Policy Debate 2011-2012 Resolution

Road Map: 1. Inherency 2. Topicality(?) 3. Solvency/Debris 4. Spending 5. Advantage 6. Overview Basically, what my opponent has said is that my case is missing a lot of vital information, therefore I should lose the debate. I will now show why he is wrong and that he has missed many things because he has not read my case carefully and why the round goes to Pro First, Inherency: - Apparently, you missed the plan text in the very first round. I had assumed you had read it because you agreed to my terms and accepted this debate. Both the plan text and res are stated in round 1 but here it is again: "The USFG should commit to the commercial development and deployment of space based solar power satellites in Sub-Molniya orbits and utilize Fresnal lenses to concentrate solar energy for a High Concentration Photovoltaic power system." My inherency cards are the very first cards that I bring up in the case right before I go into the advantages. They both say that the tech exists and our inherent barrier is that we just haven't put it together yet. Keep in mind that this is not a new argument, just information in my cards that I wish to clarify because my opponent has missed it. Also, Con keeps saying that Solaren has done the plan. This is a blatant lie. Solaren has not done the plan, if you look in his cards, and willl not solve anyway because they are a PRIVATE COMPANY, not the USFG. Solaren will, as all private companies, build SPS for the benefit of their company. And again, my U.S. Chamber of Commerce 8 card states that government involvement is necessary to get the full benefits. Con has not addressed this at all. Topicalty(?): - So what my opponent is doing is using Topicality arguments as a time suck. He does not even know how to run one as I have shown in my last speech. Therefore, this should not result as a voter against me. Disregard and drop his entire T argument and not the debater. I will move on assuming that the Con has accepted my definitions and will not bring up this ridiculous argument any further in this debate. Solvency/Debris: - Like I've said before, Con's debris argument has NO LINK to my SPS case at all because we will utilize Sub-Molniya orbit which is an area where SPS will not be affected by space debris. (Jones 10) - Con has not sufficiently addressed my turn and he makes up analytics, whereas I have evidence from my case saying that SPS will not be affected at all by space junk and SPS can also solve that problem. Our terminal impact of human extinction, which Con has dropped, also outweighs the impact of space debris. Also, we've been post-brink and past the tipping point for many years now, and nothing has happened. - Again, there is no impact OR link for his space debris argument. The tag mentions something about SPS but the evidence holds nothing. There is also nothing in the card that says why space debris is a bad problem. So, I don't link into his debris disadvantage and am not affected by it in any way. No link, no impact, no argument. Spending: - I don't even need to give a cost. The point is, if federal spending funds SPS, then the outcome would be that we would have a massive source of revenue from the power generated. We could use it to power our industries and even sell energy to indutrial countries like China. Of course, SPS is economically feasible. Otherwise, I wouldn't have an inherency card stating that the money and the technology are there, we just haven't combined them to make SPS. - Yes, I do believe the average American matters. In fact, they are so important that we should spend and inject new jobs into the economy and boost consumer confidence, the aerospace industry, and the workforce in that industry. Again, look back at the Hoover Dam example. The U.S. was in the Great Depression. Our economy was in the toilet(worse than we are in now), and yet we still spent government money and successfully created a new source of income. That's exactly what SPS will do. So, basically, we SOLVE for spending. - Extend my no impact argument and the straight turn both of which Con has not addressed. It's too late now, he can't bring up an impact(why spending is bad) in the next speech and he can't refute the straight turn either. - Also, my extinction impact outweighs anything he would bring up anyway(most likely would have been economic collapse) - My opponent has just lost his entire Spending DA. Advantages: - How will extinction impact the average American? Well, it wouldn't really affect them besides the fact that everyone DIES. Seriously? Con has conceded my entire global warming advantage so he agrees with me that SPS will stop global warming and save everyone from extinction. Con keeps complaining that I should not be able to bring up new arguments in the rebuttals but he really should not be saying anything if he's going to try to refute my global warming advantage... Pro should win just off of the fact that Con has dropped and conceded my second advantage. Therefore, I win on all stock issues: - Inherency: I have sufficiently shown that SPS has not yet been built, that all we need to do is put it together, and that private companies such as Solaren do not have the technology that we use, nor can they solve like the federal government will if SPS is implemented. - Harms/Solvency: Space debris and technology are really the only arguments he brings up about this, and by showing that we are not affected by debris, turning the disadvantage, and proving that there is no impact to the argument anyway, his entire debris/solvency argument falls apart. As for the technology not being ready... well, I don't have to address this anyway, because Con doesn't extend this in the second rebuttal but let me just say that critics of SPS base their argument on flawed data and designs so since he has not attacked this either. You should assume that Con agrees; his author's arguments are flawed and incoherent. The argument that SPS can be inflatable further supports my solvency defense taking out his other solvency argument that SPS will not go for another three decades due to lack of a feasible launch solution. Con has also conceded this, thus, I strongly urge a vote for the affirmative.