nor in the interior of a normal star. BNL scientists project that a sufficiently energetic gold-gold collision will produce a quark-gluon plasma. Matter is composed of hadrons (protons and neutrons) which in turn are composed of quarks. Quarks come in several varieties, including up, down, top, bottom, charm, and strange. The

quark-gluon plasma created in the collision will recondense, with the material composition somewhat randomized, with the possible creation of "strange-matter" (particles of which are called strangelets) which has an excess of strange quarks. Strange matter was probably also created along with normal matter at the time of the expansion of the initial singularity, but because small strangelets (the kind that would have been created then, and now here at the RHIC) are unstable, they would have rapidly decayed (radioactively) into hadrons (normal matter), so that's why they are not normally found in nature. Hadron nuclei have a narrow regime of stability, with iron nuclei being the most stable. Energy can be obtained by fusing smaller nuclei (nuclear fusion) or by splitting heavier nuclei (nuclear fission). Strange matter, however, becomes more stable the bigger it gets, with small strangelets (the kind that would be produced in the RHIC) having a short half-life on the order of microseconds to milliseconds. Because it gets more stable as it grows (becoming fully stable at a mass of about 1000 protons), it will generate more energy as it fuses with normal matter. The normal matter will be absorbed by the strangelet and become part of the strange mass. Safety Review
The BNL commissioned a Review of the strangelet issue. The BNL Review uses several failing arguments in attempting to assert the safety of the RHIC. The first is that the only kind of strangelet that could fuse with ordinary matter would be a negatively charged strangelet and that they are very unlikely to be produced. No number was assigned to that probability in the BNL Review, but it is not zero. It has been shown that because strangelet-hadron fusion is more exothermic (releases more energy) than hadron-hadron fusion, even positively charged strangelets can fuse with low mass hadronic matter (such as the helium in the cooling jacket of the superconducting magnets of the RHIC). This possible disaster scenario was actually described in the BNL Review: a negatively charged strangelet condenses out of the quark-gluon plasma with a half-life more than a nano-second (10-9 second). That's enough time for the strangelet to traverse the vacuum in the RHIC, penetrate the iron wall (being slowed to thermal velocity in the process) and mingle with the helium atoms in the super-conducting magnet cooling jacket.

Spontaneous fusion would take place and the strangelet would grow as it consumed helium nuclei, giving off large amounts of radiation. At some point it would grow so large that it would fall through the helium containment-wall (consuming every atom it encounters on the way), fall out of the device, and penetrate the concrete floor, tunneling down to the center of the Earth. The result will be the eventual (a period of days or months) conversion of every atom in the Earth to become part of one massive hot strange-matter nucleus. The Moon and a set of artificial satellites will orbit a white-hot strange Earth only about 100 meters in diameter but with approximately the original mass of the Earth (some mass will be lost to radiated heat). Once the strangelet is created, no power on Earth can stop it. Let me repeat: the above disaster scenario is well-described in the BNL Review.
Recognizing that it is insufficient (in the face of the potential devastation that could result) to have as their argument that dangerous strangelet production is unlikely (but possible), the Review authors turn to cosmic ray arguments. The first of two arguments is that the Moon has been bombarded by cosmic rays for millions of years and it still exists as normal matter. The second argument is that cosmic rays collide head on in deep space and have not caused any problems. Both arguments fail so obviously it invites belief that the Review authors are either incompetent or subject to a strong pre-existing bias. First, let's examine the lunar argument: some cosmic rays have the mass and equivalent energy of a gold atom flying around in the RHIC. However, the Moon is a stationary target, so the center-of-mass (COM) energy is far below that of a collision in the RHIC. Fully acknowledging that this argument fails, the Review authors turn (in apparent desperation) to the head-on cosmic ray collision argument.

Deep space cosmic ray head-on collisions could generate small strangelets. If the strangelets are stable, (long-lived) they could be swept up in the course of years in new star development. If so, they would cause supernovas at a much higher rate than observed; hence stable strangelets are not being created. However, that argument does not speak to the RHIC disaster scenario, which only requires metastable strangelets (not stable ones), so it also fails.

45

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: F-22 Tradeoff (1/5)
1. Not Unique-- Rifes within the DOD makes F-22’s a vulnerable target for cuts Bob Cox, staff writer, 6/17/08, Star-Telegram, “What’s up next for F-35, F-22?”, http://www.startelegram.com/business/story/704902.html Clear air, politically speaking, appears to lie ahead for the F-35 joint strike fighter program in the wake of Lockheed Martin’s successful flight test last week of the first redesigned version of the aircraft. The same probably can’t be said for Lockheed’s F-22 jet after its most vocal proponents in the U.S. Air Force leadership were sacked recently by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The successful test flight of the F-35B Lightning II short takeoff-vertical landing model on Wednesday prompted a vote of confidence from one senior civilian Pentagon official. John Young, undersecretary of defense for weapons development and acquisition, said in a statement that the flight “makes a strong statement” about the progress on the F-35 program despite well publicized delays and technical issues. Young said “the JSF program is ahead of similar programs in terms of quality, software, testing, and manufacturing readiness. The JSF program has many more steps ahead, but today’s flight demonstrates the maturity and progress being made on JSF.” The F-35B is the short takeoff-vertical landing, or “STOVL,” model of the three versions and is the most challenging technically. In April, Young had approved funds to produce six F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing models, but withheld funds for six STOVL models until after the first flight. Young will receive a further briefing by program and Lockheed officials, probably within the next month, including a review of plans for resolving problems discovered in tests of F-35B engines. But barring any new technical issues with the engine, Young is expected to release funds for the other six aircraft approved in the 2008 budget. Politically, “the joint strike fighter is in very good shape,” said Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Lexington Institute and a consultant to several aerospace and defense companies, including Lockheed. The same can’t be said for the F-22. The June 5 firings of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, Thompson said, were in large part due to the increasingly angry debate between the Air Force and senior Pentagon leaders over whether to buy more F-22s. The tone of the discussions between Moseley and, particularly, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England over the F-22 had grown increasingly tense. “The absence of any strong advocates for the F-22, with Moseley and Wynne gone, will be detrimental for the program,” Thompson said. Both programs are important to Lockheed’s Fort Worth operation. About 1,800 workers assemble the mid-fuselage of the F-22, while about 4,000 are working on the F-35 with production work just beginning to have an impact on staffing. The F-22 still has strong supporters in Congress who will probably maintain some funding for additional planes beyond the 183 now on order in the 2009 budget, but the likelihood of long-term production is dim. Both Gates and England are firmly opposed to future orders. And Thompson said it is unlikely, given their past positions, that either Sen. John McCain or Sen. Barack Obama will be champion of the program if elected president. In a note sent to investors Monday, analysts for Sanford Bernstein said the F-22 “appears to have sound Democratic support for extending the line beyond the planned 183 airplanes” and that a final decision on its fate will “be determined by the next administration and Congress.”

46

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 2. Air Force is being forced to scrap its F-22 proposals
Ivan Eland, Director of Center of Peace and Liberty, 6/28/08, The Independent Institute, “Can the Air Force be Reformed?”, http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=13059 During the tenure of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Army was the military service in the doghouse. Under his successor, Robert Gates, it appears to be the Air Force. Recently, Secretary Gates took the unprecedented step of firing the top civilian and military leaders of the service for its snafus with nuclear weapons and components. And then there was also the Air Force's favoritism in contracting and its failure to be a team player in the counterinsurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite the Secretary's dramatic actions, vested interests will probably thwart his desire to reform the service. Since the Vietnam War, the "essence" of the Air Force has been promoting and flying high performance tactical fighter aircraft. The service's concentration on heavy bombers that could deliver nuclear weapons waned as the Cold War dragged on, and its attention to nuclear delivery systems fell into oblivion after the Berlin Wall fell. The Air Force's deemphasis of its nuclear mission is in part responsible for bomber crews carrying nuclear weapons across the country without knowing it and mistakenly sending fuses for nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Yet despite the firings, and most likely to compensate the Air Force for them, Secretary Gates promised to reward failure by increasing the service's budget for nuclear activities. Also much to Secretary Gates's stated annoyance, the service has been neglecting remotely piloted surveillance drones, which have proven invaluable in the counterinsurgency wars being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has also shortchanged the mission of transporting troops, equipment, fuel, and food for ground troops in such theaters, while lobbying to buy more stealth F-22 stealth fighters to counter future possible adversaries. The drones are neglected because they don't require pilots – the people who run the Air Force. Resembling giant toy airplanes, they are piloted remotely using a joystick. The transport mission is shortchanged because cargo planes are much less sexy to fly than new high tech fighter jets. The problem is that the Air Force, even without having bought any F-22s, has existing aircraft, pilots, and weapons that, when used together, would vastly dominate any future conventional opponent, including China, India, or and Russia. The F-22 was originally designed during the Cold War to counter Soviet fighters that were never built. Another problem is that unmanned surveillance drones don't cost as much as high tech fighters. In addition to pilots being a powerful interest group within the service, the military-industrialcongressional complex would probably thwart an increased emphasis on drones even if the pilots didn't. Lucrative contracts on the F-22, which usually go to industrial concerns heavily dependent on defense business in key congressional districts, have kept the unneeded fighter alive, at the expense of increased funding for badly needed drones. Members of Congress who have such defense industries in their districts and states usually become powerful members of congressional committees that authorize and appropriate funds for such projects. Firing the civilian and military leaders of the service with only 7 months to go in the Bush administration will do virtually nothing to bust the vested interests that have led to the present state of affairs. Although the new military chief will stay on into the next administration and is, for once, a military transport person, the fighter mafia, because of its glamour, is still likely to remain in control of the service. Supporting losing counterinsurgencies on the ground will never be as alluring as dreams of dogfights with non-existent enemy superfighters. The one thing that could be done to at least loosen the grip of the military-industrial-congressional complex is to require the Air Force to drop excessively unique military specifications for components of weapon systems and instead use commercial components or slight variations thereof. Letting commercial non-defense companies – which are not part of the dedicated defense industry dependent on government largesse – compete for defense subcontracts would lessen the pressure to buy unneeded weapon systems. If subcontractors had commercial business to fall back on when defense procurement was slow, there would be less pressure for the Air Force and Congress to buy unneeded systems to keep the welfare queens of the dedicated defense subcontracting industry aloft. However, this reform, even if adopted, would have an effect only over the long-term. Thus, despite the secretary's dramatic personnel changes, don't expect to see a different Air Force soon.

47

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 3. Impact Inevitable—If Japan buys F-22s then it’s rearmed, if it doesn’t than it will rearm. . No Link- We don’t militarize space, it’s not in our 1AC, we don’t claim it, and the military doesn’t want it Ad Astra, award-winning magazine of the National Space Society, featuring the latest news in space exploration, Spring 2008,
“Space-Based Solar Power”, http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf, BB When first confronted with the idea of gigawatts of coherent energy being beamed from a spacebased solar power (SBSP) satellite, people immediately ask, “wouldn’t that make a powerful weapon?” Depending on their bias that could either be a good thing: developing a disruptive capability to enhance U.S. power, or a bad thing: proliferating weapons to space. But the NSSO is not interested in spacebased solar power as a weapon. 1. The DoD is not looking to SBSP for new armaments capabilities. Its motivation for studying SBSP is to identify sources of energy at a reasonable cost anywhere in the world, to shorten the logistics lines and huge amount of infrastructure needed to support military combat operations, and to prevent conflicts over energy as current sources become increasingly costly. 2. SBSP does not offer any capability as a weapon that does not already exist in much less expensive options. For example, the nation already has working ICBMs with nuclear warheads should it choose to use them to destroy large enemy targets. 3. SBSP is not suitable for attacking ground targets. The peak intensity of the microwave beam that reaches the ground is less than a quarter of noon-sunlight; a worker could safely walk in the center of the beam. The physics of microwave transmission and deliberate safe-design of the transmitting antenna act to prevent beam focusing above a pre-determined maximum intensity level. Additionally, by coupling the transmitting beam to a unique ground-based pilot signal, the beam can be designed to instantly diffuse should pilot signal lock ever be lost or disrupted. 4. SBSP would not be a precision weapon. Today’s militaries are looking for more precise and lower collateral-damage weapons. At several kilometers across, the beam from geostationary Earth orbit is just too wide to shoot individual targets—even if the intensity were sufficient to cause harm. 5. SBSP is an anti-war capability. America can use the existing technical expertise in its military to catalyze an energy transformation that lessens the likelihood of conflict between great powers over energy scarcity, lessens the need to intervene in failed states which cannot afford required energy, helps the world climb from poverty to prevent the spawn of terrorism, and averts the potential costs and disaster responses from climate change. Solving the long-term energy scarcity problem is too vital to the world’s future to have it derailed by a misconception that space solar power might somehow be used as a weapon. That is why it is so important to educate people about this technology and to continue to conduct the research in an open environment.

4. No Threshold for when the US-Japan Alliance will collapse if we don’t give them planes

48

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 5. No Link US-Japan Relations are zero-sum and tradeoff R Radhakrishnan, Research Officer, Arzan Tarapore, Intern, and Dr Alexandre Mansourov, Asia Pacific Center for Security Studies, 20 Jan. 2005, “Great Power Relations in Asia”,
http://www.ipcs.org/US_related_seminars2.jsp?action=showView&kValue=1631, BB The "great powers" in Asia are the US, China, Russia, Japan, and India. Strategic relations between great powers in Asia can be understood in terms of three features: * "strategic resets," which include the rise of China; * "strategic ripples," which include the effects of 9/11; and * "prevailing features," which include the "triple rise" of China, India, and Russia; the transformation of Japan into a "normal country"; the predominance of bilateralism, despite the multilateralist mantra; and the increasing talk of pre-emption, where Russia, China, and Japan are all making references to "offensive defence," etc. Strategic Drivers Three strategic drivers shape relations between the powers: * Internal developments: concerns over political, economic, and social development, governance, and national identity, will all set each power's agenda and dominate their strategies. * Security problems: territorial disputes inherited from history such as those between China and Japan, and Russia and Japan - persist, despite political caution and growing economic and trade links. * US supremacy: remains "the critical variable" and "the welcome variable" - many regional states welcome it, in their self-interest. Bilateral Relationships Dr Mansourov then briefly outlined the state of key great power dyads: * China's bilateral relations with the US, Japan, and India are largely relations of "strategic competition" (though not rivalry), despite the warmer rhetoric. * China-Russia relations, publicly called a "strategic partnership," are actually more of a "tactical accommodation," as Russia cautiously takes a long-term view of its strategic relations. * Russia-US relations can be characterised as "conditional accommodation." * Russia-Japan relations remain "deadlocked." * Japan-US relations are characterised by a "gap of perceptions," as Japan seeks more strategic autonomy and the US wants the two powers to exercise "joint stewardship" of the international system. * India-Russia relations are cordial, but it remains uncertain how deep the partnership is. * India-US relations can be characterised as "measured engagement." * India-Japan relations are increasingly friendly, based largely on fears of China. Triangulation strategies between great powers in Asia, such as those between Russia-China-India or US-Japan-India, have a poor record - they have generally been characterised more by competition than cooperation within the putative triangles. This applies to all types of triangles, whether they are based on ideology or economic links or fear of China or liberal-democratic market economies. Global Trends Some global trends have a similar effect on all powers. These include the globalisation of economics, technology, and democracy, the shift from traditional state-centric security to human security, and the growth of multipolarity. But the effect of these trends is inconclusive - the future international system may approximate one of the four visions: * Fukuyama's "end of history" - victory of liberal-democratic market economies; * Huntington's "clash of civilisations"; * Mearsheimer's "tragedy of great power politics," where the future repeats past patterns of competition; or * Kaplan's "coming anarchy" of failed states and global disorder. Four Scenarios More specifically, great power relations in Asia may evolve according to four scenarios: * Maintenance of a weak unipolar system: The US remains the predominant military power, but the rise of all other powers will constrain its freedom of action. The regional security system remains relatively stable, with a continued nuclear balance. Great powers will seek economic maximisation, while remaining cautious in security relations. Chinese hegemony would be unlikely here. * Regional bipolarity between US and China: Other regional states may be forced to choose sides, amid an escalating arms race. The US would try to reunify the Korean peninsula, on its terms, and would seek to develop an Asian quasi-NATO to counter China's rise. * "Uni-multipolarity": In the final phase of unipolarity, with the US superpower declining and the other powers competing for influence. Conventional and nuclear arms races are intense, and regional institutions like the ARF and APEC fail to emerge as reliable guarantors of security. Relations between Asian powers will be characterised by hedging and balancing strategies. * Wild card scenarios: The region may still descend into fragmentation and chaos as a result of an unforeseeable cataclysm, such as a regional pandemic, the spread of a revolutionary new weapons system, or global economic collapse. The results would be unpredictable. Conclusion Dr Mansourov concluded by stating he is "a hard-core realist" and, as a result, he believes great powers do play a zero-sum game, where one power's gain is necessarily another power's loss. Each power's fortunes may change, but the essential competitive nature of the system will remain constant.

6. No where in their Korea Herald card do they say continued production is key to the selling the planes

49

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 7. Impact Turn--Strengthened US-Japan alliance destabilizes East Asia Suvendrini Kakuchi, staff writer, 9/21/06, “JAPAN: Shinzo Abe Will Boost Patriotism, Ties With US”,
IPS, http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=34835 A failure to meet the pressing domestic issues supports this prediction. Rieko Inoue, spokeswoman for the Pacific Asia Resources Centre, a leading non-governmental organisation, is worried that Abe could raise hackles in East Asia if he refuses to acknowledge the rise of China and focuses on strengthening the Japan-U.S. alliance. Such a stance would hinder regional cooperation that is needed to combat problems like acid rain that calls for global negotiations, she said. ''The future is dark.''

East Asian stability prevents nuclear war Blank, IR analyst, 2003, Asia Times
Since the ABM Treaty is dead and the United States expects to start testing the components of its missile defense system next year, it is also clear that others will follow suit in the absence of any kind of multilateral political understandings among the players in Northeast Asia. Even if we grant the argument that a defense-dominated world is safer than one dominated by offensive missiles, whose number is admittedly coming down, that does not mean that such a world can be left to simply run on its own. One of the abiding lessons of international relations history is, in Donald Kagan's words, that "peace does not preserve itself". Hence political action is needed sooner rather than later if the missile races now taking shape in East Asia are to be regulated and kept peaceful. If governments are left to pursue their own national defense strategies without any overarching political framework, it is more likely than not that repeated crises, and even possibly war will break out in Northeast Asia. There is little doubt that any such war will then truly represent the failure of policy, not the triumph of a defense-dominated world.

8. Impact Inevitable- Their Korea Herald card indicates that it is against the law to sell the planes to Japan, meaning the alliance is doomed. 9. Japan won’t arm – they don’t want to Andrew Oros, December 2003 Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Studies, Washington College,
GODZILLA’S RETURN: THE NEW NUCLEAR POLITICS IN AN INSECURE JAPAN Stimson Center
The US–Japan alliance has served as the foundation of Japan’s strategy for more than half a century, and has provided the basis upon which postwar Japanese military planning has been revamped. But the United States and Japan have also worked together to reduce nuclear threat. And when Tokyo policymakers at times have had to advocate Japan’s strategic interests in Washington, they did this quietly. Yet Tokyo has also been discriminating in terms of its willingness to acknowledge the direct threat to Japan by nuclear states. It is worth noting, for example, that Japan’s political leaders were careful during the early decades of the Cold War to avoid identifying Chinese nuclear capability as a threat. Even when China became a nuclear state, Japan’s leaders were careful to articulate a cautious response. Japan’s well-known security “hardliner,” Yasuhiro Nakasone, when he headed the JDA in 1970, played down the developing Chinese nuclear arsenal by publicly stating that he did not believe that China intended to threaten Japan. By the 1980s, relatively late in the Cold War, Japan identified the Soviet Union and its nuclear arsenal only as a “potential threat”— despite the deeply felt antagonism towards the Russians as a consequence of their behavior in the final days of World War Two.14 By focusing instead on the larger question of the Cold War military balance, Japan could sidestep the question

of how to cope with states around it that had significant nuclear capabilities. Not only did Japanese policymakers avoid making nuclear weapons (and the neighboring states that maintained them) into threats, they also avoided giving too much importance to the way in which the US nuclear

50

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC Oceans DA
1. No Link – The Dinerman Evidence indicates that adding a new program would bring down NASA, SPS is already existing 2. We Solve A. SPS Solves Pollution Taylor Dinerman, Staff Writer, The Space Review, 5-19-04 http://thespacereview.com/article/1130/1
Obviously space solar power could provide a reliable, non-polluting, and very large-scale source of energy. The biggest question is, can it be done economically? Frankly, with its history of problematic cost estimates, NASA (or any other government institution) is not going to provide us with a trustworthy answer. The decision to go ahead will be a shot in the dark. If we can clearly see that low-cost access to space via the private sector is going to be a reality, then whoever is president will have a solid basis on which to proceed.

B. NASA Key - Cross Apply Dinerman from the CP flow 3. Turn - We increase funding for SPS, we don’t trade off with NASA’s budget we expand it allowing for the organization to do more 4. No I/L – there is no link from NASA’s understanding of pollution standards to planetary extinction

51

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC NASA Brain Drain DA
1. We do not cause a tradeoff, we provide more funding to NASA to develop SPS technology, that is why it is an incentive to start with 2. Non-Unique – Brain Drain already Happening New York Times, Much-Promoted NASA Missions Would Be Threatened Under Agency's Budget, 3-2-06, Lexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do That is the case, said Charles Beichman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, with the Terrestrial Planet Finder missions, which are intended to produce images of Earth-like planets around other stars. They are the culmination of a line of missions devoted to hunting for planets around other stars and investigating if they are habitable or already harbor life, a goal, planetary scientists point out, that is explicitly endorsed in Mr. Bush's space vision. ''We're getting ready to fire all the people we've built up,'' said Dr. Beichman, who is the project scientist for the second of the two spacecraft missions, once scheduled for about 2020. Once those scientists have found other jobs, he said, they are not likely to come back. ''What I feel bad about is turning away a generation,'' Dr. Beichman said, explaining that planet-finding has been one of the hottest fields in science lately, attracting, in particular, young scientists into astronomy.

3. A budget trade off would not cause Brain drain, NASA would still need people to work on SPS instead of their other project 4. Turn – the Plan solves the DA A. The Cuts have already Happened New York Times, Much-Promoted NASA Missions Would Be Threatened Under Agency's Budget, 3-2-06, Lexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do Some of the most highly promoted missions on NASA's scientific agenda would be postponed indefinitely or perhaps even canceled under the agency's new budget, despite its administrator's vow to Congress six months ago that not ''one thin dime'' would be taken from space science to pay for President Bush's plan to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars. The cuts come to $3 billion over the next five years, even as NASA's overall spending grows by 3.2 percent this year, to $16.8 billion.

B. The Plan Solves the DA by Increasing NASA funding New York Times, Much-Promoted NASA Missions Would Be Threatened Under Agency's Budget, 3-2-06, Lexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/search/homesubmitForm.do The programs could still be saved if Congress voted to increase the NASA budget. The agency has powerful allies in both parties, and some have expressed alarm at the proposed cuts, which will be discussed today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

52

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC NASA BRAIN DRAIN DA
1. Non-Unique – Their evidence assumes the status quo where there would be a reallocation of funding. The plan increases the NASA budget by providing federal money for alternative energy incentives for SPS. 2. No link – the claim that angry NASA scientists leaving government jobs create a total US brain drain is ridiculous. The American private sector is incredibly smart and strong, and a few scientists in one government department won’t change that. 3. No impact – even without NASA strength, companies like Walmart and Microsoft keep the economy alive. 4. We Solve the impacts – our Competitiveness ADV solves back for the economy and brain drain by creating technological superiority. Our evidence indicates that without the plan, their impacts are inevitable. 5. Case o/w a. Magnitude – Even if you grant them the economy turn, our hegemony impacts as well as over one trillion people per second easily outweigh their impacts. b. Probability – Hegemonic impacts are highly probable from the results that just a small decrease have had on the world, plus they do not contest the 100% probability of our extinction impacts without space colonization. The cant even provide a likely scenario for large scale brain drain. c. Timeframe – Brain Drain is slow even if its true, while hegemony collapse impacts will occur immediately, because of perception. Extinction from earth destruction is also coming very soon, especially with fossil fuel consumption.
d.

Moral Imperative – We have a moral imperative to pass plan and colonize space to save the future. That’s Pinkerton 06

53

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

*************** Politics ***************

54

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: PTX-Obama
1. Not Unique-- McCain is quickly gaining ground in the election Eric Kleefeld, staff writer, 7-14-2008, Talking Points Memo “Another National Poll Finds Prez Race Nearly Tied”
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/another_national_poll_finds_pr.php It's starting to look like the presidential race is narrowing once more. The latest Rasmussen tracking poll now has a nearlytied race at Obama 47%, McCain 46%, the latest national poll showing the race to be practically even. Rasmussen also registered a dead-even tie yesterday of 46%-46%, after Barack Obama had previously held a steady five-point lead for several weeks.This is on top of the Newsweek poll from last week, which showed Obama's lead shrinking from 15 points to a mere three. The Gallup poll also has Obama up by three points.

2. Not Unique— McCain will win – he’ll control the framing of the economy, James Pethokoukis, Staff Writer, 7-15, 2008 US News and World Report “4 Reasons the Weak Economy Is Now Helping
McCain” http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/7/15/4-reasons-the-weak-economy-is-now-helping-mccain.html But I think we may now be at the point where this economic mess has started working in McCain's favor. The dynamic no longer seems to
be a linear phenomenon in which a bad economy is good for Obama and a worse economy is even better. Rather, the situation has become chaotic and almost impossible to predict in view of all the emerging variables. But within the range of realistic possibilities, McCain may now have a roughly fifty-fifty shot at victory. Here's why: 1) Gas prices. Polls show the public wants lower gas prices and thinks oil drilling can help get them. And

McCain and the Republicans have positioned themselves as the party of more energy and lower prices. They want to drill, and they want to build more nuclear plants. But instead of opening up new areas to drilling, Democrats want to tap the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. And who can forget Obama's response when asked what he thought of higher gas prices: "I would have preferred a gradual adjustment." One problem may be that Obama fashioned his energy plan when oil was a mere $60 a barrel. McCain seems to be smartly tweaking his policies on the fly— drilling, the gas tax moratorium—to appeal to voters furious about higher prices at the pump. 2) Stale Obamanomics. Like his energy policy, Obama's economic policy was crafted when the economy was clearly expanding, unemployment was below 5 percent, and the budget deficit was plunging. Now growth is sporadic at best, unemployment is rising sharply, and the deficit is likely to top a record $500 billion. Yet Obama still wants to raise investment, income, and payroll taxes while expanding spending. McCain, on the other hand, is talking about pro-growth tax cuts and

balancing the budget by the end of his first term. Just as Obama's Iraq policy seems stuck in the past, so does his economic policy.3) The Fannie and Freddie fiasco. Up until the announcement of the Paulson-Bernanke bailout, the mortgage mess and credit crunch
looked to many like examples of free-market failure. But Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are creations of a federal government trying to promote a specific economic policy—greater homeownership. And the artificial existence of these quasi-corporate creatures has contributed mightily to the housing mess, explains economist Brian Wesbury, by dominating the mortgage market "using subsidized credit" and pushing "private firms toward the fringes of the securitization process and into territory which included subprime and Alt-A loans." In any event, the Fannie-Freddie mess could be used by

Team McCain to vividly display the incompetency of big government at the exact time Obama is arguing for more government involvement in healthcare and energy. 4) A skeptical public. America doesn't think too much of its government right now.
Approval ratings of President Bush and Congress are minuscule. Indeed, pollsters will tell you that bad economies make voters skeptical of government rather than pushing them to embrace it. A recent Zogby poll showed that 46 percent of Democrats favored corporate taxes over taxpayer-funded federal programs as the best way to spur economic growth. Recall that a big corporate tax cut is at the heart of the McCain economic program. A big risk for Obama is that he will mistake a dislike of the GOP for a love of bigger government and overreach on policy and rhetoric.

3. No Link—NASA Programs aren’t perceived—polls prove Donald A. Beattie, former NASA manager who also managed programs at the National Science Foundation, 2-12-07, “Just how full
of opportunity is the moon?”, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 [Tandet] Depending on the poll, and how the poll was conducted, support for NASA’s programs is usually high. However, most polls indicate that the “general public” knows few details about NASA’s programs and the size of its budgets that use their tax dollars. Interest among the young in our space program, in general, appears to be especially low, and when questioned about returning to the Moon show little enthusiasm about the program.

55

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 4. Link Turn— Plan would Reflect on Obama David Lightman, staff writer for McClatchy Newspapers, 7/10/08 “Obama, McCain offer very different energy plans” http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/43652.html [Mills]
Obama, who also supports a form of cap and trade, would spend $150 billion over 10 years to help develop biofuels, "commercialscale renewable energy," plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and other exotic sources. The Illinois senator also pledges to double federal research funding for clean energy projects, notably biomass, solar and wind. Such a commitment is crucial, said David Sandalow, an energy expert at Washington's Brookings Institution, a center-left research center. "We need steady and dependable support for solar and wind power and other renewables," he said, "and if we do that, I think this industry will grow enormously and be a potentially huge engine of job growth over the course of the next couple of decades."

5. No Link—Their evidence is specific to an energy agenda we only fund research 6. Link Turn---Obama has been pushing for NASA to address climate change Los Angeles Times 7/23/2008, “Looking at Mars; McCain is onboard for Bush's space mission; Obama may be more down to
earth.”, lexis, BB Fiscal realities and NASA's commitment to keeping its $17-billion budget flat already seem to be putting a limit on Constellation, but Bush's, and now McCain's, vision nicely balances realism and ambition. Yet it's Obama who is sounding like the more realistic, market-oriented candidate. His campaign said recently that Obama hopes to enhance NASA's role "in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change" and "to reach out and include international partners and engage the private sector to increase NASA's reach and provide real public economic benefits for the nation."

7. No Link--- Americans are ambivalent about space exploration – they focus on other issues USA Today, 8-18-03, “Public support could prove crucial for NASA,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-08-18-insideshuttle_x.htm [Tandet] Like many Americans, Kenny Maroney of Tampa is fascinated by space travel. "We love the shuttle. The shuttle's cool," he says. Maroney, 33, also typifies the kind of ambivalence many people feel about space exploration, particularly when asked whether they're willing to spend more money on it. "At this time," he says, "it's not a top priority." His view — and those of millions of other Americans — may prove critically important to the future of NASA. Six months after seven astronauts died as the space shuttle Columbia broke apart while re-entering the Earth's atmosphere Feb. 1, the space agency that put men on the moon is under fire. (Related story: NASA support up after tragedy) Next week, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board will release its findings on what happened to Columbia and the role NASA played in the shuttle's demise. Its report is expected to criticize NASA's safety practices. Congress plans to hold hearings on the accident next month. The report also will call for numerous improvements in shuttle safety that will almost certainly require additional funding for NASA. At the same time, it is likely to say that budget cuts during the 1990s contributed to the accident. The call for more funding makes public support for the program all the more crucial. Without it, the government might be unwilling to allocate the sort of money needed to keep the nation in space. Since the Columbia disaster, Americans have rallied behind the space program. A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows support for increasing NASA funding to levels not seen since the 1980s. Such numbers can be misleading. Throughout NASA's history, political battles and uncertainties over the value of putting humans in space have fostered a public ambivalence. "The American people have at best a rooting interest in the space program," says Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a space policy group. "They find it very exciting. But if you ask them to line it up against Social Security or their parents' Medicare or veterans' medical benefits, they're going to pick one of those other things," he says. 56

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 8. No Internal Link—Their card says a GOP platform on alternative energy is key to win, they can’t prove McCain can unite the base on alternative energy

57

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 9. No Internal Link- Space isn’t an election issue Orlando Sentinel, Robert Block, 6/2/2008, “NASA'S Griffin: Space is not an election issue”,
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/06/nasas-griffin-s.html , BB, Block: Since we last talked have any presidential candidates or their campaign people come to NASA yet? Griffin: No. But the same would be true if you asked about the Social Security Administration or Veterans Affairs, or the Department of Energy, or anything else in government. All of the presidential teams are focused on getting elected. They are not focused on running the government if they get elected. It’s just not the way campaigns work Block: Yes, but with the role Florida could play in an election… Griffin: Space is not an election issue. Iraq is an election issue, the economy is an election issue, the deficit is an election issue, but space is not an election issue and they are not focused on it. And I don’t expect them to be. [NASA Chief Mike Griffin]

58

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh 10. No Impact— McCain is taking a less neoconservative stance towards Iran and foreign policy in general Michael Shear 3/27/08 (Washington Post staff writer, “McCain outlines foreign policy; In Speech He vows collaborative approach”, lexis)
Sen. John McCain on Wednesday promised a collaborative foreign policy that would seek the input of allies abroad and would contrast sharply with the go-it-alone approach of the Bush administration. McCain (Ariz.) also refused to give ground on Iraq to his Democratic rivals, declaring that the continued U.S. presence there is a "moral responsibility" and that a "reckless" withdrawal would be an "unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation." In his first extensive policy speech since securing the delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination, McCain delivered an impassioned argument that achieving democracy in Iraq is necessary for a peaceful world. "Those who argue that our goals in Iraq are unachievable are wrong, just as they were wrong a year ago when they declared the war already lost in Iraq," he said, without naming Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. "Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight al-Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake." But even as McCain offered a defense of President Bush 's current war policy, he outlined a sharp critique of the administration's dealings with foreign allies. In a speech to the World Affairs Council in Los Angeles, McCain called himself a "realistic idealist" and outlined a worldview mirroring that of some Bush administration critics, who say the first task of the next president must be to repair relations around the world. "Today we are not alone," McCain said. "Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed." The speech drew a quick response from Obama spokesman Bill Burton. He castigated McCain for being "determined to carry out four more years of George Bush 's failed policies, including an open-ended war in Iraq that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars while making us less safe." In a statement, Clinton said: "While there is much to praise in Senator McCain 's speech, he and I continue to have a fundamental disagreement on Iraq." Clinton said that McCain, like Bush, opposes "a swift and responsible withdrawal from Iraq" and wants to "keep us tied to another country's civil war." Despite McCain's support for the Iraq war, he said the United States should take a different approach to future conflicts. In the speech, McCain renewed his call for a "global compact -- a League of Democracies" that would unite the world's free countries against tyranny, disease and environmental destruction. As he did in Europe last week, he played down unilateral action and stressed cooperation on global warming, torture of prisoners and trade. "We need to listen -- we need to listen -- to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies," McCain said. "When we believe international action is necessary, whether military, economic or diplomatic, we will try to persuade our friends that we are right. But we, in return, must be willing to be persuaded by them." Bush's foreign policy approach has moderated significantly in his second term, with greater outreach to European allies and a willingness to strike deals with countries such as North Korea. In essence, McCain suggested he would embrace Bush's policies on terrorism, Iraq and Afghanistan while extending his willingness to meet allies halfway. At the same time, McCain indicated he would sharply break with Bush's efforts to accommodate Russia, saying he would push to eject it from the Group of Eight club of industrial powers. Part of the opening of McCain's speech echoed the opening of an opinion piece he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 2001 in support of the administration's anti-terrorism efforts. In both instances, the lengthy passage says that in war "the lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed" and "commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged," among other nearly identical lines. McCain is often portrayed in the news media as a global John Wayne who would tread on the world stage with a Navy veteran's swagger and talk tough toward unfriendly governments in Iran and North Korea. But his record on foreign policy during two decades in the Senate is more nuanced. A skeptic about foreign interventions when he arrived in Congress in 1983, McCain later became a vocal advocate for unilateral U.S. action in Kosovo and the Middle East. In 1983, in opposition to President Ronald Reagan and others in his party, McCain argued for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Lebanon. But in 1999, he supported the use of ground troops to stop "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo. And his full-throated backing of the Iraq war in 2002 is well known. McCain's rhetoric as he courted Republican voters in primaries was often laced with incendiary language. On Iran, he hinted at an eagerness to take military action, saying the only thing worse would be a "nuclear-armed Iran." But since becoming the presumptive Republican nominee, McCain has rarely used the language of the neoconservatives in Washington who pushed Bush to adopt a policy of preemptive strikes against foreign enemies. Instead, McCain has sounded more like the foreign policy "realists" who advised Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush.

59

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh

2AC: PTX-CAFTA
1. Not Unique-- If Colombia is put up for vote it will pass with bipartisan support – Peru proves
Erika Andersen, staff writer for human events, 7-4-08 (“Colombia Free Trade Agreement in Trouble” http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27350) Padilla believes the CFTA deserves a swift vote in Congress, which will prove wide bipartisan support for it. He cited last year’s vote to enact the Peru Free Trade Agreement as an example, noting that even Sen. Barack Obama said he would have voted for it had been present. (Obama was absent due to the presidential primary season campaigning.) “The provisions in the Peru free trade agreement that passed the Congress late last year with very heavy bipartisan support -- I think it was 350 votes in the House,” said Padilla. “So, if it’s got identical provisions, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t also seek support for Colombia.”President Bush said Colombia’s President Uribe has expressed that “approving the free trade agreement is the best way for America to demonstrate our support for Colombia.”Bush noted that people are watching to see what America does here and by not passing the CFTA, America would “Not only abandon a brave ally; it would send a signal throughout the region that America cannot be counted on to support its friends.” Republican presidential candidate John McCain this week released an ad supporting the CFTA and bolstered his credentials by featuring the commercial with a Spanish translation. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama does not support the agreement. “I don’t understand how we can say we want to work with the world and then refuse to pass agreements that are in our own interest with allies,” Padilla said.

2. DA is not intrinsic—The DA only tells the judge to vote one way on CFTA and another on the plan. a. Predictable- They use the same actor b. Real World—If there is a disadvantage to a policy, Congress addresses it while passing the policy 3. No Link—The plan doesn’t create more jobs, it just reallocates existing ones inside NASA 4. Link Turn— Congress empirically cuts requested funding for NASA – doesn’t approve of exploratory goals The Planetary Society, 1-31-07, “Congressional Appropriators Cut NASA Funding; Moon Program, New Launch Vehicle, and
Science All Cut,” http://www.planetary.org/news/2007/0131_Congressional_Appropriators_Cut_NASA.html The House Appropriations Committee has passed its version of the 2007 federal government budget. In it, funding for NASA was cut by $550 million (approximately 3.2%) from the amount proposed by the Bush Administration last February. The $16.2 billion budgeted for NASA for 2007 is the same as the amount approved for 2006. To become law, the Appropriations Committee’s proposal still must be approved by the full House and Senate. The Planetary Society strongly opposed the Administration’s request for fiscal year 2007 because it had slashed science programs in order to increase funding for the shuttle, the space station, the new Ares and Orion launch vehicles, and lunar programs. The House Appropriations plan accepts the funding cuts to all of these areas, and adds to them even more cuts to space science and to the NASA Exploration programs. It’s a double whammy,” said Louis Friedman, Executive Director of The Planetary Society. “First the science underpinnings to the NASA exploration architecture were removed; now the whole enterprise seems to be collapsing.”

5. No Link—The plan wouldn’t be perceived as creating more jobs, just increasing NASA funding 6. A. Plan drains political capital
60

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh Leonard David, special correspondent, Space News, 9-19-07 (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/070919_sps_airforce.html)[JWu]
Peter Teets, Distinguished Chair of the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies, said that SBSP must be economically viable with those economics probably not there today. "But if we can find a way with continued technology development ... and smart moves in terms of development cycles to bring clean energy from space to the Earth, it's a home run kind of situation," he told attendees of the meeting. "It's a noble effort," Teets told Space News. There remain uncertainties in SBSP, including closure on a business case for the idea, he added. "I think the Air Force has a legitimate stake in starting it. But the scale of this project is going to be enormous. This could create a new agency ... who knows? It's going to take the President and a lot of political will to go forward with this," Teets said.

B. Political Capital is key to the agenda
Paul C LIGHT Senior Fellow at the Center for Public Service 99 (The President’s Agenda: Domestic Policy Choice from Kennedy to Clinton, 3rd Edition p. 155) Just what is the President’s must list, and why is it important? From the staff viewpoint, the must list constitutes a shortened version of the legislative agenda and contains the critical priorities, the items that are considered crucial to the presidential program. In 1961, for instance, Kennedy offered twenty-five specific requests for legislative action; there was, however, little hope that all twenty-five would pass. “We didn’t have enough capital,” one aide reflected. “There was no way we could get it all. Instead, we felt some pressure to tell Congress which items were most important, which ones had to pass, which ones the President felt he had to have. Even then, it didn’t make much difference – we didn’t get much anyway.” Aid to Education, Medicare, area redevelopment, manpower retraining and youth employment all became part of Kennedy’s must life, while agriculture, community-health facilities, saline-water conversion, food-surplus distribution and water-pollution control were given lesser status.

7. No Internal Link-- Pelosi opposes because of violence in Colombia not jobs
Mike Michaud, Maine Rep, 5-14-08 (“MICHAUD JOINS U.S. AND COLOMBIAN LABOR LEADERS TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST COLOMBIAN FTA” states news service, pLn) "When I confronted President Uribe about the violence, he issued an unconvincing flat denial, hoping that we would turn a blind eye toward the violence in order to pass a free trade agreement. The Bush Administration shows complete disregard for the views of American people by promoting a trade agenda that has been a boon for big business at the expense of working families and their jobs. Furthermore, the Colombia FTA rewards a country whose record of violence against union organizers is nothing short of disgraceful. The Administration is pushing an agenda under the guise of national security in order to promote its own special interests. I am pleased Speaker Pelosi has halted the consideration of the Colombia FTA until the violence is addressed in Colombia," said Congressman Michaud.

7. A Negative vote is a vote to reject the plan in Congress, which uses up the same amount of political capital, this takes out the DA 8. No Link- The Plan is passed, vetoed by Bush, and the veto is overridden— This takes out the link, plan won’t be seen as a concession by Bush to increase Jobs 9. No Impact- Only a small portion of the Amazon is in Colombia, most of it is in Brazil that’s key Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, May 2008, “Brazil: The Amazon and the Environment”,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.item&news_id=405889, BB The Amazon has endured decades of degradation and incursions, yet it remains by far the most expansive, continuous forest in the world, covering more than 1 billion acres. While the future of the rainforest is an issue of global significance and great importance for all eight South American nations that share this environmental and economic asset, with more than 60 percent of the forest located within Brazil, the Amazon is unmistakably Brazilian. Brazil Institute Director Paulo Sotero 61

DDI 2008 Written By: Clark-Martin Lab Compiled by: Vikram Singh
observed that as owners and guardians of most of the Amazon, “Brazilians are increasingly aware of the price of failing to protect and preserve it, and are therefore, ever more conscious of their responsibilities.”

62

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 10.No Impact- Colombia is protecting the Amazon, it is establishing reservers Mongabay, June 12, 2008, “ Colombia creates rainforest reserve to protect medicinal plants”,
http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0612-colombia.html, BB Colombia today announced the creation of a rainforest reserve dedicated to the protection of medicinal plants. The Orito Ingi-Ande Medicinal Flora Sanctuary encompasses 10,626 hectares of biologically-rich tropical rainforest ranging in altitude from 700 to 3300 meters above sea level. The sanctuary is based on an initiative launched by local indigenous communities with the support of the Amazon Conservation Team (ACT), an innovative NGO working with native peoples to conserve biodiversity, health, and culture in South American rainforests. Members of the communities — which include the Kofán, Inga, Siona, Kamtsá, and Coreguaje tribes — combined their rich knowledge of medicinal plants with cuttingedge technology to determine the placement and extent of the reserve. Their contributions to the effort are reflected in the name of the reserve, according to ACT

63

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC Bush Good DA – OCS Drilling (1/3)
1. Non-Unique - Pelosi will not let OCS be voted on
Alexander Mooney, CNN staff writer, 7-17-08 (“Pelosi: Bush 'a total failure'” http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/17/pelosi.interview/index.html) "What we are saying is, Mr. President, free our oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve," Pelosi said. "We're saying, let's take 10 percent of that, which has been paid for by the American taxpayer, and use that to put on the market so that we increase supply, reduce price." "And when the price comes down, we can buy back the oil at a lower price, put it in the SPR, use the spread for renewable energy resources." The House speaker has faced heavy criticism from House Republican leader John Boehner, who is leading a congressional delegation to ANWR this weekend and has said Pelosi's action does not adequately address the problem. He's also said Pelosi is leading the moderate faction of her party "off a cliff" by refusing to allow a vote in the House on offshore drilling. "Just because John Boehner, who is my friend, has my respect, says it doesn't make it so," she responded, reiterating that she will block any vote to allow lifting the ban.

2. Their uniqueness says that the democrats will not have the votes to extend the ban, and doesn’t say Bush’s political capital is necessary. 3. Turn – Russian instability A. Western dependence on Russian oil maintains Russian stability. Steve Hargreaves, CNN Money, “Russia plays hardball, and markets take notice”, 1/2/07, l/n
"The [Russian] government has become much more empowered by high oil prices," said Andrew Neff, a senior energy analyst at the consultancy Global Insight. "They see that control and access to energy is their key to a seat at the top table" of the world's most powerful nations. The stakes are high. In addition to being the world's second largest oil exporter, at 9.6 million barrels per day, Russia accounts for over 10 percent of total world production. That makes it the world's second largest producer behind Saudi Arabia's 11.1 million bpd. And its natural gas reserves are the largest on earth, nearly double that of number two Iran. Yet most analysts see little danger of Russia shutting off its energy exports for any length of time. Indeed, up to a quarter of the country's gross domestic product is tied to energy, according to the Energy Information Administration. "It's not like Russia does whatever it wants to," said Denis Maslov, an analyst covering Europe and Eurasia for the Eurasia group, a political risk consultancy. "It does rely on selling its energy to sustain its budget."

64

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC Bush Good DA – OCS Drilling (2/3)
B. Russian instability causes hard-line takeover and nuclear war. Victor Irsraelyan, Soviet ambassador, diplomat, and arms control negotiator, Winter, 98'
/Russia at the Crossroads: Don't Tease a Wounded Bear. Washington Quarterly/ The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force, including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's wouldbe authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together." n12

4. Their newswire evidence indicates that a lack of fuel will stop economic growth, it does not say anything about economic decline, means no internal link

65

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC Bush Good DA – OCS Drilling (3/3)
5. Drilling will take at least 10 years to go into effect Newsday, 6-22-08, Lexis,
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T4263338251&format=GNBFI&so rt=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T4263338257&cisb=22_T4263338256&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=306 890&docNo=1 Yes and no. More offshore drilling could reduce the nation's reliance on foreign oil - though only a bit and no time soon. And it could drive down the price of gas - again, though only a bit and no time soon. It takes 10 to 20 years for oil to go from discovery to the gas pump.

6.The Trucking industry will be fine, they will just have to raise their rates 7. The public and space advocates overwhelmingly like the plan National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,”
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf Interest in the idea was exceptionally strong in the space advocacy community, particularly in the Space Frontier Foundation (SFF), National Space Society (NSS), Space Development Steering Committee, and Aerospace Technology Working Group (ATWG), all of which hosted or participated in events related to this subject during the study period. here is reason to think that this interest may extend to the greater public. The most recent survey indicating public interest in SBSP was conducted in 2005 when respondents were asked where they prefer to see their space tax dollars spent. The most popular response was collecting energy from space, with support from 35% of those polled—twice the support for the second most popular response, planetary defense (17%)—and three times the support for the current space exploration goals of the Moon (4%) / Mars(10%).

8. No impact – WWII was caused by all of the European economies going down, the fall of one economy won’t cause any two nations to go to war

66

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** Militarization ***************

67

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

AT Space Militarization Bad
1. We don’t create space weapons, we create SPS to solve for space colonization, but have no military purpose 2. Space weaponization bolsters heg
Everett C. Dolman, , 9-14-05 Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies at the U.S. Air Force, “US Military Transformation and Weapons in Space,” http://www.eparl.net/pages/space_hearing_images/ConfPaper%20Dolman%20US%20Military%20Transform%20%26%20Space.pdf This rationality does not dispute the fact that US deployment of weapons in outer space would represent the addition of a potent new military capacity, one that would assist in extending the current period of American hegemony well into the future. This would clearly be threatening, and America must expect severe condemnation and increased competition in peripheral areas. But such an outcome is less threatening than any other state doing so. Placement of weapons in space by the United States would be perceived correctly as an attempt at continuing American hegemony. Although there is obvious opposition to the current international balance of power, the status quo, there is also a sense that it is at least tolerable to the majority of states. A continuation of it is thus minimally acceptable, even to states working towards its demise. So long as the US does not employ its power arbitrarily, the situation would be bearable initially and grudgingly accepted over time.

3. Even if we did launch weapons into space (which we don’t), it wouldn’t be perceived Karl P. Mueller; 5-8-02; “Debating The Space Weaponization Debate” Rand,
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/TotemandTabooGWUpaperRevised%5B1%5D.pdf Space weapons (here and below in this section we will use this term in its widest possible sense for the sake of simplicity) can employ a wide range of mechanisms to affect their targets. The most obvious are conventional explosive, other kinetic energy, and directed energy (e.g. laser and radio frequency) weapons, which together occupy the middle range of this continuum, and seem clearly to qualify as weapons. Above these are nuclear weapons (and perhaps biological and chemical weapons, though the latter is especially unlikely for space weapons employment), the only category of weapon whose deployment in space is proscribed by international law or treaty.5 More interesting in political terms is the other end of the spectrum: devices or techniques that could have weapon-like effects but whose status as weapons is ambiguous. These include such things as electronic jamming of communications and telemetry, barriers with which to shade satellite solar panels or obstruct the view of space-based sensors, and space “special forces” capabilities, including direct human or mechanical interference with or sabotage of satellites in orbit

68

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC SPACE MILITARIZATION DA –BQ
1. On their uniqueness – a. Cross Apply our NSSO 07 evidence that SPS are unique to increase US hegemony. b. Their evidence only talks about military satellites c. Not qualified – This is written by a Russian political commentator, who clearly doesn’t have a full accurate picture of NASA’s actions d. Turn – This evidence indicates that satellites are key to US military, and thus hard powered hegemony. 2. On the link – a. This evidence non-unique’s the DA, as it talks about militarization of space for years. Either there is no uniqueness or no brink, but either way the DA isn’t competitive b. Not qualified – author only has a degree in environmental engineering, make them read some qualified authors to make their claims warranted. c. We don’t increase militarization, there are no weapons on the satellites - Ad Astra 08 3. On the Internal Link – a. This card is ridiculous, and their link takes out the brink of this evidence b. Not qualified – this evidence is from a North Korean newspaper. Can anyone say, “biased propaganda?” 4. On the impact debate a. Counter-balancing will not occur effectively. G. John Ikenberry, IR professor at Georgetown University, 4/28/2003, “Strategic Reactions to American Preeminence: Great Power Politics in the Age of Unipolarity”
American unipolar power is unlikely to trigger a full-scale, traditional balance of power response. The major powers – Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain and Japan – will attempt to resist, work around, and counter American power -- even as they also engage and work with American power. But they are not likely to join in an anti-American countervailing coalition that will break the world up into hostile, competing camps. The balance of power is the most time-honored way of thinking about politics among the great powers. 2[2] In this classical view, when confronted with a rising and dominant state, weaker states flock together and build an alternative power bloc. The circumstances for this type of dramatic, order-transforming move do not exist -- and they are not likely to exist even if American power continues to rise relative to other major states and even if American policy antagonizes other states in the way that is has recently over the Iraq war. There are a variety of reasons why this is so. One is simply that a bloc of major states with sufficient power capabilities to challenge the United States is not possible to assemble. Another is that American power itself is not sufficiently threatening to provoke a counter- balancing response. To be sure, American power – and the policies and roles that this power enables – does worry other major states. Responding to it is their major geopolitical challenge. But counter-balancing responses – manifest in separate and competing security alliances and systematic policies of opposition – are both not feasible and not responsive to the distinctive challenges posed by unipolarity. What troubles the other major countries about American power cannot be remedied by the classic geopolitical tool of the balance of power.

b. Impact calculus
i. ii. iii. Magnitude – They concede the hegemony and economy nuclear wars, which are multiple reasons for extinction Probability – They have granted that extinction is inevitable – meaning that the Affirmative is the only team to provide a solvency mechanism for our imminent deaths. Time Frame – Hegemonic and economic impacts are perception based and occur immediately.

69

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC A/T: Space Weaponization
Even if we did launch weapons into space (which we don’t), it wouldn’t be perceived Karl P. Mueller; 5-8-02; “Debating The Space Weaponization Debate” Rand,
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/TotemandTabooGWUpaperRevised%5B1%5D.pdf Space weapons (here and below in this section we will use this term in its widest possible sense for the sake of simplicity) can employ a wide range of mechanisms to affect their targets. The most obvious are conventional explosive, other kinetic energy, and directed energy (e.g. laser and radio frequency) weapons, which together occupy the middle range of this continuum, and seem clearly to qualify as weapons. Above these are nuclear weapons (and perhaps biological and chemical weapons, though the latter is especially unlikely for space weapons employment), the only category of weapon whose deployment in space is proscribed by international law or treaty.5 More interesting in political terms is the other end of the spectrum: devices or techniques that could have weapon-like effects but whose status as weapons is ambiguous. These include such things as electronic jamming of communications and telemetry, barriers with which to shade satellite solar panels or obstruct the view of space-based sensors, and space “special forces” capabilities, including direct human or mechanical interference with or sabotage of satellites in orbit

70

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** Case***************

71

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Impact Calculus
1. Case Outweighs a. Magnitude- the Case is key to prop up US heg though innovation and technological leadership, this is key to solving multiple nuclear war scenarios, Extend Ferguson and Kagan. Independently, Tech Breakthroughs help stave off the second dark ages and the deaths of billions that Treder. Space Colonization helps save innumerable lives, every second 10^31 people are dying because we don’t act now. Economic collapse leads to nuclear war shortchanging the DA. b. Probability-Heg is on the decline now, Plan is guaranteed to boost innovation and pull heg back up. 100% risk of extinction in the future, we have to get off the rock as soon as possible. Us is already on the decline towards economic collapse the plan spurs the necessary tech innovation to pull us back out. c. Time Frame- The second the plan passes perception of US heg shoots back up. Tech Breakthroughs will only take a few weeks to get rolling enabling the US to regain leadership. And SPS is key to taking the first step towards space colonization. We are already on the decline towards economic collapse the plan is key to pull us out of the nose dive. 2. Case solves your offense a. Space Col solves--- As long as we get off the rock the human race will always survive b. Heg Solves your Impact- Heg enables the United States to check international conflict and nuclear war, that’s Kagan and Ferguson.

72

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT-Not Tech or Financially Feasible
1. Not our Aff--Their evidence assumes we beam the energy back to Earth, we don’t advocate beaming and it isn’t the internal link to our advs. Meaning their feasibility claims go away. 2. The problem is solved--Their evidence indicates “the use of superconducting power cabling at lower voltages has resurfaced as one potential solution”. 3. New Space Tech will be ready by 2010. That’s Space Daily. 4. The plan spurs private sector development to address these problems, That’s Rouge 07.

73

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT-Space Viruses
1. Space development of protein crystals solve disease---Not possible on earth Marsha Freeman, Science and Technology writer, at the Executive Intelligence Review Magazine. Since 1988 up today she is an
Associate Editor, of 21st Century Science & Technology Magazine. National Association of Science Writers Fellow, British Interplanetary Society, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, American Astronautical Society, History Committee of the AIAA, History Committtee of the International Academy of Astronautics. witness before the United States Congress at hearings on science, energy, space, and transportation budgets and policies “Challenges of Human Space Exploration”, 2000, pg. 120 Space has opened up a wholly new capability for growing protein crystals. Which Promises to allow scientists to both better understand the fundamental process of crystallisation, and to develop the ability to enhance, alter or interfere with a particular protein’s activity in the body. Freed from the limiting effects of Earth’s gravity, scientists have produced crystals of proteins in space that are larger. more ordered, more homogenous and therefore more amenable to detailed analysis, than those grown on Earth. By observing crystallisation under these unique conditions, they will be able to discover the why and how of this delicate process, which has the potential to open new pathways for treating disease.

2. Space Exploration has expanded and improved medicine- Empirically proven Prevent Disease, 2006-11-07, “How Space Exploration Contributes to Health Advances on Earth”,
http://preventdisease.com/news/articles/space_medicine.shtml, BB DeLucas, who flew on the Columbia shuttle flight of 1992 and is now a professor of biochemistry and optometry at University of Alabama-Birmingham, is keenly aware of the positive influence of space medicine. "The greatest benefit to life on earth is the technology that is gained. Space makes you think differently and look 'outside the box.' It is very difficult to predict now, but there is no doubt that this research will benefit medicine." A few of the many medical spin-offs of the past and present include: Body Images: Present imaging techniques that allow doctors to see into the human body were developed from technology used by NASA to enhance pictures of the moon. Chromosome Analysis: Another type of high-end photography enhancement that helped probe photos of the moon can now find chromosome defects in less than 10 minutes — a test that once took several hours. Baby on Board: The health of fetuses in the womb can now be monitored with tiny transmitters first created for measuring astronaut's blood pressure and temperature. Brittle Bones: Hospitals now use instruments to measure bone strength in patients with osteoporosis and other bone diseases that were developed for measuring bone loss on space flights. Cool Suit: A "cool suit" made by NASA for the Apollo missions is now helping multiple sclerosis patients manage their disease. Other areas of medicine that have benefited indirectly from space research are muscle physiology and disease, sleep regulation, robotic medicine, bacteria detection, wireless telemetry (transmitting data through space), and heart health.

74

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 1.

75

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT-Space Debris
SBSP would be capable of deorbiting space debris National Security Space Office, part of a long-term government study on the feasibility of solar space power as a provider of U.S. energy, 10-10-07, “Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security,”
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release-01.pdf The technology to beam power over long distances could lower application satellite weights and expand the envelope for Earth‐ and space‐based power beaming applications. A truly developed Space‐Based Solar Power infrastructure would open up entirely new exploration and commercial possibilities, not only because of the access which will be discussed in the section on infrastructure, but because of the power available on orbit, which would enable concepts as diverse as comet / asteroid protection systems, de‐orbit of space debris, space‐to‐space power utilities, and beamed propulsion possibilities including far‐term concepts as a true interstellar probe such as Dr. Robert Forward’s StarWisp Concept

76

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT- 2050
1. Our 1ac evidence indicates that we get satellites up in space before 2050, that’s space daily 2. Immediate Timeframe on our Competitiveness/Heg Advantage, the second we pass the plan innovation increases and perception of heg goes up. 3. Increasing innovation acclerates the development of tech

77

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT- Funding
1. There card says political will is necessary to provide funding, we solve the funding with incentives 2. Our Evidence, indicates there is strong private sector support ready and waiting for a demonstration to catalyze them into developing SPS

78

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT- Cost Competitive
1. There evidence doesn’t assume the rise in energy prices 2. there evidence says that problem is shared by all renewable energies, we’ll win SPS will become cost competitive in the current environment

79

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

2AC: AT- Impossible to launch
1. Reusable Launch Vehciles solve—
2. 3. 4. Private Sector innovation solves Increasing funding makes it feasible it can be assembled in parts not all at once

80

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

AT: Ground Solar
1. 2. 3. 4. There evidence is terrible it just says low cost solar is key Solar is already low cost, it’s gotten cheaper since 2004 Funding and Innovation Solve High energy prices—means the cost is pointless

81

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

AT: Inefficiently short
1. We can replace solar panels 2. Innovation and tech solve, we’ll win that by funding scientists will solve the problem 3. C/A Space debris satellites can solve

82

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

AT: economically unfeasible
1. Their evidence fails tot take into account the fact that more launches will lead to declining costs 2. Innovation solves- they can make things cheaper

83

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

AT: Tech 40 years away
1. Increasing funding solves-2. Demonstrations will lead to catalyzation of SPS—Rouge 07 3. Evidence descriptive of squo trends

84

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

^_^ Reg-Neg ^_^

85

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

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

86

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

A2: T Incentives = Positive
1. We meet: revenue neutral incentives give money to corporations John Skowronski, director of proactive incentives programs at MINTAX Inc., an East Brunswick, N.J., economic development consulting firm specializing in incentives, “Leveraged Incentives Hold Hidden Dangers”, 1/1/1998,
http://www.expansionmanagement.com/cmd/articledetail/articleid/15217/default.asp By using revenue neutral incentives, a government guarantees that it will never give away more than it gets in return. Typically a revenue neutral program will give money back to a company after it has been collected, like a refund of taxes.

2. We meet: the negotiation is an incentive in and of itself, since companies don’t usually get input on the implementation of regulations. 3. Counter Interpretation – Incentives include finance, rules, regulations, and policies Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 07 (North Carolina State University,
http://www.dsireusa.org/faq/faq.cfm?&CurrentPageID=9&EE=1&RE=1) What types of renewable energy incentives does DSIRE track? The DSIRE project tracks information on state, utility, local, and selected federal incentives that promote the use of renewable energy technologies. For more information on federal incentives, see what federal incentives does DSIRE track. On the DSIRE website, incentives are grouped into two categories as follows: (1)Financial Incentives: tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, industry recruitment, bond programs, and production incentives. (2) Rules, Regulations, & Policies: public benefits funds, renewables portfolio standards, net metering, interconnection, extension analysis, generation disclosure, contractor licensing, equipment certification, solar/wind access laws, and construction & design standards (including building energy codes and energy standards for public buildings), required utility green power options, and green power purchasing/aggregation policies.

4. Counter Standards A. Limits – We limit the topical AFFs down to those that call for both positive and negative incentives allowing for Aff-flexibility B. Predictability – Our interpretation allows the NEG to be predict the Affirmative case because we allow for a selective group of incentives C. Real world – our plan is a real world option, the government has negative consequences to ensure the effectiveness of policies 5. Competing interpretations bad; they create a race to the bottom and are overlimiting, prefer reasonability – as long as we are reasonably topical, we should not be voted down. Make them prove abuse. 6. T is not a voter, lit and clash check.
87

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

A2: T Incentives = market based
1. w/m: revenue neutral incentives give money, which is a market incentive 2. w/m: their Driesen evidence states that regulations that are clearly defined in all terms by the government aren’t incentives, this doesn’t apply to reg negs 3. C/I: Incentives include finance, rules, regulations, and policies Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, 07 (North Carolina State University,
http://www.dsireusa.org/faq/faq.cfm?&CurrentPageID=9&EE=1&RE=1) What types of renewable energy incentives does DSIRE track? The DSIRE project tracks information on state, utility, local, and selected federal incentives that promote the use of renewable energy technologies. For more information on federal incentives, see what federal incentives does DSIRE track. On the DSIRE website, incentives are grouped into two categories as follows: (1)Financial Incentives: tax incentives, grants, loans, rebates, industry recruitment, bond programs, and production incentives. (2) Rules, Regulations, & Policies: public benefits funds, renewables portfolio standards, net metering, interconnection, extension analysis, generation disclosure, contractor licensing, equipment certification, solar/wind access laws, and construction & design standards (including building energy codes and energy standards for public buildings), required utility green power options, and green power purchasing/aggregation policies.

4. We meet - we specify the rules that companies be required to meet, which are incentives

5. Counter Standards A. Limits – We limit the topical AFFs down to those that give financial or positive incentives and those that place rules or negative incentives B. Predictability – Our interpretation allows the NEG to be predict the Affirmative case because we allow for a selective group of incentives C. Real world – our plan is a real world option, the government uses rules, regulations, and policies to ensure the effectiveness of policies 6. They say extra T, but we’re not. We just don’t specify implementation; we let the businesses negotiate that, they could argue “your implementation is extra T” against every case. 7. Reasonability – As long as we meet a credible definition of the topic, you should not vote us down on T. Make them prove abuse.

T is not a voter, lit and clash check.

88

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

T – I-Spec
1. A.

Interpretation- an incentive must be an reward offered that can be accepted or rejected Random House, Inc. 2006
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1), dictionary.reference.com/browse/incentive Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary,. in·cen·tive –noun something that incites or tends to incite to action or greater effort, as a reward offered for increased productivity.

2. We meet – our aff creates a means by which action is motivated. 3. There author, grant, is write about incentives in regards specifically to people not business – prefer ours 4. Standards Limits – neg case limits all cases by forcing to specifiy a certain type of incentive Predictability – the government already uses unspecified incentives to prmote more effective action. Ground – we link to everything, are cards specificy all types, all gound and more 5. T is not a voter for fairness and education

89

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

T: Direct
1. We meet – The use of reg-neg has a direct effect on alternate energy as it mandates there be a 20% reduction by 2020, however it allows for companies and citizens to decide how that goal is reached 2. CI – Incentives are forms of motivation (same author) (Ruth Grant, professor of political science at Duke Univerity, 3-14-02“THE ETHICS OF INCENTIVES: HISTORICAL ORIGINS
AND CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDINGS,” Economics and Philosophy) An incentive is an offer of something of value, sometimes with a cash equivalent and sometimes not, meant to influence the payoff structure of a utility calculation so as to alter a person's course of action. In other words, the person offering the incentive means to make one choice more attractive to the person responding to the incentive than any other alternative. Both parties stand to gain from the resulting choice. In effect, it is a form of trade, and as such, it meets certain ethical requirements by definition. A trade involves voluntary action by all

3. Standards A. We meet – we do create an offer a more attractive choice by allowing companies to choose how to regulate their emission, rather than current methods to motivate change, which are just to mandate it B. Predictability – Our definitions is with-in the bounds of predictability as the government uses incentives very similar to reg-negs C. Education -- Our definitions allows for a range of cases that include more than only monetary incentives or forceful change allowing us to learn more. D. Ground – our interpretation does not take away neg ground as we provide exactly what the resolution mandates, which is incentives. E. Clash and Lit check F. Competing interps – their interp is unreasonable because it only allows one means of implementing alternate energies. As long as we are within the topic of alternative energy look to the aff G. . Fairness- This is fair because the more advantages there are even more DA making the aff be prepared and create the most educational debate. 4. T is not a voter

90

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

T -- Vague
1. We are not vague, we increase incentives as the resolution mandates 2. We are not abusive, our case still links. 3. We are predictable. The resolution asks for an increase, and that is exactly what our aff does 4. Their standards kill education. There is no silver bullet solution to the energy problem, and it is likely that multiple alternatives will be used. More over being a little vague improves education because we’re forced to dig deeper into the literature and learn more.

91

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** CP’s ***************

92

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Citizen Advisory Board CP
1. Citizen advisory board are created per county, so there are multiple in different States, making it impossible to create a uniform law 2. Citizen advisory boards are made up of the very people the Neg says are bad The Citizen Advisory Board, 2005, http://www.pgdpcab.org/
The Paducah Citizens Advisory Board (CAB) is a stakeholders' board that provides advice and recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on environmental remediation, waste management and related issues at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) site. The Board is composed of up to 18 members, chosen to reflect the diversity of gender, race, occupation, views, and interests of persons living near the area. The board is committed to reflecting the concerns of the communities impacted by environmental management of the plant site. Members are appointed by DOE and serve on a voluntary basis. Non-voting liaisons include representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources and the Kentucky Radiation Health Branch. These members advise the CAB on their agencies' policies and views.

3. Citizens are already included in reg-negs, and the majority are happy with the decisions JODY FREEMAN * LAURA I. LANGBEI, 2k, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles,
REGULATORY NEGOTIATION AND THE LEGITIMACY BENEFIT http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:T3srfJ815gQJ:www.law.nyu.edu/JOURNALS/ENVTLLAW/issues/vol9/1/v9n1a3.pdf+r egulatory+negotiations+citizen&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us&client=opera The data call into question the validity of the criticism that reg negs involve only highly organized and well-financed inter- ests. 97 The majority of respondents reported participation by all parties, including small, seemingly ad hoc citizen groups (such as citizen advisory councils), small businesses, and local government representatives. 98 These types of participants were not in the majority, but neither were they rare. When asked whether all the interests that should have been involved in the negotiated rulemaking were involved, 85% of citizen respondents an- swered that there was full representation.

4. Even so, these reg-negs do not require citizens to participates as they are regulations for large companies and do not effect communities 5. Perm do the counter plan and the plan

93

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

States CP
1. State reg-neg are unconstitutional MATTHEW L. WALD, 6/24/91, Staff writer for The New York Times, “Environmental Negotiators Flesh Out Bare-Bones Law”
SECTION: Section D; Page 1; Column 1; Financial Desk [lexis] Incentives and Punishments The regulations produced by negotiation tend to be more stringent than those issued by agencies under the old system, said Philip J. Harter, a Washington lawyer who is a "facilitator" in the clean air negotiations and is credited by several participants as being the father of the process. But industry gets something in exchange, he said. In many cases industry gets a set of regulations with incentives as well as punishments, promising, for example, less regulation for companies that clean up by more than the minimum amount.The result, he said, was more effective laws. Some people complain that "reg-neg" usurps power that belongs elsewhere. William Berman, an environment specialist with the Washington office of the American Automobile Association, said the proceeding, of which he is a part, was "like a big chess game," in which the participants maneuver for position in a series of political compromises, refereed by the Environmental Protection Agency. He said the E.P.A. should write the regulations itself, as was done for 30 years under the Administrative Procedures Act. A Rein on Challenges "We didn't create the agencies to be the appeasers," he complained, arguing that substantive decisions about what a law says should be made by lawmakers as the law is drafted, not lawyers after the law is enacted. But others involved in negotiations on these and other regulations say the process tends to produce rules that environmentalists consider effective and that industry accepts as not unduly burdensome. An additional advantage is that the important parties usually promise that if an agreement results, they will be bound by it. The groups also promise to try to restrain their members from challenging the agreement. State governments, which are also in the negotiations, are constitutionally prohibited from making such agreements. But they are arguing informally that if the regulations create a strong law for improving air quality, they will refrain from passing their own individual regulations on fuel, auto inspection and maintenance and other areas. If the regulations are weak, the states say, they will act on their own, perpetuating a patchwork of regulations that will be difficult for interstate oil companies. Charles DiBona, the president of the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's main trade association, said the oil companies would have to make billions of dollars in new investments to meet the clean fuel requirements, and would have to start work soon to meet the deadlines. But, he added, the industry would not accept unfavorable regulations simply to speed the process or to avoid the risk that a court challenge by environmentalists might eventually produce unfavorable regulations.

2. States’ political subdivisions make them untrustworthy Robert Kuehn, 6/10/97, a professor at Tulane Law School, http://epw.senate.gov/105th/kuehn.htm
It is realistic to expect that some state environmental agencies may not vigorously enforce environmental standards against other state agencies or the state's political subdivisions. State and local governments operate numerous sources of pollution, such as landfills and sewage treatment plants, and, through their ownership and operation of buildings and equipment, also generate wastes that are subject to regulation. In the 1980s, EPA launched a municipal treatment enforcement initiative to address widespread noncompliance by publicly-owned sewage treatment facilities and the failure of state environmental agencies to enforce compliance. Because of concerns that EPA was lacking in its enforcement efforts against facilities owned or operated by the federal government, states argued for and received expanded rights to enforce state environmental statutes against federal facilities. The same arguments that support the need for state enforcement against federal facilities favor a federal role in enforcing environmental laws against states and their political subdivisions.

94

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 3. Inconsistencies in state climate change policies mean non-renewable energy providers can circumvent legislation
Benjamin K. Sovacool, Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, and Jack N,i flarkenbus, Political scientist with the Institute for Energy Analysis, July 2 0 E . ["Necessary but Insufficient: State Renewable Portfolio Standards and Climate Change Policies," Environment, Vol. 49 Issue 6, p20-31] In addition, as mentioned above, state- by-state action on climate change is prone to what is known as the "free rider" phenomenon. For example, utilities operating in a region that includes those states with mandatory emissions regulations and those without has an extra incentive to build new power plants only in those without. PacifiCorp, a utility serving customers in the Pacific Northwest, has repeatedly attempted to build coal-fired power plants in Wyoming and Utahstates without mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets-but not in Oregon (which has man- dated a stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010) or Washington (which has mandated 1990 levels by 2020).32 The state-by-state patchwork of climate change policies. in other words, allows stakeholders to main •u late the existing market to their advantage.

4. State authority on environmental issues kills business confidence - states clash with Federal government
LA Times, 9 / 1 4 / . U.S., State Clash Over Environment, http://www.lungsandiego.org/ASTHMA/press_california_fights_feds.asp The regulations imposed by a state as large and populous as California can have effects well beyond the state's, borders, prompting members of Congress from other parts of the country to challenge the state's authority. U.S. Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) is pushing a bill in Congress that would forbid California and other states from regulating lawn care equipment, such as mowers and trimmers, as well as off-road diesel engines, including forklifts and backhoes. Those machines are a major source of sooty air pollution in Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley, the smoggiest places in the nation. Later this month, the California Air Resources Board will consider a regulation to cut those emissions by one-quarter, the equivalent of removing 6 million cars from the road. However, the control measure is opposed by Briggs & Stratton Corp.. a maker of lawn mower engines and a campaign contributor to Bond. The firm has warned that it may have to lay off workers at its two Missouri factories if California approves the regulation. "We support California efforts to improve its air quality, but it shouldn't come at the expense of other states, and California should look atother options,"said Ernie Blazer, a spokesman for Bond. The growing dissonance between Sacramento and Washi gton is a concern to California business leaders and some Republicans. Victor Weisser, president of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, said the disputes create uncertainty for businesses as they gauge whether state or federal authorities will decide the regulations. "I'm not sure the feds fully recognize how difficult some of these issues are [that] we are dealing with in California," he said. "Everybody needs to do their fair share, and apparently the feds are not acting fast enough. It's partisan politics, that's the sad part. The issues of air quality and economic health should transcend partisan politics. 5. Decrease in Bizcon leads to lower competitiveness 6. Decrease in competitiveness leads to US hedge collapse 7. Collapse leads to nuke war 8. 50 state fiat not fair a.No lit on uniform action - the states never do the exact same thing at the same time b.Enforcing individual enforcers uniquely bad - can fiat that everyone stops using fossil fuels - the aff will never be able to win a solvency deficit0.22r c.Kills education - Moves debate away from the resolution, forcing us to have silly debates about implementation

9. Voter for fairness and education
95

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** Kritks ***************

96

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

CT kritik
1. Reg-negs in fact promote democracy, they are quite the opposite of tyranny – that’s our Sharma, Lor and McCall 2. All of their evidence is dated in the late 80s, they do not taken into account the changes that reg-negs have undergone. 3. Because this reg-neg only affects what energies are to create products, not who or what makes them, the effect of this reg-neg has little on the companies employees. 4. Reg Negs involve a wide range of parties it’s the way they are formed. That’s Harter. 5. Environmental Coalitions solve—By rephrasing environmental problem in economic perspectives reg negs foster cohesion between industry and other parties. That’s Shelleberger and Nordhaus 6. Reg Negs allow for greater representation of traditionally underrepresented minorities C/A Croley
Steven P. Croley, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Michigan, January, 1998, 98 Colum. L. Rev. 1, lexis, BB Of course, the number and percentage of advisory-committee members representing different types of interests are unlikely to translate neatly into influence on advisory-committee advice or recommendations, certainly not in a linear fashion. As suggested above, numerically underrepresented interests may enjoy more influence at the margin than overrepresented interests. In addition to the population of advisory-committee members, then, also relevant is the number of advisory committees whose membership includes one or more members representing the different types of interests in question. For example, the deliberations of an advisory committee consisting of ten members from business groups and no members from public interest groups are likely to be quite different from the deliberations of an advisory committee with twelve members from business groups and two members from broad-based groups. To get a different perspective on advisorycommittee composition, then, Table 3 shows the number and percentage of committees that have at least one member representing different types of interest groups. [*139] In other words, Table 3 takes as its population the 50 selected advisory committees, rather than the 1,202 members who compose those committees:

7. Collaboration provides responsibility and freedom of choice regarding achieving compliance Edward P. Weber, Professor in Political Science, Director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy and Public Service, and Affiliated Professor in WSU's Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning in Washington State University, 1998, pg 10,
Georgetown University Press Authority and responsibility are also shared with major stakeholders by granting the regulated community relative freedom of choice regarding how they will achieve compliance, whether in terms of the flexibility of choice afforded by market-based mechanisms, the ability to choose an alternative (equivalent or better) compliance path in lieu of existing arrangements, or the latitude to choose pollution prevention methods associated with upstream production processes rather than be limited to the proverbial government-specified end-of-pipe controls. In fact, a hallmark of regulations produced by negotiated rulemaking is more flexible compliance arrangements. As well, the reliance of integrated pollution control approaches on interpollutant trading implies that greater latitude should be given to industry decision makers 97

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 8. Perm –Do the plan while taking into account the public views

98

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

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

99

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Competitiveness
1. There krugman card assumes the impact of trade wars if and only if innovation competitiveness fail
A much more serious risk is that the obsession with competitiveness will lead to trade conflict, perhaps even to a world trade war. Most of those who have preached the doctrine of competitiveness have not been old-fashioned protectionists. They want their countries to win the global trade game, not drop out. But what if, despite its best efforts, a country does not seem to be winning, or lacks confidence that it can? Then the competitive diagnosis inevitably suggests that to close the borders is better than to risk having foreigners take away high-wage jobs and high-value sectors. At the very least, the focus on the supposedly competitive nature of international economic relations greases the rails for those who want confrontational if not frankly protectionist policies.

2. Our Porter and van de Linde explain that success in innovation and competitiveness is assured thus there is no link 3. They claim that we increase protectionist policies but we are in fact doing the opposite-- We are forcing regulations upon companies, meaning they are at a disadvantage 4. None of there evidence is specific to the out come of a reg-neg 5. They have conceded our competitiveness impact of heg – this outweighs

100

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Trade deficits
1. No Link – they provide no link to the plan and trade deficits. The card says a lack of competitiveness is a sign of trade deficit. There is no link between the two. No warrents. 2. We buy no means affect the trade deficit of the economy. Our plan is revenue-neutral meaning that existing deficit will continue 3. The Aff plan doesn’t effect what we produce or how much we buy, just what kind of energy is used to make it. 3. Competitiveness key to the economy – Castellani 4. We solve for competitiveness and thus the economy as well 5. Our heg advantage solves for war with China

101

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

A2: Clean Coal
1. Non-unique: “no clean coal now”, “clean coal impossible” cards 2. No link: their Burrows evidence is specific to Australia, and even states that its claims are only valid “in the Australian context”. There’s no reason why clean coal and renewables would trade off in the US. 3. No link: “no tradeoff” card 4. No link: we don’t claim to reduce the cost of renewables to the same price as coal, as your Burrows evidence assumes. 5. No impact: Mead 92 is empirically denied, the global economy stagnated post-9/11 in 2001, and is stagnating now, and we still haven’t nuked each other. 6. Impact turn: “clean coal economy is volatile” card 7. Case outweighs and solves: cross-apply 1AC Khalilzad evidence, American hegemony deters nuclear war, global nuclear war will result from hegemony collapse.

102

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Germany DA
1. No internal link: their Deutsche Press evidence states that the German economy is helped by having alternative energy, not that it’s key to their economy. Also, this card doesn’t even mention energy leadership, just Germany having alternative energy, which they still will have post plan. 2. No link: an increase in general competitiveness would only slightly interfere with Germany’s alternative energy leadership in Europe; the warrant in their Business Week card is wind power leadership, there’s no guarantee that the reg neg will result in companies using wind. 3. Case outweighs and turns the DA; extend 1AC Bearden, the plan solves economic collapse. Also, US heg will deter conflict in Europe, so the impact won’t happen – that’s Khalilzad.

103

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Democracy D/A
1. Reg-Neg is a golden-opportunity democracy
Robin McCall, J.D. Candidate 2007, University of California Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, Winter, 2007, University of California, Hastings College of the Law West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, Lexis.

Given the American passion for land and particularly for national parks, public input in these areas is especially meaningful. Although agencies ultimately decide exactly what rules should be promulgated, reg-neg can help frame the issues by creating the proposed rule as a basis for negotiation. n147 For those who value participatory [*204] democracy, reg-neg is a golden opportunity to exercise influence over the rulemaking process, especially if the interested parties are savvy, organized, and patient.

2. All stakeholders and all who are affected are brought to the table
Melissa Lor, Juris Doctor Candidate and Candidate for Certificate in Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine University School of Law, 2006, 2006, Pepperdine University School of Law Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal, Lexis Responding to the limitations of review-and-comment, regulatory negotiation was developed as another alternative to involve the public in administrative decision-making. n34 Also known as "negotiated rulemaking," regulatory negotiation is more cooperative than review-and-comment, in that it allows for discussion between the negotiating parties to jointly identify all the issues. n35 Furthermore, regulatory negotiation leads to more informed decisions since the parties with the information are at the negotiating table. n36 Stakeholders are brought together to discuss the development of a [*183] regulation. n37 The results of a complete negotiated rule-making process are formally enacted as a regulation by the government. n38

3. Reg-neg idolizes a democracy as it allows for discussion and takes all views into account as opposed to its counterpart which simply forces regulations onto communities and companies 4. In terms of big business, democracy is not as important and by no means does it change or hinder the democratic processes of the United States. 5. Reg Neg’s encourage businesses to move away from “Corporate tyranny” and towards a more democratic system Prasad Sharma, Articles Editor, Emory International Law Review, Spring, 1998, 12 Emory Int'l L. Rev. 1215, “COMMENT:
RESTORING PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY: WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD LISTEN TO CITIZEN VOICES WHILE ENGAGING IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWMAKING”, lexis, Bb The same arguments that led Congress to establish the private sector advisory committees are equally applicable in the case of certain environmental agreements. As the various studies demonstrate, certain segments of the economy [*1249] will be principally affected by a decision to adhere to targets and timetables with respect to CO<2> reductions. The advisory committee system was established to provide these segments the opportunity to participate to the fullest extent possible. n159 Furthermore, a private sector advisory system would provide U.S. negotiators with a balanced view of objectives that are in the U.S.'s best interests. n160 The trade consultation paradigm would afford states the opportunity to participate and offer views that the federal government did not consider. Through involvement in the negotiating process, states can minimize the negative effects of certain international environmental agreements, while reaping the advantages of prudent environmental regulation. n161 Successful environmental regulation often involves a confluence of many factors, including scientific understanding of the problem. Despite the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), n162 there remains substantial uncertainty concerning anthropogenic contributions to climate change. n163 It would be to the United States' advantage to give these scientific uncertainties a full hearing before plunging into any commitment that may 104

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name
have no sig [*1250] nificant impact on the environment, but will have an impact on workers and consumers. This approach would be consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality's implementing regulations for NEPA, which noted that successful implementation of NEPA required "accurate scientific analysis." n164 Various advisory committees representing the broad range of opinions on a further agreement on climate change would best prepare U.S. negotiators to represent U.S. interests. Improved consultation would, furthermore, make any final agreement more palatable to the public, and thus greatly improve the chances for congressional approval. Hearings on the status of the climate change negotiations have been held in both the House and the Senate, and in several instances, legislators have requested an economic analysis of proposals being considered. The Administration has yet to provide these analyses, and has been circumspect with respect to disclosure of the Administration's actual position. Several members from both parties have been explicit in voicing their concerns, including Senator Frank Murkowski, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, who expressed concern that "americans who will be affected by these negotiations... don't often get to travel to Geneva and Berlin to watch one of these U.N. negotiations and understand what's going on there." n165 As Senator Jesse Helms, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has stated, "Any treaty that comes before the Senate for ratification must ensure [*1251] that U.S. businesses will remain competitive and U.S. jobs will be protected." n166 Even more alarming, the Senate approved by a vote of 95-0 a resolution stating that the U.S. should not sign any protocol that does not include specific commitments for developing countries or that would harm the U.S. economy. n167 Having failed to achieve the Senate's desires, the Kyoto Protocol appears to have a slim chance for ratification, possibly resulting in significant wasted time and resources. If representatives of those constituencies who would be primarily affected by the agreement were part of an advisory committee system, there would be greater assurance that all views had been considered before the U.S. adopted a negotiating position. V. Conclusion Under the current system, the President possesses extraordinary powers in international affairs. But during the formation of our constitutional system, environmental lawmaking, with its profound domestic reverberations, was not a subject of international affairs. Rather, competence for promulgating environmental laws was given to Congress and the States. Yet today, the realities of issues such as transfrontier pollution and global climate change have forced certain environmental issues to be addressed at the international level. This does not mean that the "presidential monopoly" should be extended. [*1252] When a similar situation arose in the context of trade agreements, Congress passed the Trade Act of 1974. An advisory committee system was established to provide guidance and input for U.S. negotiators appointed by the President. A similar system should be established for those international environmental agreements with significant domestic impact. An overall environmental policy committee should be established to recommend negotiating positions to U.S. representatives and provide the fullest range of information. Obviously, environmental experts and organizations should be included as part of this committee. However, the committee should also include representatives of labor, industry, state governments, and consumer interests. Their advice should be heeded, and where it is disregarded, a detailed explanation should be provided. n168 Only through this type of formal mechanism can the United States ensure that its interests are being pursued to the greatest extent possible. Some may argue that there is sufficient openness, accountability, and opportunity for participation in international agreements. Nonetheless, the opportunities are often provided at the Administration's discretion. This frequently leads the Administration to seek out advice only from those who support a certain viewpoint. n169 When participation exists, the opportunity often becomes available after significant resources have already been spent on con [*1253] cluding an agreement. After a President has committed the United States to an environmental agreement, the United States is expected to refrain from taking any actions that would frustrate the purpose of the agreement. n170 Furthermore, it is extremely difficult to alter or modify an international agreement once entered into. The executive branch has a wealth of resources at its disposal. Despite this, it cannot be expected to consider every facet of every issue raised by international environmental negotiations. As the EPA's experience with negotiated rule making has demonstrated, increased participation has contributed to a greater understanding of scientific and technical issues and of policy repercussions. Increased public and congressional involvement will expand the perspectives from which an issue is appraised. Doing so will not only promote the U.S.'s best interests in international negotiations, but will also safeguard or even increase the participatory nature of U.S. democracy in large corporations.

6. Prefer our evidence as it is far more recent and so can reflect more accurately on Reg-Negs as they are run today.

105

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** Politics ***************

106

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Obama Evil
1-4. McCain 1NC uniqueness & link, pg 34 uniqueness, “strikes inevitable” cards 5. No internal link: the Edwards and Kane evidence says that Iran would somehow be drawn into war with the US, not that McCain would strike. 6. Case outweighs and solves: Even on the occasion of an Iran strike, American hegemony would deter escalation to global nuclear war – that’s Khalilzad, plan is key to prevent heg collapse.

107

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

^_^ Military ^_^

108

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

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

109

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Topicality Tax Credits
1. We Meet: more companies model off the government use of alternative energy to be able to apply for current tax credits 2. Counter-Interpretation- incentive is a stimulus that incites action The Chambers Dictionary 2006, 10th edition, Chambers Harrap Publisher, Page 752 incentive- adj. inciting, encouraging, igniting(Milton), n. that which incites to action, stimulus 3. Prefer our dictionary definition it’s more predictable, than anything contextual definition they find on the internet. 4. They over limit, affs exclusive to tax credit doesn't contain education on other ways government promotes alternative energy 5. Our interpretation is key to fairness, with tax credits the negative could always win with states counterplan, leads arbitrary debate 6. Predictability- I mean come on 7. Literature and Clash check abuse 8. Competing Interpretations Bad leads to a race to the bottom 9. Reasonable- As long as we prove we are reasonably topical through negative groud and educational benefits T isn't a voter

110

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Topicality- Aspec
1. W/M- The plan’s use of AE spills over to the rest of the United States. 2. Counter Interpretation- In is inclusion within limits a space. Main Entry: (Mirriam Webster Online, 7/29/08, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/In) Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German in in, Latin in, Greek en Date: before 12th century 1 a—used as a function word to indicate inclusion, location, or position within limits <in the lake><wounded in the leg><in the summer> b: into 1 <went in the house> 3. W/M C/I- We provide funds to the AFRL within the United States. 4. Standards 5. Limits- Neg interpretation limits out all cases. No plan can promise incentives to all companies in the US. Neg interpretation also limits out gov. only cases such as SPS and the aff who can’t provide incentives to the private sector. Fair limits key to education because we don’t learn anything in debate if we don’t debate a variety of cases. Education key to debate because if we don’t learn anything debate is another meaningless game. Aff interp provides reasonable number of cases to debate and learn about. 6. Fairness- Neg interp. kills fairness by forcing the Aff to fund the private sector every round meaning states CPs can always solve. Fairness key to debate because without fairness people will quit debate and the activity will die. 7. Lit and clash check abuse 8. T not a voter. 9. Reasonability best- competing interpretations encourages arbitrary debates over non-abusive affirmatives. Reasonability ensures that debates are about educational policies over determining whether the Aff plan meets an arbitrary and constantly shifting interpretation of topicality.

111

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

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

112

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Counterplan- Offsets
1. Perm- Do the CP. 2. They say perms are reasons to vote AFF down but
1. Perms are a test of competition, not the affirmative advocacy. 2. Excluding non topical perms means the Aff has no perms at all, all perms are non-topical and perms are key to aff ground because without perms the neg can go 8 minutes of a non-competitive unpredictable counterplans and not be bound by the resolution, stealing all aff ground. 3. Perms key to best policy option, middle ground between two flawed advocacies. 4. Excluding perms lets Neg control the focus of the debate. Neg controlling debate focus leads to hypotesting. Hypotesting kills debate because there are always more bad ideas for a resolution than good ones.

3.Perm- Do both. a. Means double solvency, solves econ. Impact. 4.Offsets Counterplans bada. Kills Ground- Lets neg steal aff. advantages while solving for extra disad, makes impossible to generate offense, kills education and fairness through killing switch side debate purpose by favoring neg every round, loss of education makes debate a trivial game and loss of fairness means people will quit debate and debate will die. b. Kills Predictability- impossible to predict addition to plan text, kills predictable ground if can’t determine what addition you will face each debate, kills research burden because have to look for every possible addition to plan, makes neg win every round. c. This is a voter for fairness, education, time skew, and strat skew. 5.Incentives are most effective, giving businesses a say in determining cost efficiency, helping businesses meet marginal costs, and providing incentives for innovation. (The Environmental Literary Council, updated by Dawn Anderson, 3/30/08, “Regulatory Policy versus economic incentives”, http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1329.html)
Incentives have several advantages, including allowing the source to play a role in determining the most cost-effective way to reduce their emissions and, thereby, in meeting their marginal costs. All three types of incentives attempt to maintain the “equimarginal principle,” which is when the marginal control costs will be equal across all sources. This creates an efficient or least cost overall solution. Also, when compared to command and control mechanisms, the regulator requires less information under an incentive program since there is greater motivation for 'polluters' to devise their own innovative solutions. Therefore, the regulator does not need to know how cost-effective various control options will be, or what the cost is at any particular installation, because the source will be held accountable for all of their actions and will pay both pollution control costs and damage costs.

113

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 6.Spike in prices is short-term, ethanol net beneficial for agriculture – experts agree Domestic Fuel News, 3-9-07, “feed fight on the hill,” http://domesticfuel.com/2007/03/09/feed-fight-on-the-hill/, KAPUSTINA
The livestock and poultry producers also were united in their call for reducing or eliminating incentives for biofuels production. “This means we are calling for sunsetting the existing blenders tax credit and the ethanol import tariff as scheduled in 2010 and 2009 respectively,” said Ernie Morales, a cattle feeder and rancher from southwest Texas, who spoke for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. However, in separate press conferences Thursday, the chairmen of the House and Senate Agriculture Committees disagreed. Senate Ag Committee Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa, always a strong advocate for livestock producers, said, “I understand maybe where they’re coming from, but I think these things have a way of leveling out.” He believes the anticipated increase in corn acreage this year will help bring prices down to more manageable levels. House Ag Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota pointed out that grain producers are finally getting a fair price for their crop. “What people fail to recognize is that over the last number of years, corn prices have been substantially below the cost of production and the livestock industry has benefited from this,” said Peterson. Several of the livestock industry witnesses at the hearing admitted that the situation is likely short term and that much of the current concern is due to the unprecedented rapid growth in ethanol production. As Iowa dairy producer Rob Wonderlich, testifying on behalf of Dairy Farmers of America, told the committee, “This biofuels revolution occurred very quickly and did not allow … the livestock industries to properly adapt, which has sent a shock across the industries in the form of increased operating costs.”

114

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

States CP
1. Perm-Do-Both- states investing in military infrastructure will overwhelm the politics link, people won't focus Bush's policy toward the military and focus on state actions 2. Counterplan Flaw- states can't fund the air force, if they do the supreme court will strike down. 3. Federal action is necessary for research and product regulation for economies of scale. Adler, Jonathan H., Jonathan H. Adler is Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism" (July 2005). Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 05-18 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=770305 [Alex Kats-Rubin] While there do not appear to be economies of scale in environmental regulation, as such, there may well be economies of scale in other aspects of environmental protection. There are two readily apparent contexts in which economies of scale may justify federal action. First, economies of scale could justify substantial federal support of scientific research, data collection, and technical analyses on environmental issues. Second, economies of scale may justify federal regulation of products bought and sold in interstate commerce.

115

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

4. Scientific research should be handled by the federal government. Adler, Jonathan H., Jonathan H. Adler is Associate Professor of Law and Associate Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, "Jurisdictional Mismatch in Environmental Federalism" (July 2005). Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies 05-18 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=770305 [Alex Kats-Rubin] There are definite economies of scale in some types of scientific research that can inform the development of environmental policy at all levels of government. While much of the information required for effective environmental protection is local in nature, much of the relevant scientific knowledge will apply nationwide. In this respect, much scientific research has aspects of a public good. The weather conditions and topographical features that influence ozone formation will vary from place-to-place, but the underlying chemical reactions and effects of ozone on human respiratory systems and other living organisms will not. Insofar as the latter is relevant for environmental policy decisions in all areas affected by ozone pollution, it may be more efficient to conduct such research at the federal level and make it available to those jurisdictions where such information can be put to good use. Were each state required to conduct its own environmental scientific research, there could be much duplication and inefficiency. In addition, there are likely to be scale economies in the resources and technical expertise required for some forms of scientific research. Even where a given problem is particularly local in nature, such as the protection of a municipal drinking water system, there is still a case for federal research – or at least federally supported and coordinated research – into the risks posed by various contaminants, likely sources of contamination, means of decontamination, and the like. Relatedly, it makes sense for the federal government to provide “expertise” on the technical aspects of regulation, investigating such matters as regulatory design and implementation. Duplicating this sort of research at the state level would serve little purpose and divert resources from other environmental priorities.

116

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 5. California Disadvantage A. Uniqueness and Internal Link - California’s budget is on the brink of collapse – increased spending devastates regulations San Jose Mercury News 7-11-2008 (http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_9848677) If nothing else, the California budget imbroglio has brought the Capitol's stark ideological conflict - very liberal Democrats vs. very conservative Republicans and no more than a handful of even semi-moderates - into razor-sharp focus. With the Democrats now insisting on more than $8 billion in new taxes, mostly on business and the affluent, to cover much of the state's whopping budget deficit, and Republicans rejecting them as damaging to the state's struggling economy, the stage is set for a cage fight. And that wouldn't be such a bad thing. The ideological warriors have been sparring for years, but each year have avoided a toe-to-toe slugfest over taxes and permanent spending cuts by conjuring up new accounting gimmicks or ways to borrow money. 'Line in the sand' However, this year, with the structural deficit magnified by recession, the dueling factions seem poised to settle it once and for all. "We don't want another temporary fix," Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata said Wednesday as he and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass described their budget, financed largely with new taxes, as a "line in the sand." "We can't cut any more," Bass said. "This budget defines what Democrats say we need to do to keep California on an even keel." The Democratic budget not only raises taxes by $8.2 billion a year, mostly by adding higher income tax rates for upper-income taxpayers, but it restores many of the spending reductions that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed in May. And that, Republicans say, makes the Democratic budget a non-starter - which is no idle threat since at least some GOP votes would be needed to pass both the budget and any new taxes. Assemblyman Roger Niello of Sacramento, a Republican point man on the budget, described it as "a massive tax increase in a very weak economy" and "a dysfunctional solution." But he and other GOP lawmakers haven't been willing to get specific on their spending cuts. And where's the governor? This vague reaction implies that he's wandering in no-man's land as legislators prepare for political war: "You have to be open-minded, and that's the only way we can get a compromise done. So, I'm openminded, but I'm against tax increases." Without a budget, California will run out of cash in another month or so, unable to pay the bills it could legally pay and probably forced to float a short-term, high-interest loan. But despite the hoopla, the lack of a budget is less important than bringing this perpetual, tiresome wrangle to at least a semi-permanent conclusion, no matter how long it takes. Democrats contend their budget does that with billions of dollars in permanent new taxes. But if enacted, it could spawn even worse problems because it increases the state's reliance on volatile income taxes on the affluent. Under fixed spending formulas, especially for education, an economic recovery could send revenues soaring in a few years, locking in higher levels of spending that could not be sustained when the economy cooled again.

117

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

b. Alternative Energy is expensive Michael Kanellos, Staff Writer for CNET, 1/24/2007, “Why it's not easy being green”, http://news.cnet.com/Why-its-not-easy-being-green/2100-11395_3-6152851.html BB Second, installing an alternative-energy infrastructure isn't cheap, despite the influx of venture money into the field and the strong demand for technologies such as solar. If oil drops below $55 a barrel, most biofuel concepts will be unprofitable, Arvizu projected. Even if oil doesn't drop that low, it will cost a lot to get an ethanol-solar-wind society off the ground. To meet the Department of Energy's goal of making ethanol 30 percent of the U.S. transportation fuel budget, fuel manufacturers will have to invest $100 billion in refineries. To make wind power 20 percent of the source of the electricity in the U.S., it will take $500 billion in infrastructure investments. C. California is key to the US economy Ray Haynes, California Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula, 9-2-2003; “Who’s Dragging Down Who?”, http://theamericashow.net/archives/Columns/Haynes/20030902HaynesDragging.html I think it is important people know what is happening in California government. One in seven people who live in the United States live in California. California constitutes ten per cent of the entire national economy, and it is the fifth (or sixth or seventh or eighth) largest economy in the world (our ranking shrinks each year Davis stays in office). When California’s economy hiccups, it causes a national economic earthquake. A large, diverse, and powerful economic actor is important not just to those of us who live here, but to those who walk the halls of Washington power as well. Government at any level can’t do much to help the economy. The economy is driven by people’s needs and the endless effort of private companies to meet those needs. Government, however, can screw it up. Using tax and regulatory policy, and government subsidies, government impacts individual preferences by increasing the price of one product or service (or decreasing another), and shifting limited social resources to governmentpreferred activities. If these preferred activities aren’t beneficial to the economy as a whole, government causes the economy to falter. Jobs are lost, people are hurt, and the economy shrinks. Given these facts, it would be important to cover any government function that affects ten per cent of the economy. Sacramento should be the focus of a lot of media attention.

118

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

D. Extend Mead 2004, that turns Counterplan Solvency

6. 50 State Fiat is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons: 1. Not real world – the 50 states have no method of uniform policy action. It’s object fiat. 2. Their education claims are false: 1. No policymaker can choose between USFG and state action 2. Process debates detract from topic-specific education 3. Federalism disads and state-specific turns solve their claims 3. No literature basis – there’s no evidence for or against the states acting together – and they’ll always have more specific state-key warrants 4. Infinitely regressive – justifies regional, local, and individual counterplans 5. Counter-interpretation – reciprocity – they can use the USFG or a part thereof to enact a policy – still gives them alternate agent ground

119

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

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

120

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Security Kritik
1.Society makes impacts real- Realism is engrained in today’s society so much that the constructed impacts become real, meaning case outweighs- only realist solutions can deal with imminent threats of anarchy and nuclear war that outweigh more abstract impacts that can be dealt with in the future. 2.Perm- do the plan and embrace a discourse of realist threats and issues with the alternative’s post structuralist ideology 3.Alt fails and Perm solves - Discursive focus generates epistemological blind spots and won’t alter security structures
Adrian Hyde-Price (Professor of International Politics at Bath) 2001 “Europes new security challenges” p. 39 Securitization thus focuses almost exclusively on the discursive domain and eschews any attempt to determine empirically what constitutes security concerns. It does not aspire to comment on the reality behind a securitization discourse or on the appropriate instruments for tackling security problems. Instead, it suggests that security studies – or what Waever calls securitization studies –should focus on the discursive moves whereby issues are securitized. The Copenhagen school thus emphasizes the need to understand the “speech acts” that accomplish a process of securitization. Their focus is on the linguistic and conceptual dynamics involved, even though they recognize the importance of the institutional setting within which securitization takes place. The concept of securitization offers some important insights for security studies. However, it is too epistemologically restricted to contribute to a significant retooling of security studies. On the positive side, it draws attention to the way in which security agendas are constructed bgy politicians and other political actors. It also indicates the utility of discourse analysis as an additional tool of analysis for security studies. However, at best, securitization studies can contribute one aspect of security studies. It cannot provide the foundations for a paradigm shift in the subdiscipline. Its greatest weakness is its epistemological hypochondria. That is, its tendency to reify epistemological problems and push sound observations about knowledge claims to their logical absurdity. Although it isimportant to understand the discursive moves involved in perception of security in, say, the Middle East, it is also necessary to make some assessment of nondiscursive factors like the military balance or access to freshwater supplies. For the Copenhagen school, however, these nondiscursive factors are relegated to second place. They are considered only to the extent that they facilitate or impede the speech act. In this way, the Copenhagen school is in danger of cutting security studies off from serious empirical research and setting it adrift on a sea of floating signifiers. 4.Perm best solvency- even Mearshmeier doesn’t think one

ideology is applicable in all situations. 5. Can’t solve for other actors- even if the whole US was to embrace post-structuralism, other actors would still act in a realist manner. 6. Turn – The alternative makes conflict inevitable. Only immediate action can solve. PH Liotta, Professor of Humanities and Executive Director of the Pell Center for
International Relations and Public Policy, Salve Regina University, 2005 [security dialogue 36:1 "through the looking glass:creeping vulnerabilities and the reordering of security" ] Although it seems attractive to focus on exclusionary concepts that insist on desecuritization, privileged referent objects, and the ‘belief’ that threats and vulnerabilities are little more than social constructions (Grayson, 2003), all these concepts work in theory but fail in practice. While it may be true that national security paradigms can, and likely will, continue to dominate issues that involve human security vulnerabilities – and even in some 121

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name
instances mistakenly confuse ‘vulnerabilities’ as ‘threats’ – there are distinct linkages between these security concepts and applications. With regard to environmental security, for example, Myers (1986: 251) recognized these linkages nearly two decades ago: National security is not just about fighting forces and weaponry. It relates to watersheds, croplands, forests, genetic resources, climate and other factors that rarely figure in the minds of military experts and political leaders, but increasingly deserve, in their collectivity, to rank alongside military approaches as crucial in a nation’s security. Ultimately, we are far from what O’Hanlon & Singer (2004) term a global intervention capability on behalf of ‘humanitarian transformation’. Granted, we now have the threat of mass casualty terrorism anytime, anywhere – and states and regions are responding differently to this challenge. Yet, the global community today also faces many of the same problems of the 1990s: civil wars, faltering states, humanitarian crises. We are nowhere closer to addressing how best to solve these challenges, even as they affect issues of environmental, human, national (and even ‘embedded’) security. Recently, there have been a number of voices that have spoken out on what the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty has termed the ‘responsibility to protect’:10 the responsibility of some agency or state (whether it be a superpower such as the United States or an institution such as the United Nations) to enforce the principle of security that sovereign states owe to their citizens. Yet, the creation of a sense of urgency to act – even on some issues that may not have some impact for years or even decades to come – is perhaps the only appropriate first response. The real cost of not investing in the right way and early enough in the places where trends and effects are accelerating in the wrong direction is likely to be decades and decades of economic and political frustration – and, potentially, military engagement.Rather than justifying intervention (especially military), we ought to bejustifying investment. 7. Alt can’t deal with co-option- Right

wing political leaders and the media would co-opt the alt, killing solvency. 8. Root cause claims fail to recognize the distinct set of circumstances of events – they’re unreliable Dick Howard, Philosophy @ SUNY, 2002 "the left agenda after
september 11" www.fes.de The most general of the old arguments is the “root causes” approach. It says that yes, terror is bad, but we have to understand that it is a reac-tion to something even more serious, deeper, and crying out for atten-tion. Terror must be the expression of that something deeper; it is the root cause. Such a root cause does not excuse the terror, but it makes it comprehensible; and the left and its politics are justified by their ability to pierce beneath the surface to uncover these hidden roots of evil, which must then be uprooted for the good to triumph. This argument can be formulated generally, and then translated into the particular language of international and domestic politics – each level points toward the others, promising a key to understanding world history.The most basic form of the root cause argument serves to justify an anti-capitalist politics. Capitalist exploitation is destructive of both tradi-tional life-forms and the physical environment. In its advanced form, cap-italism leads to freer trade, which has the effect of increasing the gap be-tween rich and poor while what passes for capitalist culture destroys indigenous cultures. This, and more, is all true; but it is not clear how such a universal claim explains this particular terrorist response. One could re-act differently to each of these »results« of capitalism – a capitalism which brings with it also new social and political possibilities which could, in-deed, result in rising expectations that give new hopes and projects rather than fuel an anti-political, nihilistic terrorism.A variant of the anti-capitalist root cause argument blames capitalism for various forms of imperial exploitation, in particular the control over natural resources needed since the demise of colonial domination. This explains for example u.s. support for corrupt Arab oil sheiks, toleration of the Putin regime’s terror in Chechnyia or the intervention in Afghaistan as »really« motivated by oil and the project of building a pipeline. Not only does capitalist imperialism seek control of natural resources; it also monopolizes non-natural ones, such as the patents permitting it to sell anti-aids drugs at exploitative prices. Again, these 122

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name
general accounts are all true; but they don’t explain this particular terrorist reaction to them. Why not have recourse to the tactics of guerilla war, or the symbol-ically powerful sky-jackings, as in days gone by? 9. No threshold

between real and constructed threats- need to default real when nothing done to determine between two.

123

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Heidegger
1. Perm- Do the plan and embrace indivdual Askesis. 2. Alternative Energy spills over to the civilian sector- that’s Air Force Link 08 3. The Plan is no “quick fix”- Solar technology and other alternatives will transform society to help the poor while remaining in harmony with the environment (Habib Rahman, 5/10/07, The Weston Town Crier, “Empowering the World’s Poor”, http://www.wickedlocal.com/weston/archive/x1432252352)
Last Sunday, Peter Haas, a lifelong Weston resident and co-founder of AIDG, presented one vision of empowering the world’s poor by developing economically viable environmentally friendly businesses in the developing world. It has successfully established several renewable energy projects in Guatemala and, contingent on funding, is hoping to start similar operations in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. AIDG was founded in 2004 by Peter Haas and his friend Benny Lee, also a Weston resident. Two other lifelong Weston friends joined the board of directors – Adam Hyde and Grey Lee. AIDG’s mission is simple – empower the poor in developing countries by creating indigenous small self-sustaining businesses that generate green energy. To this end, they have interns and volunteers, primarily students from top colleges like Berkeley, MIT and Stanford, work with local villagers, helping develop renewable energy plants. This summer a group of 10 Weston High School students and two chaperone teachers will go on a Teco-Tour to Guatemala under the auspices of AIDG. The students will travel through the country and work on renewable energy projects with local villagers. The operations are by design small and have to be affordable to locals, most of whom live on less than $2 a day. "Our goal is to transform society one village at a time," Haas said. Here is a sampling of some of the products developed by AIDG. Biodigesters are appropriate technologies that take advantage of the energy naturally present in animal waste and kitchen trash. As these wastes break down, whether in the ground, a compost heap, landfill or biodigester, they release methane, a potent greenhouse gas. In contrast to the other waste storage and disposal methods mentioned, a biodigester traps the methane and stores it for heating, cooking or lighting. A turbine to generate hydroelectric power was developed by AIDG. AIDG is currently working on three different sized hydroelectric projects – custom designs that provide 5 to 50 kilowatts of electricity (one kilowatt is like ten 100-watt light bulbs burning at once; a more standardized design which can produce 1 to 3 kilowatts; and a "pico-hydro" turbine which produces 50 to 100 watts, enough for basic lighting and cell phone charging for a family. Solar heating is one of the oldest uses of solar energy. AIDG’s low-cost collector can easily meet the hot water needs of a small family. Slow sand filtration is an inexpensive chemical-free method of water purification. For communities with access to sand, this filtration technique is one of the most cost effective and environmentally friendly forms of water treatment available. 4.

Policy Framework Good- debates about real world issues key to education on alternative energy effects today, not generic arguments about technology and control that are wholly disconnected from the real world. Alt will be co-opted- corporations or right-wing or media who still desire to control and use tech will co-opt the alt.

5.

6. Double Bind- the kritik will either be forced to engage in management and control to avoid being co-opted or will be co-opted by corporations and the media.
124

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name
7.

Alt overgeneralizes tech- Tech has good uses that the K ignores, including medical use, food production, and disaster relief.

8. Oil use main cause of environmental destruction- prefer our specific warrants over their generic and abstract “Control” root cause evidence. (Trade Environment Database Projects, December 1996, W. Corbett Dabbs, “Oil Production and Environmental Damage”, http://www.american.edu/TED/projects/tedcross/xoilpr15.htm#r0) Although much of the world depends on the production or the trade of oil to fuel its economies, these activities can cause severe damage to the environment, either knowingly or unintentionally. Oil production, and/or transportation, can disrupt the human population, and the animal and fish life of the region. Oil waste dumping, production pollution, and spills wreak havoc on the surrounding wildlife and habitat. It threatens the extinction of several plants, and has already harmed many land, air, and sea animal and plant species. The effects of oil on marine life are cause by either the physical nature of the oil (physical contamination and smothering) or by its chemical components (toxic effects and accumulation leading to tainting). Marine life may also be affected by clean-up operations or indirectly through physical damage to the habitats in which plants and animals live. The animals and plants most at risk are those that could come into contact with a contaminated sea surface: marine animals and reptiles; birds that feed by diving or form flocks on the sea; marine life on shorelines; and animals and plants in mariculture facilities. Runoffs from petroleum processing and petrochemical plants have dumped tons of toxic wastes into nearby waters. Gas and oil pipelines have stanched many creeks and rivers, swamping prime pastures and cropland. Furthermore, entire bays and lagoons along coasts have been fouled by oil spills and runoff of toxic chemicals. The environmental damage that is a result of oil retraction and production can also directly effect human life in the region. Damage can include pollution of water resources and contamination of the soil. Humans are effected by environmental devastation because it is damaging to vegetation, livestock, and to the health of the human body itself. Oil spills can interfere with the normal working of power stations and desalination plants that require a continuous supply of clean seawater and with the safe operation of coastal industries and ports.
9.

Our use of control good- military readiness key to stopping and dettering war and genoicide saving millions of lives and stopping other nations from building even more harmful technology.

10. Double Bind- Either alt engages in control and management to decide what is “authentic” technology, or alt overgeneralizes tech and control as all evil.
11.

Generic Impact- the neg impact is too generic, they can’t explain why using alternative energies would harm the environment. Alt Fails on oil- Alt can’t solve for current oil use ensuring environmental destruction now. Alternatives better than oil- McWhorter specifically indicts oil as a bad source of energy, K alt can’t solve Aff shift to oil.
125

12.

13.

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

14. Even if science isn’t perfectly objective, we shouldn’t reject it – it’s impossible to always give a perfectly unbiased representation of the world, and science is key to making the public understand and to achieving effective climate change mitigation. David Demeritt, Department of Geography King’s College London, 6/1/2001,
(“The Construction of Global Warming and the Politics of Science,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(2), 2001, p. 307–337, Blackwell Publishers, InformaWorld) Still, blindness does have its benefits, even for a progressive environmental politics. Although it is fashionable in many circles to bemoan the reductionism of science as an unmitigated evil, it is important to recognize where we would be without it. 7 Physically reductionist computer-simulation models have been crucial in identifying the physical effects of continued GHG emissions on the climate system. Their alarming red-orange visualizations of a future hothouse earth have played a vital role in bringing these risks to widespread public attention. To be sure, troubling exclusions are built into this epistemic community. The discipline and expertise required to participate meaningfully in its scientific debates restrict not only who is authorized to speak but also what and how things can be spoken about. 8 Important as it is to be reflexive about the exclusions that abstraction necessarily entails, there can be no escaping them entirely, for knowledge is always situated, partial, and incomplete (Haraway 1991, 183–201). Thus a climate model, no matter how sophisticated, can only ever provide a partial window on a much more complicated reality that it must, as a form of abstract reasoning, reduce to some analytically simplified set of physical processes. One way to
distinguish the practice of abstraction involved in this kind of physical reductionism from a more general sense of Reductionism is to say that Reductionism commits the “epistemic fallacy” (Bhaskar 1978, 36). It loses sight of the fact that its abstractions are merely analytical constructions, conveniently isolated from the flux of totality, and reduces reality to the terms of its own analytical abstractions. 9 This distinction between

pernicious Reductionism and the physical reductionism of science has occasionally been lost on science critics within cultural studies and critical human geography. All too often, social constructionist critiques of particular scientific abstractions come across, whether intended as such or not, as rejections of science and refutations of its specific knowledge claims. Such antiscience polemicism can be as sweepingly Reductionist as the very thing it opposes. Although the particular abstractions of global climate modeling may not tell us everything that we need to know, they deserve more credit than they sometimes receive from their critics. Physical process modeling has certain undeniable advantages. For one thing, the physically reductionist abstractions that it involves render the world analytically manageable. Only by dramatically simplifying the messy social relations driving GHG emissions and focusing narrowly on their physical and chemical properties have scientists been able to understand the effects of increasing GHG concentrations on the climate system. Oversimplistic as this way of seeing may be, it is still probably something that we cannot do without. Climate models provide one of the most important tools for exploring the physical relationships among GHG emissions, concentrations, and climate changes. The task, therefore, is to better appreciate the partial insights that these models provide without falling into Reductionism and losing sight of the limitations of physical process modeling .

15.

Control inevitable- Control systems are inevitable in modern day society, and even if the US was to wholly reject control, other nations would engage in it anyway.

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

126

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Spending
1. Uniqueness Ev. unrelated- the card doesn’t even mention Fiscal discipline and just talks about Bush blocking a specific bill. 2. No Fiscal Discipline—Congress is unwilling to cut programs Gregory Bresiger, managing editor of Traders Magazine and a writer for the Mises Institute, the Free Market and the New York Post, 7/04/08, “The nonissue that should be an issue”, SmallGovTimes, http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/08jul04.non.issues/) Indeed, Democrats say little or nothing in the federal budget can be cut. The government must expand its responsibilities. It must provide health care and financial security for all. Also, there must be more spending for national security. Still, there is little serious discussion about what all this would cost, though sometimes, even in the heat of partisan battles, some truth emerges. "Our country is in a sinkhole of debt, and it is almost as if we have adopted a philosophy of 'all you can spend' around here. Spending is out of control," says Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo) in criticizing the Democrats' recently proposed federal budget. Nevertheless, despite making an effective case that red ink is endless, Enzi should look at his own party. Republicans, who controlled Congress for 12 years until the end of 2006, haven't been much better than Democrats. Republicans used to talk about reducing the welfare state. I remember when candidate Ronald Reagan in 1980 promised to end the Energy and Education departments. Some Republicans, who themselves have caught the entitlement-spending/socialengineering bug, now propose the creation of a federal department of families. Indeed many Republicans, who once said they were against the welfare state, now brag they are better at running the welfare state than the Democrats. I remember a speech on this theme given by George Will to the Security Traders Association some two years ago. ("Wonderful speech," I told Will as he walked out and started to gloat at what he thought was another compliment. "Yes, sir. Now I know why I'm a libertarian!" Deflated, the Republican welfare statist growled and hurried away.) 3. (IF RUNNING ECON) Plan solves econ collapse- Peak oil leads to world econ collapse and plan AE shift key to solve- both Elhefnawy 06. 4. Neg overgeneralizes energy pork- The link evidence just talks about one instance of energy pork, not specific to the plan or energy in general.

127

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 5. Earmarks Happening now, there’s bipartisan love for it. Huffington Post, The internet newspaper, June 18, 2008, “Bipartisanship Thrives -- At Least When it Comes to Earmarks” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-bittle-and-jean-johnson/bipartisanshipthrives_b_107667.html) Earmarks -- the Rasputin of Congressional budget politics - are back on the scene. If you don't remember your late tsarist Russian history, Rasputin was the "mad monk" with scary eyes, decadent tastes and way too much influence over Tsarina Alexandra. Eventually he was poisoned, shot, beaten, and finally drowned by a group of dissident Russian nobles. He drank enough poison to kill multiple humans and had three bullets in his back, but he still led his killers on a chase through St. Petersburg before they finally caught up with him, clubbed him and threw him in the Neva River. There were even rumors that he sat up during his cremation. The Congressional earmark industry is proving equally hardy despite repeated attempts to kill or at least weaken it, according to the Washington Post. The current House defense authorization bill contains almost $10 billion dollars of earmarks according to figures compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Senate bill hasn't been approved yet, but Senators Saxby Chambliss (RGA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC) Carl Levin (D-MI), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Mel Martinez (R-FL) are among those listed as requesting earmarks. Okay, so we have members from the House and the Senate, from the liberal northeast and the conservative south, men and the women, Democrats, Republicans, an Independent, and what can they finally agree on - the ritual of slipping those tasty little earmarks into the defense budget. And they've agreed to do this when the country is at war and faces a budget deficit approaching half a trillion dollars for this fiscal year. 6. Earmarks unimportant- Neg never shows earmarks kill Fiscal Discipline.

7. The United States Economy is really resilient William B. Bonvillian is Legislative Director and Chief Counsel to Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Issues in Science and Technology, fall 2004-Meeting the New Challenge to U.S. Economic Competitiveness In the 1980s, when the United States faced significant competitive challenges from Japan and Germany, U.S. industry, labor, and government worked out a series of competitiveness policies and
128

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name approaches that helped pave the way for the nation’s revitalized economic leadership in the 1990s. In the mid-1980s President Reagan appointed Hewlett Packard president John Young to head a bipartisan competitiveness commission, which recommended a practical policy approach designed to defuse ideological squabbling. Although many of its recommendations were enacted slowly or not at all, the commission created a new focus on public-private partnerships, on R&D investments (especially in IT), and on successful competition in trade rather than protectionism. This became the generally accepted response and provided the building blocks for the 1990s boom. The Young Commission was followed by Congress’s Competitiveness Policy Council through 1997. These efforts were successful in redefining the economic debate in part because they built on the experiences, well-remembered at the time, of industry and government collaboration that was so successful in World War II and in responding to Sputnik. Those are much more distant memories in this new century, but we should revisit the Young Commission model. The private sector Council on Competitiveness, originally led by Young, has assembled a group of leading industry, labor, and academic leaders to prepare a National Innovation Initiative, which could provide a blueprint for action. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate to establish a new bipartisan competitiveness commission that would have the prestige and leverage to stimulate government action. The U.S. economy is the most flexible and resilient in the world. The country possesses a highly talented workforce, powerful and efficient capital markets, the strongest R&D system, and the energy of entrepreneurs and many dynamic companies. That by itself will not guarantee success in a changing economy, but it gives the country the wherewithal to adapt to an evolving world. Challenges to U.S. dominance are visible everywhere. Strong economic growth is vital to the U.S. national mission, and innovation is the key to that growth. The United States needs to fashion a new competitiveness agenda designed to speed the velocity of innovation to meet the great challenges of the new century. Once that agenda has been crafted, the nation must find the political will to implement it. 9. No threshold- Never indicates how much pork triggers impact. 10. Environmental Spending saves the economy Mark Lynas, a climate change writer and activist, author of the acclaimed book 'High Tide' and fortnightly columnist for the New Statesman. He was selected by National Geographic as an 'Emerging Explorer' for 2006, 7/17/2008, “A Green New Deal”, http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2008/07/lynas-towards-economyclimate,BB
129

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name The Green New Deal Group is not talking about incremental changes, however. It is calling for nothing less than a return to pre-war Keynesianism - complete with big increases in public investment spending and much tighter controls on international finance - with a "war economy" social mobilisation harnessed, this time not towards fighting fascism, but towards heading off ecological crisis. What is novel is that this call is directed not just at stabilising the climate, but also at stabilising the economy - lower interest rates and higher government spending are aimed at ending the credit crunch as much as tackling the oil and climate crunches.

130

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Saudi Oil DA
The Date is Wrong on the I/L 1.Case solves impact- improved air power allows us to deter Saudi Arabia from getting nukes and prevent an escalation of conflicts - that’s Dunlap 06 2. Saudi Economy rich from other revenues- US alternatives won’t kill relations
AME Info, 03/11/07 “Saudi economy becomes less dependent on oil” http://www.ameinfo.com/113150.html In just three years Saudi national income has almost doubled from $188 billion to $348 billion. Saudi GDP in 2006 was 4.2 per cent and even with reduced revenues is expected to be 3.5 per cent in 2007. Most observers say that even if there is a fall in oil output the country's economy will remain extremely robust. King Abdullah Economic City, a $26.6 billion project. King Abdullah Economic City, a $26.6 billion project. related stories Dedicated Saudi Arabia Focus RSS feed Saudi Arabia Non-oil private sector growth is expected to grow by around 6 per cent this year and be the Kingdom's main engine of economic expansion along with government spending. Since joining the World Trade Organisation Saudi non-oil exports, mainly petrochemicals, have risen 13 per cent to a value of $20 billion. Significantly foreign direct investment in the Kingdom has more than doubled to $5.6 billion There have been no sudden dramatic adverse effects on agency agreements and the trading sector as a result of membership of the World Trade Organisation. This is helping to underpin Saudi Arabia's economic reform programme. Free trade Fawaz al-Alamy, who led negotiations for Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO treaty states: 'We have always believed in free trade but we need to open up further. We found out after the previous boom and last decline that oil is a volatile commodity and we cannot keep a country hostage to it.' Saudi Commerce and Industry Minister Hashim Yamani says that the Kingdom is focusing on development of an attractive investment environment pointing out that corporate tax on foreign-owned firms has been reduced from 45 per cent to 20 per cent. The Kingdom is also encouraging consolidation of smaller domestic establishments and creating economic alliances within these to enhance efficiency and foster new industries. At the recent Jeddah Economic Forum the minister stated that the objective is to place the Kingdom within the first and foremost 10 competitive nations worldwide by the end of 2010. This ambition is based on the Kingdom's comparative advantage in energy and potential for new industries. The Saudi investment body SAGIA points out that the Kingdom possesses 25 per cent of the world's oil reserves but only has 2 per cent of its energy-intensive industries such as aluminium. Saudi production of the metal could account for 15 per cent of global supplies by 2020 predicts Fahd al-Rashid SAGIA's deputy governor. New cities New cities built specifically to meet the needs of industry and the business community are also expected to attract investment, develop a much broader economy and not least provide the job opportunities the Kingdom's young population requires. Initial works are already underway on King Abdullah Economic City on the Red Sea. The $26.7 billion development is one of six such city developments so far unveiled. When the new cities are up and running in the next 15 years they could have a total population of 4.5 million and generate income of $150 billion. Brad Bourland chief economist of Saudi American Bank Financial Group believes that they will be quite viable commenting 'there will not be any white elephants built in the desert. Decisions will be driven by businessmen.'

131

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 3. Transition and trade solves relations- economic transition built off of oil ensures no fall in relations and alternative energy market of US will mean continued economic integration- that’s all Elhefnawy 06.

4. High Prices threaten loss of Saudi customers- Saudi’s seek lower oil prices now Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer 6/22/08 “Saudi summit aims at oil prices The world's largest oil producer, worried the escalating
cost of crude will dampen demand, is convening a special meeting on Sunday to seek solutions.” http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/19/news/international/saudi_oil/index.htm?postversion=2008061913 NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Saudi Arabia this weekend will convene a special summit on oil prices that could lead to cheaper crude on the world market. But a Saudi decision to produce more crude likely won't come without a demand: The Kingdom is expected to press the U.S. government to impose greater controls on oil trading and take steps to strengthen the dollar. The world's largest oil producer, stepping out of its usual role as de facto leader of OPEC, will host representatives of big oil producing nations, consumer countries and companies. The Saudis are widely believed to be concerned that escalating oil prices - crude hovered around $134 a barrel Thursday, nearly double what it cost a year ago - will cause a permanent drop in demand as consumers get more efficient or, worse, the global economy slows. One sign of the Saudi anxiety: The country's oil production decisions, usually left to its oil minister, appear to have been put back in the hands the Royal Family, according to Antoine Halff, deputy head of research at brokerage firm Newedge. Fuzzy numbers As a group, OPEC has been reluctant to raise production. Several states, enjoying the record prices, maintain there is no shortage of crude. It's a line the Saudis also touted - until recently. Saudi Arabia now says it will pump more. The Kingdom, during a recent visit by President Bush, pledged to increase production by 300,000. Last week, they said they would boost it by another 200,000 barrels. Those numbers are not set in stone, and Sunday's meeting may produce more details on the planned increases. The Saudis will also seek to convince refineries and others to keep buying. Recently, refiners worldwide have cut back in light of record prices. But that has only led to a drop in crude inventories - further pushing up the price of oil. To inject more oil into the market, Halff said the Saudis may use the meeting to arrange for special deals with refiners and others that could bring crude to market at below-market prices. The exact nature of the deals, he noted, will probably never be disclosed. At the very least, traders will be watching the Sunday meeting to see if those announced production increases fall closer to the 500,000 or 800,000 barrel a day mark. Sunday showdown The meeting holds high stakes for both Saudi Arabia and the United States. If prices don't respond, the country's credibility will suffer, and with it any notion that someone has control over these record oil prices. "Riyadh is seen as running out of options to regain control of the market," said Halff. "Failure to do so, it is assumed, could cause prices to leap even higher." The Saudis will also expect something from consumer nations in return. The Kingdom has long held that oil markets are well supplied, and that speculative investing is the real culprit behind high prices. To that end, the Saudis will likely seek more oversight of oil markets, and perhaps even limits on the amount of contracts speculators can hold. That's something consuming counties may give them. Several proposals along those lines have bipartisan support in Congress. More difficult to deliver, and probably more important to the Saudis, is a stronger dollar. Like the currencies of many countries in the Middle East, the Saudi riyal is pegged to the U.S. dollar - it rises and falls with the greenback. But while lower interest rates - and hence a lower dollar - may be what the U.S. economy needs to snap out of its slump, they have been disastrous for the red-hot Saudi economy. Inflation in Saudi Arabia has doubled in the last year and is projected to surge even higher. "I think [Saudi Arabia] wants something from the West, particularly the U.S. ... a stronger monetary policy," Nauman Barakat, an 132

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name
energy trader at Macquarie Futures, wrote in a research note. That will be hard to get. The Federal Reserve is unlikely to raise interest rates anytime soon. And any other move by the U.S. government is likely to have little effect on the free-trading dollar.

133

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 5. Case outweighs- global anarchy and nuclear war would encourage an even larger Middle East conflict involving all ME nations- that’s Ferguson 04. And collapse of US readiness will ensure 100s of conflicts identical to an IsraelSaudi Arabia conflict that the U.S. won’t be able to respond to- that’s Moore 97 and Dunlap 06. 6. NO RISK OF NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA- MULTIPLE WARRANTS
Thomas W. Lippman , member of the Council on Foreign Relations and former Middle East correspondent and a diplomatic and national security reporter for The Washington Post, 2/9/08 “Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy”http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/articles/2008/ioi/080209lippman-nuclear.html

It is widely believed among policymakers and strategic analysts in Washington and in many Middle Eastern capitals that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will feel compelled to do the same. In some ways this belief makes sense because Saudi Arabia is as vulnerable as it is rich, and it has long felt threatened by the revolutionary ascendancy of its Shi‘ite rival across the Gulf. Moreover, some senior Saudi officials have said privately that their country’s hand would be forced if it became known beyond doubt that Iran had become nuclear weapons capable. The publication in late 2007 of portions of a US National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had abandoned a program to weaponize nuclear devices in 2003 did not put an end to the speculation about a Saudi Arabian response; the NIE made clear that Iran was continuing its effort to master the uranium enrichment process, and could resume a weapons program on short notice. It is far from certain, however, that Saudi Arabia would wish to acquire its own nuclear arsenal or that it is capable of doing so. There are compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia would not undertake an effort to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely event that Iran achieves a stockpile and uses this arsenal to threaten the Kingdom. Money is not an issue -- if destitute North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia surely has the resources to pursue such a program. In the fall of 2007, the Saudis reported a budget surplus of $77 billion, and with oil prices above $90 a barrel, Riyadh is flush with cash. But the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would be provocative, destabilizing, controversial and extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia, and ultimately would likely weaken the kingdom rather than strengthen it. Such a course would be directly contrary to the Kingdom’s longstanding stated goal of making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons free zone. According to Sultan bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Defense Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons by their nature contravene the tenets of Islam. Pursuing nuclear weapons would be a flagrant violation of Saudi Arabia’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and would surely cause a serious breach with the United States. Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and technological base to develop such weapons on its own. An attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them, perhaps from Pakistan, would launch Saudi Arabia on a dangerously inflammatory trajectory that could destabilize the entire region, which Saudi Arabia’s leaders know would not be in their country’s best interests. The Saudis always prefer stability to turmoil.

7. No Israel strikes on Saudi Arabia- The internal link evidence makes no mention of a Saudi-Israel war started by Israel and makes no mention of Israel Saudi relations or Israel’s opinion or reaction to a nuclear Saudi Arabia.

134

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 8. Saudi and Israel ties are rising- the two are united against the Iranian threat meaning their will be no progression from low U.S.-Saudi relations (Israel News, 2/12/07, Ynet News.com, “Repot: Saudi Arabia Reaching out to Israel”, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3363991,00.html) Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been sending overtures to Israel and US Jews in a campaign aimed at countering Iran's rising sway in the region and denting its nuclear program, USA Today reported Monday.Saudi Arabia is keen on shoring up its influence in the Middle East by brokering a unity deal between rival Palestinian factions and defusing tensions between the Hizbullah-led opposition and the western-backed government in Lebanon. Preventing Iraq from sliding into an all-out civil war is also on the agenda. The most evident sign of rapprochement came in the form of the attendance of Saudi Arabia's outgoing ambassador to the US to a ceremony in Washington held by American Jewish organizations in honor of a State Department official appointed to fight anti-Semitism. William Daroff of the United Jewish Communities told USA Today that Prince Turki al-Faisal's presence at the reception was "unprecedented." The paper reported that Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates have made similar outreach gestures towards Israel and American Jews. The overtures have been blessed by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who has said that six Gulf states, alongside Egypt, Jordan and Israel form a new moderate alignment to counter Iran and Syria, whom Washington accuses of supporting extremist groups like Hizbullah and Hamas. Jamal Kashoggi, an aide to Prince Turki, told USA Today that the overtures were part of efforts to revive the long-stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Judith Kipper, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, told USA Today, "What really concerns pro-US Arab states is that Iran is setting the political agenda in the region." 9.No Middle Eastern Escalation- A)The underlined section of the impact evidence says “Should war break out in the Middle East again” nuclear war would occur, however the evidence was written in 2002 and the next year the U.S. invaded Iraq. B) John Steinbech has no qualifications and could be anyone from a 15 year old policy debater to a kindergarden teacher.

135

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 10. NO RISK OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SINO-SAUDI RELATIONS. COOPERATION WITH US MORE LIKELY
Nawaf Obaid, The Gracia Group, “The Sino-Saudi Energy Rapprochement:Implications for US National Security January 8th, 2002

http://www.rice.edu/energy/publications/docs/SinoSaudiStudyFinal.pdf

In short, enhanced and tightening ties between China and Saudi Arabia with respect to energy trade and investment could have a negative impact on both US-China and US-Saudi relations. But these consequences are not at all likely. The most likely consequences of heightened China- Saudi ties are those that will have benefits for the US and for global stability, even if there is a loss of US influence over the Kingdom as Saudi Arabia looks to the growing oil markets of East Asia. China will almost certainly have an increased concern over the stability of the Middle East region and on the protection of long haul sea-lanes. Changed circumstances are likely to push China toward greater cooperation with the US in all of these regards.

11. U.S. Saudi Economic ties not based on oil- uniqueness overwhelms the linkthe uniqueness evidence lists 360 projects are shared between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. with a combined value of 20 billion dollars, not all of which could be based off of oil.

136

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

*************** Politics ***************

137

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

Politics- Obama Good
1.

Uniqueness Overwhelms link- Obama has too high a lead- Obama is leading the presidential race by 18 points, one energy policy won’t upset that high a lead. Uniqueness doesn’t take into account external factors- while energy policy may be the most important issue in the race right now, it alone doesn’t justify an 18 point lead.

2.

3. Plan goes Obama- The plan dooms McCain by moving toward Obama talking points – it undercuts the GOP message – Iran rapprochement proves Kevin Drum, journalist/columnist for Washington Monthly, Washington Monthly, 7-17-08,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_07/014112.php Am I off base, or is it sort of weird that there's been so little followup to the news that the Bush administration plans to open an "interests section" in Tehran? None of the big U.S. newspapers has so much as mentioned this story yet, which either means they don't think it's a big deal (unlikely) or that not a single one of them has been able to confirm the original Guardian report (also unlikely). Over at The Corner, where I figured they'd be going ballistic, the news has been met with nothing more than a shrug. Now, sure, an interests section is not an embassy (we already have one in Cuba, for example), but this would still be a pretty stunning turnaround, wouldn't it? Especially since the rapprochement appears to be mutual. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has indicated he's open to a U.S. proposal and an Iranian spokesman later confirmed that Iran is open to direct talks. How cordial! So why the radio silence? At the very least, shouldn't the talking heads be talking about the political implications of this news? Barack Obama favors direct talks with Iran and John McCain doesn't, and now here comes George Bush apparently clearing the deck for direct talks. So what does McCain do now? He'll tap dance a bit, of course, claiming that Bush is not doing precisely what Obama proposed (which is true), but he's certainly moving in that direction. Doesn't this cut McCain's legs out from under him? Doesn't it make Obama look more prescient and presidential? Shouldn't this at a minimum be a fascinating topic for fact-free cable news speculation and talk radio bloviation? I think so! 4.

Democrats take non-nuclear and non-oil energy- their Caldwell evidence says a successful Republican platform would be built on domestic drilling and nuclear energy, NOT other alternatives, which go to the democrats. No voter switch- their link evidence says nothing about Obama’s voters switching sides or not voting because of the plan, ensuring Obama will hold his lead. Iran too far off- Their’s four months before John McCain has a chance to take the oval office. Then Iran-U.S. tensions will presumably build to a head over time. Then John McCain will have to gain political and popular support for an Iran attack with the U.S. still in Iraq and with a Democratic congress. Then the invasion of Iran will occur. This huge timeframe kills all probability of impact and ability to make predictions on a McCain presidency.

5.

6.

138

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name Biofuels are popular New York Times, Matthew L. Wald, 7/24/08, Gassing Up With Garbage, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/business/24fuel.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=6d87 50fcd5a5af75&ex=1217044800 [adit] The government is pushing to get the industry off the ground. Legislation passed last year mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year by 2022, less than half of it from corn ethanol. Almost all the rest is supposed to come from nonfood sources, though the
7. requirement could be waived if the industry faltered. “One has to say upfront that what Congress has done is remarkable in its bravery,” said David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a group in Minneapolis that advocates biofuels.

8. Obama will push Biofuels Crosscut, 7/24/08, Gauging the Biofuels backlash, http://www.crosscut.com/politicsgovernment/15855/Gauging+the+biofuels+backlash/ [adit] Of course, most politicians like magic bullets. Obama backs ethanol subsidies. (Of course he does. His home state of Illinois trails only Iowa in corn production.) McCain opposes them. (Of course he does. They don't grow a whole lot of corn in Arizona.) Congress has showered ethanol subsidies on farm states since 1978. Virtually no one talks seriously about conservation. Nobody wants to be President Jimmy Carter, virtuously putting on a cardigan sweater rather than turning up the White House thermostat. But someone has to do it. Without curbing future demand, future production — even if it's based on switchgrass or wood waste rather than offshore oil — won't get us where we need to go.
9.

Case outweighs- Loss of U.S. air power means the U.S. won’t be able to respond to new conflicts around the globe or sustain U.S. hegemony- that’s Dunlap 06. And U.S. hegemony collapse will lead to regional nuclear wars and rampant terrorism- that’s Ferguson 04. And loss of U.S. readiness will lead to widespread global conflict- that’s Moore 97. This outweighs the DA because widespread global conflict means the U.S. will soon be facing not just one Iran- but 20, and this time without the military to deal with them. And global anarchy outweighs the DA because regional nuclear wars and rampant terrorism will give nations like Iran total freedom of action to use and develop nuclear weapons. Air power solves Iran attack- a strong air force means the U.S. will be able to neutralize Iran before it has a chance to react- that’s Dunlap 06. And U.S. air power is key to deterring other nations from seeking nuclear weapons and challenging U.S. power- that’s also Dunlap. Iran attack assumes ground troop use- Their Iran invasion impact assumes U.S. ground troop usedoesn’t apply to aff world of strong air power.

10.

11.

139

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name

12.Link Turn- Military funding massively unpopular—lobbies protest
Huffington post, Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran, 6/24/08 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-weisbrot/anti-war-movement-success_b_114545.html [adit]s Who says there's no anti-war movement in the United States? In the past two months, the anti-war movement has taken on one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the United States in an important fight. And so far, the antiwar movement is winning. Here's the story: On May 22, a bill was introduced into Congress that effectively called for a blockade of Iran, H. Con. Res. 362. Among other expressions of hostility, the bill calls for: "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran..." This sounded an awful lot like it was calling for a blockade, which is an act of war. A dangerous proposition, especially given all the efforts that the Bush-Cheney administration has taken to move us closer to a military confrontation with Iran, the bluster and the threats, and the refusal to engage in direct talks with the Iranian government. The last thing we need is for the war party to get encouragement from Congress to initiate more illegal and extremely dangerous hostilities in the Persian Gulf. If the bill were to pass, the Bush Administration could take it as a green light for a blockade. It's hard to imagine the Iranians passively watching their economy strangled for lack of gasoline (which they import), without at least firing a few missiles at the blockaders. Whereupon all hell could break loose. By June 20 this bill was zipping through Congress, with 169 co-sponsors, soon to accumulate more than 200 Representatives. Amazingly, it was projected to appear quickly on the House Suspension Calendar. This is a special procedure that allows the House of Representatives to pass noncontroversial legislation by a super-majority. It allows the bill to avoid amendments and other procedural votes, as well as normal debate. An aide to the Democratic leadership said the resolution would pass Congress like a "hot knife through butter."
13.

Election too far off- There are 4 more months until the election, during which time any amount of factors could occur to upset the election. Their link author is unqualified- Caldwell is the president of a company, not a political analyst and not qualified to analyze successful presidential strategies.

14.

140

FILE NAME DDI 2008 <Lab> Your Name 15.Plan helps Obama- Energy is McCain’s only opportunity to create distance from Bush – the plan blocks any chance of him generating a “change” narrative Scott Horsley, NPR business correspondent, 5/13/2008, “McCain Targets Independents with 'Green' Effort,”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90411556

But for the moment, McCain's tone is very different as he tries to reach out to independent and moderate voters at campaigns stops in the Pacific Northwest. McCain visited a watershed center outside Seattle on Tuesday, where he stressed his commitment to environmental protection. McCain even planned a nature walk around Washington's Cedar River Reservoir, with reporters and photographers in tow, and held a roundtable discussion with a group of Washington state conservation advocates. Sally Jewell heads the Seattle-based outdoor gear company REI, a cooperative with 3.5 million active members. "We have members that span from the far right to the far left of the political spectrum," she said. "But I think the one thing they all appreciate is a healthy environment." By wrapping himself in the fleece vest of environmentalism, McCain hopes to reach out to that constituency. He repeated his pledge to combat greenhouse gases by limiting the amount of these gases that companies can emit and encouraging those who emit less to sell their permits to others. This "cap-and-trade" system is similar to plans proposed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton — albeit with less stringent limits on carbon pollution. McCain's Green Campaign Aimed at Moderate Voters "McCain simply cannot win in November if he can't consolidate the center and win the swing independents who determine every presidential election," said Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia political analyst. "His task is tough enough because of President Bush's unpopularity, the unpopularity of the Iraq war and the tanking of the economy. If he gets too identified with the right wing of his own party, he's going to alienate those swing independents, and he'll lose the election." McCain is closely identified with President Bush in his support for the Iraq war and an economic policy built on tax cuts. But Sabato says so far, that has not been the drag on McCain's campaign that it might be. "Right now, he has that maverick image, and he's running 20 to 25 points better than the Republican brand," Sabato added. "The Democrats' job is to make sure that doesn't continue. McCain's job is to make sure that it does." The environment is one area where McCain can put some daylight between his views and President Bush's. Speaking on Monday in Portland, Ore., McCain subtly criticized the president for not doing more to combat global warming. "I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges," he said. McCain also went out of his way to praise Oregon's Democratic governor and to promise more bipartisan cooperation if he is elected president. "We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties and on all the resources a free market can provide," he said.

141

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful