The Instigator
Con (against)
5 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Policy topic: space

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2011 Category: Education
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,627 times Debate No: 18479
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Hello people!
I will be neg on this topic.

The full resolution is: the united states federal government should substantially increase it's development and or exploration of space beyond Earth's mesosphere

r1- intro & 1ac
r2- 1nc & 2ac
r3- Neg block & 1Ar
r4- 2nr & 2ar

I suggest typing your speech into mediafire/ googledocs and posting the link to save time.

Let's roll!


Dude i debate policy and i can't put my entire freakin 1AC on here :( sorry for ruining the debate
Debate Round No. 1


I have an idea, put your 1ac onto google docs. Then post the link in the comments. DON'T post your argument yet. I'll put my 1nc asap. And then you answer it in your next speech


Brief roadmap i'll be giving a brief overview at the top starting on case then going back down the flow from there.

First i would like to point out that all of my opponents impacts lead to nuclear war so if i win solvency i solve back for all his impacts thus meaning that he would have no offense left in this round meaning that you vote aff

First on case- My opponent states that deterrence fails but first i would like to point out that ALL of his evidence is basing that assumption on the fact that GROUND BASED BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FAILS none of his evidence takes into account the fact that this deterrence is going to be in space.
But even if you don't buy that extend our Cooper 02 evidence that says we've had the technology since the 80's and it's all space qualified- what this piece of evidence is saying is that star wars is imperiaclly proven to work they used this tech to map the entire surface of the moon.
secondly extend our cooper 02 evidence that says The system would be the ultimate deterrence, completely solving for all missile war, including nuclear war, and avoiding global extinction. if i win on this card i solve back for all his DA's thus leaving him with no offense in the round especially since the warrents in this card are fantastic saying that computer simulations show that if star wars had been in orbit during the gulf war they would have shot down EVERY SCUD MISSILE LAUNCHED BY SADAME HUSSAINE! If that's not good enough to buy your vote in this round then i don't know what is.

And onto his advantage turns- First of all he dosn't realize that space has been weaponized before making all of his impacts non unique rods from god prove.
And even if you don't buy that when we put star wars in place it would solve back for this big nuke war that he talks about happening AFTER THE FACT the nuke war happens after the system is put in place thus solving for the nuke war.
so essentially the on case turn he made are just more advantages for the case.

And last on case extend our Cooper and Pfaltzgraff 2006 that says
AND, the time is NOW. Other nations' prolif efforts can be attributed to a lack of a space-based ABM system, that means that we solve for prolif
This cards warrents are fantastic on the fact that a bmd system in space would be the ultimate detterence and that it is empiriaccly proven because one of the reasons the U.S.S.R. gave up during the cold war was because of the PERCEPTION that we had it up.

Now onto China Space Mill- First off Non Unique- We already have weapons in space rods from god should have already triggered there impacts
plus even if you don't buy that since the milliterazation of china happens after the systems are put into place and since we win on solvency we solve back for the nuke war that happens.
And even if you don't buy the fact that weapons are in space no the only way to get weapons into space would be to shoot them into space which our Brilliant Pebbles Tech would solve for because they would be shot down while being launched into space.

Now onto Jobs- First i would like to state on this jobs bill DA that he has presented no impact to poverty so in turn he has presented no reason why it outweighs the case because Nuclear war outweighs poverty sorry you lose on the Jobs Bill DA

Next is Coop- Extend the fact that all of his impact lead to nuclear war so if we win on solvency then we win on the fact that we solve back ALL his impacts in the round and leave him with no offense meaning that all judges default aff.

But if you don't buy that extend the fact that we've already weaponized space without cooperation "rods from god prove" making all of his impacts totally non unique either way.
Plus case outweighs so you default aff.

Next is Trade off-
First extend the fact that we don't even go through nasa to get funding either way making this da have no link but even if you don't buy that our plan dosen't cost anything

Because: Extend the fact the Bush's ground based BMD's already cost 11 Billion and that our plan costs 11 Billion meaning that when we put our 1000 sattelites up to achieve solvency that means that the outdated ground based bmd's will be withdrawn meaning that no money was actually spent :D

Furthermore extend the fact that the impact to this DA is also nuke war and that if we achieve any amount of solvency we SOLVE FOR THIS NUKE WAR MEANING YOU DEFAULT AFF!

Next off if CP- First off i would like to say that all the Net Benefits are totally non unique because we've already militerized space by ourselves "rods from god prove" and if anything would of happened it should have happened already.

So since there's no net benefit that makes the counterplan NOT mutually exclusive so you default aff

But even if you don't buy that "sorry dude just trying to make more clash"

The counterplan is conditional and conditionality is bad
Conditionality is bad and it's a voting issue:

A.Moving Target—the neg doesn't have to defend a concrete policy option. This allows the neg to simply drop arguments, teaching fallacious reasoning and killing any hope of in depth debate on a single issue

B.Time Skew—
1.We have to make double the arguments against the status quo AND the counteprlan destroying any hope of adequate coverage
2.They could come up and kick the counterplan, wasting all the time I spend reading answers in the 2AC

C.Reciprocity—confining the negative to one world is necessary to prevent digression into obscene amounts of advocacies—justifies aff conditionality which is uniquely worse

D.Kills Game Values – leads to irresponsible argumentation. They will simply kick what we are winning. Kills fairness because the Aff has to stick to it's plan even if the neg is winning all its offense so the neg should have to stick to theirs

E.Counter-interpretation—the negative should be forced to defend dispositionality

Dispositionality solves all their offense—this puts them in a unique double-bind, either:
1.The counterplan is predictable—there will be plenty of literature on the counterplan to the point where even an amazing text would still not require permutations and straight turns would check abuse
2.The counterplan is unpredictable—this is uniquely bad for debate because it forces permutations which are the only means by which the affirmative can get back up to ground zero and proves the abuse

F.Voting issue for fairness and education

So seeing that my opponet had no offense left in this round i see no other alt then for all judges to default aff.
Debate Round No. 2


Neg block will be posted in the comments. The link is malfunctioning right now. I'll get it up ASAP


craft105 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Xboxlive forfeited this round.


craft105 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by craft105 5 years ago
craft105 my bad here's the 1ac
Posted by Xboxlive 5 years ago
You need to set it to where we have access to the document
Posted by BlackVoid 5 years ago
Macroscope, Policy is extremely complex and there are several terms and arguments specific to this style, so its probably best you don't take it..
Posted by Xboxlive 5 years ago
@Macroscope- This is one of the most complicated debate forms- EVER
@ Ore_Ele- That will be the job of me if I decide to run topicality
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Define "substantially"
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
Interesting debate, but dont feel like I'm qualified.
Posted by Macroscope 5 years ago
I dont know what policy is but i feel confident enough to know that does not exclude me, afterall, it has never excluded me before.

Debates have rules, but agreeing with you what constitutes a policy doesnt seem like one.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Brenavia 5 years ago
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited fewer times