Atlanta Urban Debate League Space Affirmative Case & Negative Answers

Download 147.84 Kb.
Size147.84 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

Page of

2016-2017 Atlanta Urban Debate League

Space Affirmative Case & Negative Answers

2016 Space Affirmative with Negative Answers

Packet- MS Varsity/ HS Open version

Topic – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

More resources at

Table of Contents

Intro—Affirmative 3

Intro—Negative 4

***Space Affirmative*** 5

Plan 6

***1AC—Inherency*** 7

***1AC—Relations Advantage (1/3)*** 8

***1AC—Relations Advantage (2/3)*** 9

***1AC—Relations Advantage (3/3)*** 10

***1AC—Space Leadership Advantage (1/2)*** 11

***1AC—Space Leadership Advantage (2/2)*** 12

***Extensions —Relations Advantage (1/1)*** 13

***Extensions —Space Leadership Advantage (1/1)*** 15

***2AC answers to case arguments (1/6) *** 17

***2AC answers to case arguments (2/6) *** 18

***2AC answers to case arguments (3/6)*** 19

***2AC answers to case arguments (4/6)*** 20

***2AC answers to case arguments (5/6)*** 21

***2AC answers to case arguments (6/6)*** 22

*** Negative arguments *** 23

***1NC Case Answers for Relations ADV (1/2)*** 24

***1NC Case Answers for Relations ADV (2/2)*** 25

***1NC Case Answers for Space Leadership ADV (1/1)*** 26

***Extensions for Answers to Relations ADV(1/1)*** 27

***Extensions for Answers to Space Leadership ADV (1/1)*** 28


This affirmative argues that the United States should use diplomacy with China to increase cooperation over outer space activities, specifically over removing space debris. Space debris is trash that is orbiting in space that could potentially collide with satellites and make outer space unusable. It is an enormous problem that threatens both United States and Chinese satellites.
The status quo prevents the United States and China from cooperating over civil space activities, due to a law called the Wolf Amendment, which bans NASA from cooperating with Chinese scientists. The affirmative plan would lift that ban to allow scientists from both countries to work on solutions for tracking and removing space debris.
The first advantage claims that because the United States and China don’t formally cooperate over space, they don’t share information about either country’s space program and they fear that each program could be used for military uses. Space technology is dual use – which means most technology can be used for both military and civilian purposes. For example, the GPS on your phone was developed by the Department of Defense for the purpose of moving troops accurately. The affirmative claims that the lack of cooperation has increased mistrust between the United States and China, and that this mistrust may result in conflicts in space that could cause war. The affirmative solves this because increasing cooperation will increase dialogue and transparency over each country’s space program, and will reassure them that the other country’s intentions are benign.
The second advantage claims that the United States refusal to cooperate with China undermines its leadership in outer space internationally. The United States is not seen as a credible leader because it is not willing to work with one of the largest space programs in the world. This cost on leadership means that the international community is far less likely to listen to the United States on cleaning up space debris or forming arms control agreements on outer space activities. The affirmative solves both by working directly with China to clean up space debris, but also by increasing the credibility of US diplomacy on a global scale.


Versus the Relations Advantage, the negative will argue that commercial cooperation solves. This argument is referring to a 2015 agreement where a U.S. company named NanoRacks agreed to take Chinese DNA up into space for them. This agreement would functionally allow the U.S. and China to cooperate together on space matters. The negative argument here is we do not need the governments to do anything if corporations can do this on their own.
The argument that “China cannot Challenge the U.S.” is an argument about China’s military is not strong enough to challenge the U.S., since China is far behind technologically. As a result, the chance of a Chinese challenger to American leadership through conflict is very low.
And the last argument says that there are economic incentives that would prevent a war. This theory is called “economic interdependence,” which claims countries that trade with each other, like the U.S. and China, understand that they may not be as economically successful without the other. For that reason, their leaders will be skeptical of escalation to an actual “shooting war.”

Versus the Space Leadership advantage the negative will say that U.S. space leadership is high now, since the US is still vastly more involved in space than any other country, which renders the affirmative plan unnecessary. Additionally, this suggests that since the U.S. has both the Wolf Amendment AND strong space leadership now, there is only a risk of weakening that leadership by allowing China access to American space technology.

The second argument is that Space debris is not a significant threat. The argument here is that the authors of the 1AC exaggerate the threat that could come about from a collision in space, because we have early warning systems and other technology in place to determine the cause of any collision.

Download 147.84 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8

The database is protected by copyright © 2020
send message

    Main page