The Instigator
surpy
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Policy Debate: space topic 2011-2012

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
surpy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,871 times Debate No: 21550
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

surpy

Pro

Here are the rules:
1. You MUST know how to do policy debate. If you don't know what I am talking about then do not accept the challenge.
2. You may either use Google docs or this to post your argument, I will use Google docs for my arguments
3. The winner gets all 7 points
4. Round one is acceptance

It will go as follows:
rd1: acceptance
rd2: 1AC 1NC
rd3: 2AC 2NC/1NR
rd4: 1AR 2NR
rd5: 2AR, con must either forfeit the round or do not bring up anything about the debate, to make it seem more like policy debate.

(my bad I forgot to change the rounds)
lannan13

Con

I will use cut cards.
Debate Round No. 1
surpy

Pro

This aff case was like my brain child because no one has ever thought about it, but sense I am not doing any more policy this year, I have decided to share it... so here it is, a SPACE ELEVATOR AFF CASE!

https://docs.google.com...
lannan13

Con

----Plan illegal, doesn’t use DOT

Beckley 98(NASA Administrator, http://www.faa.gov..., accessed on Oct. 11, 2011, AL)

The National Space Transportation Policy (NSTC-4, August 5, 1994) designates NASA as “lead

Agency for technology development and demonstration for next generation reusable space

Transportation systems.” NSTC-4 also directs the Department of Transportation (FAA) to

“License, facilitate, and promote commercial launch operations as set forth in the Commercial Space Launch Act, as amended, and Executive Order 12465.” The Commercial Space Act of 1998, P.L. 105-303, granted regulatory authority to the DOT for commercial reentry activities.

----“The” Means all parts

Encata 09 (World English Dictionary, “The”, http://encarta.msn.com..., accessed Dec. 1, 2011, AL)

2. Indicating generic class: used to refer to aperson orthing considered generically or universally

----U.S. is the 3 branches, where in the 3 braches is NASA.

Thefreedictionary.com 11 (http://www.thefreedictionary.com..., accessed Dec. 4, 2011, AL)

United States - the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States

----NASA doesn’t work efficiently

McMillan 10 (Graeme, McMillan, Journalist, written Aug. 2010,http://io9.com..., accessed Nov. 21, 2011, AL)

How badly is NASA being run? According a US Governmentreport, worse than you may think, with more than 50% of programs over-budget and past-deadline... and some of the others having no deadline at all. According to New Scientist, a new report from the Government Accountability Office looked at 18 separate NASA programs, and found that five of those were operating without any deadline whatsoever, and only three of those with deadlines had managed to meet them and stay within budget. Amongst those ruining NASA's reputation, the Mars Science Laboratory is running 25 months behind schedule and 26% over original cost estimates, and the Glory climate satellite is a staggering 53% over budget.

---NASA overspends

Hecht 09 (Jeff Hecht, contributor to Newsscience.com, written March 3, 2009, http://www.newscientist.com..., accessed Nov. 21, 2011, AL)

Veteran reporters have come to expect big NASA spacecraft to be delivered behind schedule and over budget. Cost and schedule overruns are standard problems in military and civilian aerospace projects, but NASA - at the insistence of Congress - has been trying to clean up its act. How well is NASA doing? So far, not very well, says the Government Accountability Office in a new report covering 18 NASA programs. Each is big - projected to cost more than $250 million - and collectively, the projects are expected to amount to more than $50 billion

----Space debris causes Kessler Syndrome

Dutt 11 (Varun Dutt,Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Social and
Decision Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University,
http://www.mydigitalfc.com..., written Oct. 10, 2011, accessed Nov. 28, 2011, AL)

According to a recent NASA report, the space around earth is home to over 135 million small pieces of junk; another 300,000 medium size pieces (between 1 and 10 centimeters); and over 22,000 significant pieces of trash (over 10 centimeters across). Over 30 per cent of the debris can be attributed to the US alone, reports NASA. In 2009, a US Iridium commercial satellite and an inoperative Russian satellite collided, spreading debris everywhere. A report by the US National Research Council (NRC) says that the problem of space debris is getting worse and has passed a “tipping point.” According to the NRC report, we are currently reaching a critical capacity, known as the “Kessler Syndrome” (named after former head of NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, Donald Kessler), in which debris collisions create more debris, which, in turn, is more likely to hit other objects

----Radiation causes health defects.

NASA 08(http://radbelts.gsfc.nasa.gov... accessed on Oct. 10, 2011, About Space Radiation, AL)

Ionizing radiation travels through living tissues, depositing energy that causes structural damage to DNA and alters many cellular processes. Current research sponsored by NASA seeks an understanding of DNA structural and functional changes caused by radiation, basic metabolic controls known to be modulated by radiation; genomic instability; changes to tissue structure; and “bystander” or non-targeted effects. NASA has identified the following health concerns as its highest research priorities. Risk of Radiation Carcinogenesis from Space Radiation – increased risk of cancers. Risk of Acute or Late Central Nervous System Effects from Space Radiation – changes in motor function and behavior or neurological disorders. Risk of Degenerative Tissue or Other Health Effects from Space Radiation – other degenerative tissue defects such as cataracts, circulatory diseases, and digestive diseases. Acute Radiation Risks from Space Radiation – prodromal risks, significant skin injury, or death from a major solar event or combination solar/galactic cosmic ray event that jeopardizes crew and mission survival.

---Microgravity causes bone loss.

Odom 05 (Jason Odom, web designer and writer for the NASA website, Weak in the Knees - The Quest for a Cure, http://weboflife.nasa.gov..., accessed online Oct. 10, 2011, AL)

Space biomedical researchers have found that exposure to the microgravity environment of space causes men and women of all ages to lose up to 1% of their bone mass per month due to disuse atrophy, a condition similar to osteoporosis.It is not yet clear whether losses in bone mass will continue as long as a person remains in the microgravity environment or le----Radiation causes cancer

Debate Round No. 2
surpy

Pro

Your DOT card is out of date and the rules have expired
Beckley 98
(NASA Administrator, http://www.faa.gov......, accessed on Oct. 11, 2011, AL)
Period of Performance
This MOU shall take effect upon the date of the last signature of the approving officials
appearing below and shall remain in effect unless terminated upon written request of either party.
All subsequent MOA’s under this MOU shall incorporate appropriate periods of performance,
not to exceed 5 years. A MOA may be renewed for an additional period of performance not to
exceed 5 years.

Because it has been 5 years from the last signature, this rule is now void and does not interfere with this debate.

-T-
I am unaware of how I am under violation of your T arguments, in my plan text it says that the United States Federal Government should provide the money to NASA. We meet.

I do not understand your "The" T argument, but here is a counter-definition for the word "The"

The word “the” implies there is only one – as in the USFG.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online, 2007.

used to refer to things or people when only one exists at any one time:

-NASA DA-
There are no impacts to these arguments or reasons on why you should not vote for the plan. There is no proof that NASA will do the same for the Space Elevator anyways. Besides the cost and time has already been planned out.

Space Elevator budget

Larry Bartoszek 07 (Leader of Bartoszek Engineering, )

Technical Budget

Component Cost Estimate (US$)

Launch costs to GEO 1.0B

Ribbon production 400M

Spacecraft 500M

Climbers 370M

Power beaming stations 1.5B

Anchor station 600M

Tracking facility 500M

Other 430M

Contingency (30%) 1.6B

TOTAL ~6.9B

Costs are based onoperational systems or detailed engineering studies. Additional expenses will be incurred on legal and regulatory issues. Total construction should be around US$10B.Recommend construction of a second system for redundancy: US$3B

Space Elevator Time frame

Larry Bartoszek 07 (Leader of Bartoszek Engineering, )

Proposed System: Overview First elevator: 20 ton capacity (13 ton payload)􀁺 Constructed with existing or near-term technology􀁺 Cost (US$10B) and schedule (15 years)􀁺 Operating costs of US$250/kg to any Earth orbit, moon, Mars, Venus, Asteroids




-Space Debris-
I use this as an advantage, I agree that space debris is scary and it will cascade if we don't stop using rockets that you agreed by not attacking my advantage 3.

-Radiation DA-
We can block off radiation from space. These cards talk about a mission to mars but the concept still stands.
Radiation issues are already solved

Zubrin 2010 Robert Zubrin, austronautlical engineer, PHd, President of the Mars Society, Journal of Cosmology, October-November 2010, Human Mars Exploration: The Time Is Now,http://journalofcosmology.com..., DOA: 6/20/11 MG

4.1. Radiation: It is alleged by some that the radiation doses involved in a Mars mission present insuperable risks, or are not well understood. This is untrue. Solar flare radiation, consisting of protons with energies of about 1 MeV, can be shielded by 12 cm of water or provisions, and there will be enough of such materials on board the ship to build an adequate pantry storm shelter for use in such an event. The residual cosmic ray dose, about 50 Rem for the 2.5 year mission, represents a statistical cancer risk of about 1%, roughly the same as that which would be induced by an average smoking habit over the same period.


-Gravity DA-
Any gravity issues can be solved by rotating something in space, thus creating artifical gravity. These cards also talk about a mission to mars but the concept still stands.

Technological advancements solve

Zubrin 2010 Robert Zubrin, austronautlical engineer, PHd, President of the Mars Society, Journal of Cosmology, October-November 2010, Human Mars Exploration: The Time Is Now, http://journalofcosmology.com..., DOA: 6/20/11 MG

4.2. Zero Gravity: Cosmonauts have experienced marked physiological deterioration after extended exposure to zero gravity. However a Mars mission can be flown employing artificial gravity generated by rotating the spacecraft. The engineering challenges associated with designing either rigid or tethered artificial gravity systems are modest, and make the entire issue of zero-gravity health effects on interplanetary missions moot.

-Voters-
My opponent has not attacked my case so therefore agrees that rockets will lead to our demise and that we must switch to a space elevator to save us from all the disasters I have stated. Vote for Aff/Pro.


lannan13

Con

Pro has dropped topicality theirfore I win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
surpy

Pro

I clearly addressed T, I said "we meet" for your USFG T argument because I said that the USFG will fund NASA, I gave a counter-definition for the word "The" for a debate of T. You gave no voters for T or why it is important so therefore T is not a voter in this debate. You dropped all your arguments, and agreed all to mine, so I win this debate. I mean really, a SPACE elevator not topical? All I have to say to that is ...

Vote Aff/Pro.
lannan13

Con

Let me explain you said U.S. gives Nasa money then they're in the government. Correct.
But if I give you money your not in my family.
This makes your T refute illogical and the Con still wins T therefore I win the debate by defalt.
Debate Round No. 4
surpy

Pro

Correct, U.S. does give money to NASA. Still, the USFG (United States Federal Government) is providing money to NASA so clearly the USFG is having a part of this plan, and clearly topical.

My opponent dropped everything else except this accusation; also my opponent did not give any reasons why to vote for him because of this T argument, I said that clearly in my last speech and still nothing so my opponent can not bring anything up about that so there is no clear reason to vote for Con/Neg. But my arguments still stand on why there needs to be a space elevator, because if we don't switch to it then reaching space will cost far too much money, the Earths ozone layer will be depleted, and the Earth will have so much space debris that no one can get into space. Vote for Pro/Aff.
lannan13

Con

My opponet dropped T and since that is the most important thing in Policy debate I win by default.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Okay I end up voting on substance on the Aff that goes unrefuted throughout the entire debate. But the first thing that ought to be talked about is the Neg's "T" argument.

It may be that, because of my LD background, I'm unfamiliar with how T functions and appears in Policy debate, but I understand the argument that the Neg is trying to make. The only problem with this is a) there's a really sketchy violation of this T argument, and I hate seeing T when there's no real violation, and b) I buy the "I meet" argument, especially since it was never responded to. With the I meet going unrefuted, I can essentially ignore the T shell and look down at the substance debate, which Pro is obviously winning. Pro was the only one to refute the Neg's position and re-extend his own. So it's an easy aff vote.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
I'll vote in a moment.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
There isn't too much difference. The only real difference is policy is more plan/political based while LD is "value based"
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
What is a policy debate? How is it different from LD?
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
I have been looking for an excuse to use the word obtuse all day, SUCCESS
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
A written policy debate should be interesting to read, verbal ones are so obtuse and confusing though lol.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Gah. Still tempted to run a K on this topic. Not sure if I'd understand how some arguments functioned in policy, but I'm tempted to give it a try.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth's mesosphere.
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
It's like we can develop our program to go beyond the earth's mesosphere. Hold on, I'll pull up the verbatum wording.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
What is it?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Mimshot 5 years ago
Mimshot
surpylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: T was addressed through interpretation. Also, DOT critique violates fiat. I'd love to take off spelling and grammar for ridiculous font usage, but you both did it.
Vote Placed by RougeFox 5 years ago
RougeFox
surpylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: T wasn't dropped so he can't extend through ink. Also, no reasons for why T is a voter were ever given. And, if you want to go for just T, it could have been a little bit better of a shell. Unclear violation. And, NASA is a part of the executive branch so that's awk... Conduct goes to pro b/c con just made a weak T arg and didn't engage in substance past then. PM or comment with questions.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
surpylannan13Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.