Atlanta Urban Debate League jv and Varsity Updates
Download 100.07 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Debating the NASA Disadvantage
- ***Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage***
More at atlantadebate.org
Table of Contents 2014 Topic -- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans. Debating the NASA Disadvantage 3 ***Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage*** 4 Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage 5 Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage 6 Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage 7 Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage 8 ***Negative Articles*** 9 Negative Article: “House Republicans Question NASA Funding” 10 Negative Article: “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?” 12 Negative Article: “American Leadership” 14 Negative Article: “CSIS Commission on Smart Power” 16 Negative Article: “Invest In NASA, Invest In U.S. Economy” 17 Negative Article: “Private Companies Won't Take the Lead in Space Exploration” 19 ***Affirmative Articles*** 20 Affirmative Article: “Review of Space Plans Led to Changes at NASA” 21 Affirmative Article: “Billionaires With Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science” 22 Affirmative Article: “The Soft Power Fallacy” 23 Affirmative Article: “Changing America's International Image” 25 ***Glossary*** 27 Glossary 28 Debating the NASA DisadvantageThe NASA disadvantage, which is useful against the aquaculture affirmative as well as the varsity NOPP affirmative, argues that the plan's investment in the oceans trades off with current investment in NASA. The negative argues that, since NASA programs are extremely visible and frequently involve cooperation with other countries, NASA is an important way to promote international cooperation. The Armitage and Nye article argues that this cooperation is important to resolve a number of other global problems, including terrorism, disease, and nuclear proliferation. The four affirmative articles respond to the disadvantage in a few ways. On the uniqueness level, the affirmative can argue that NASA is not well-funded right now. On the link level, the affirmative can argue that federal government support for NASA is relatively unimportant, since private companies also fund space exploration. Finally, two affirmative articles question the effectiveness and likelihood of American-led international cooperation. The affirmative can also try to find other creative ways to answer the disadvantage. This might include thinking about how the affirmative case impacts interact with the disadvantage, or questioning the likelihood that there would be a tradeoff in funding between ocean research and NASA. ***Sample 1NC – NASA Disadvantage***Sample 1NC – NASA DisadvantageA. Uniqueness – NASA is adequately funded now, but there is political pressure to cut its budget Diaz, 14 (Kevin Diaz, Washington Bureau reporter for the San Antonio Express-News. Published September 14, 2014. Available at http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/House-Republicans-question-NASA-funding-5755385.php) There is no longer any question that the Space Launch System and the Orion crew capsule, which rolled out of the hangar this week, remain at the core of U.S. space exploration policy. “Basically, what it comes down to is, do you want to have an exploration program or not?” said Doug Cooke, who spearheaded the Space Launch System as the former associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA. Whether the future mission is the Moon, an asteroid or Mars, NASA needs a big rocket that can send heavy payloads deep into space, he said. That has brought annual funding for the Space Launch System into sharper focus this month. While NASA assures Congress that the program is on a solid glide path, Cooke worries a sloppy budget fight in the coming weeks could set it back. Obama's 2015 budget request for NASA was $17.46 billion, a 1 percent cut from the $17.6 billion Congress gave the agency for fiscal year 2014, which ends Sept. 30. That includes some $1.7 billion for the Space Launch System — and another $133 million for the controversial asteroid mission, which has run into renewed skepticism in Congress, particularly if it stretches dollars thin for development of the Space Launch System. Smith sounded the alarm again in July when the Government Accountability Office concluded NASA's funding plan for the Space Launch System was $400 million short of what it needs to launch by 2017. But the immediate hitch is that Congress is nowhere near passing a 2015 NASA budget, with the most likely scenario being a stopgap funding measure.
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 100.07 Kb. Share with your friends:
|