369 CM Affirmative Blocks Compiled

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 (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
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
*************** 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
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
^_^ SPS ^_^
4
DDI 2008
*************** Topicality ***************
5
DDI 2008
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-9bca-
e17ccc2b0b8b.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
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
*************** CP’s ***************
8
DDI 2008
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
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
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
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
2AC: DOD CP (1/1)
1. Perm – Do Both
2. DOD can’t solve DAVID 07
3. Perm – Do the counter-plan
a. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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 kilowatt-
hour, 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
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;
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
*************** Kritiks ***************
21
DDI 2008
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.irc-
online.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
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
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
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
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=KwFCAZER-
M&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=KwFCAZER-
M&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
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
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
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
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
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
32
DDI 2008
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
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
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
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

ignores the reality that poor people's ability to exercise and enjoy rights is severely curtailed by the conditions under which they live.
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
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
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
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
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
*************** Disads ***************
37
DDI 2008
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
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
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/product-
description/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
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/product-
description/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
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
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
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

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
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.star-
telegram.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
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 de-
emphasis 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-industrial-
congressional 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
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
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
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
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
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

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

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
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
*************** Politics ***************
54
DDI 2008
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 nearly-
tied 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
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, "commercial-
scale 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-inside-
shuttle_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
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
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
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
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
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
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 cutting-
edge 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

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 would-
be 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
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,”
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.e-
parl.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. Magnitude – They concede the hegemony and economy nuclear wars, which are multiple reasons for
extinction
ii. 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.
iii. 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,”
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. Private Sector innovation solves
3. Increasing funding makes it feasible
4. it can be assembled in parts not all at once
80
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
AT: Ground Solar

1. There evidence is terrible it just says low cost solar is key
2. Solar is already low cost, it’s gotten cheaper since 2004
3. Funding and Innovation Solve
4. 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
interests. 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 Utah-
states without mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets-but not in Oregon (which has mandated 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 advisory-
committee 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.merriam-
webster.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 bad-
a. 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 open-
minded, 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 government-
preferred 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 in-
digenous 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.
5. Alt will be co-opted- corporations or right-wing or media who still desire to control and use tech
will co-opt the alt.
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.
12. Alt Fails on oil- Alt can’t solve for current oil use ensuring environmental destruction now.
13. Alternatives better than oil- McWhorter specifically indicts oil as a bad source of energy, K alt
can’t solve Aff shift to oil.
125
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 non-
issue 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/social-
engineering 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/bipartisanship-
thrives_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 (R-
GA), 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-economy-
climate,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 Israel-
Saudi 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/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.
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 link-
the 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.
2. 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.
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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
138
FILE NAME
DDI 2008 <Lab>
Your Name
7.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
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/politics-
government/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.
10. 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.
11. Iran attack assumes ground troop use- Their Iran invasion impact assumes U.S. ground troop use-
doesn’t apply to aff world of strong air power.
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 anti-
war 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 non-
controversial 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.
14. Their link author is unqualified- Caldwell is the president of a company, not a political analyst and not
qualified to analyze successful presidential strategies.
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

369 CM Affirmative Blocks Compiled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

369 CM Affirmative Blocks Compiled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DDI 2008

Written By: Clark-Martin Lab

^_^ SPS ^_^

2. Counter Interpretation – Incentives allow the development of technology

3. We Meet – we provide funding to NASA for the development of SPS

5. Predictability – It is completely predictable to provide incentives for

6. Reasonability checks – as long as we are reasonably topical you should not

7. T is not a voter because clash checks

2. Counter Interpretation – Incentives must be in the US – cross apply their

3. We meet, we give incentives to NASA, which is in the US

5. Grammar – the resolution says “incentives for alternative energy” as a

7. T is not a voter – Clash checks

2. Perm: Do both, the permutation avoids the links by ______

1. JAXA threatens China – empirically doesn’t solve.

2. INT ACTOR FIAT BAD

4. Cross Apply 1AC Segal 04 – Continuation of Asian superiority causes the

7. Read card pile. (DA to Counter-plan solved by US hegemony)

2. The DoD is Cash strapped and cannot implement the Plan

8. Conditionality is Bad for debate

B. Moving Target - The affirmative can’t stick the negative to the

D. At least reject the argument

3. US funding for Space Solar Power key to efficient research Studies

4. Federal Government key

B. Reliability cannot be handled by private markets or state policies

D. The Federal Government must do the plan to solve for hegemony, if

7. State action can’t solve – deters investment, compliance, cooperation, while

9. Conditionality is Bad for debate

F. Moving Target - The affirmative can’t stick the negative to the

H. At least reject the argument

2. Perm: Do Both, Avoids the links to the DAs by______

5. C/A Rouge 2007, Case spillsover

2. Alt doesn’t Solve the Case--

4. We get to weigh our case

7. Permutation: Indigineous people can use technology to accomplish their

8. Alt doesn’t solve the K

11.Turn: The Negatives unabashed criticism of satellites forecloses any

2. Realism prevents extinction

3. Competition between states and military buildup will always exist.

4. A shift away from realism creates a power war.

B. Cross-apply Heg Impact Card

5. Perm do Both -- The

7. Perm do the plan and the alternative in all other instances

Adrian Hyde-Price (Professor of International Politics at Bath) 2001 “Europes new

10. Turn – The alternative makes conflict inevitable. Only immediate

11. Thinking of the environment as a security threat stimulates positive

Society's failure to meet basic economic and social rights or

2. NO LINK – ALL OF KATO’S ARGUMENTS ARE SPECIFIC TO SATELLITES USED

3. PERM: DO THE PLAN AND REEVALUATE OUR FORMS OF TECHNOSUBJECTIVITY

4. THE PERM SOLVES: COMBINING THE UNITING POWER OF SATELLITES AND

6. TURN: ATTEMPTS TO BAN TECHNOLOGY WILL ONLY RESULT IN

8. ALT CAN’T SOLVE THE CASE – REJECTING TECHNO-SUBJECTIVITY FAILS TO

4. No Link We don’t use modern renewables, we use a new technology that we

8. No Impact - even if we do steal the intrinsic values of nature, we still don’t

5. Cross-apply impact calc

2. NO RISK OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO SINO-SAUDI RELATIONS. COOPERATION WITH US

A. Low U.S.-Saudi relations prevent Middle East Terrorism

6. NO RISK OF NUCLEAR SAUDI ARABIA- MULTIPLE WARRANTS

And terrorism risks extinction

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

4. Investing in alternative energy is a more effective way to promote security.

2AC F 22 Tradeoff (3/3)

2. Air Force is being forced to scrap its F-22 proposals

6. No where in their Korea Herald card do they say continued production is

* Politics *

* Militarization *

* Topicality *