The USFG should initiate a public contract bid for a pilot lunar terraforming project.

DA 1: 1. Pro says "no new arguments in rebuttals" then proceeds to give a brand new argument on CPI- his R3 CPI response was a one line statement with no explanation, NOT an argument; The entire CPI point should be thrown out. 2. Pro gives no explanation as to why filibusters and failure on other issues means GOP will shut down a bipartisan energy bill that is that brainchild of a GOP Alaskan Representative. The same can be said on the CPI issue- it just isn"t relevant. Prefer my analysis because it is topic specific- GOP wants Keystone concessions and Obama is preparing to make them, the energy bill is budget neutral. I am reposting my R3 evidence because it is now behind a pay wall (sorry! ) [1] 3. Even if I lose Uniqueness, CP2 turns the link so DA1 is a net-benefit AND superior CP2 solvency gives a reason to vote Con if DA1 disappears. B. Straight Turns: 1. Pro pays a company to do R&D on behalf of the government, the same way we pay Lockheed to build weapons for the military. Just like with military spending, as soon as government funds dry up, the jobs dry up; all the technology would be property of the government (i. e. the people who paid for it); theres no market force driving space exploration; etc. 2. Pro is using large amounts of government money to fund space research on behalf of the government- if it looks like NASA and it quacks like NASA, it probably isn"t a duck. Extend my evidence that Republicans want to defund NASA- the reasons they want it defunded isn"t because they don"t like the acronym, its because they don"t like the idea; Pro follows the idea of NASA. 3. PRO HAS NO EVIDENCE THAT REPUBLICANS WANT A LUNAR BASE. His initial R3 cite on this point says the following: "Tea Party in Space platform states, "Our goal is nothing less than the expansion of American civilization into the solar system. " And "TEA Party in Space wants is to stop the SLS program and put it all in the hands of private enterprise. " Pro"s own evidence explicitly states that the #1 concern is privatization and doesn"t support the moon being special. ONLY CP2 privatizes space, so only CP2 turns DA1. 4. CP2 isn"t major spending- extend my solvency that prize-on-delivery gets $100 million private investment for a $10 million prize; on top of this CP2 doesn"t require the creation of sci-fi terraforming technology and so will be much cheaper. The magnitudes of difference in cost means CP2 will look like a reasonable expense to mobilize a private sector takeover- remember GOP wants privatization; whereas plan is a government funded research project, CP2 is the cost of getting the government out of space. 5. Pro"s olive branch narrative makes zero sense. His premise is that offering the GOP the chance to vote against spending they don"t like will somehow foster bipartisanship- Dems let the GOP shoot down spending they don"t like ALL THE TIME. Also extend that NASA is viewed as an Obama issue so plan will look like Obama backed government spending and generate ill-will toward the president"s agenda. The true olive branch is CP2, a cheap way to privatize space. DA 2: A. Uniqueness 1. Pro"s source only indicates Boehner wants a balanced budget and doesn"t think Obama want one- this just shows theres work to be done. Optimism from Lew and Ryan shows both sides of the aisle still think a deal will happen. 2. Even if deficit spending happens now, every additional penny is a step in the wrong direction. Common sense says you pick the cheapest of two equivalent options. 3. Again, even if I lose Uniqueness I still turn the link via an olive branch. Worst case, no-uniqueness means DA2 is a wash while DA1 and CP2 solvency give a reason to vote Con. B. Turns 1. Pro"s plan isn"t a small scale program. Pro calls for development of technology not even close to existing, and of a means of implementing it on the moon, then actual implementation. The dragon was a repetition of a task we"ve been doing for decades. The expensive part of the plan is the massive R&D involved. Extend also that a moon base would cost $500 bil and Pro concedes he needs an "enclosed structure. " 2. Again, case is just a chance to deny spending not an olive branch. CP2 is the real olive branch. 3. Hey, let"s see what Republicans think of Space X in Pro"s R4 [1]: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala. ). Shelby said that the Obama administration's plan to elevate new contractors like SpaceX "is a plan where the taxpayer subsidizes billionaires to build rockets that NASA hopes one day will allow millionaires, and our own astronauts, to travel to space. The administration claims that if we build up this so-called commercial rocket industry, the private sector market will magically materialize. " Fine, I will grant that the plan "functions based on republican perception of an olive branch. " Its almost as if I paid a senator to restate my argument for me. Note: this is not a new argument, this is the first opportunity I had to respond to Pro"s evidence and it just affirms points already made. CP2: A. I never concede X Prize solves case, just that it proves prize mechanism solvency. Nothing about X Prize incentivizes space mining, which is key to tying space development to profit motive and establishing a resource supply line for colonization. Pro gives no evidence that X Prize does any of this, because it doesn"t. B. Pro drops all my arguments about how CP2 solves infinitely better than case. Only by tying market forces to space development do we create a long term mechanism for space colonization, spur competition and innovation, etc. The mining aspect is crucial to developing resource lines for future colonization. Plan will never receive funding, and even if it did its solvency would be contingent on continued government support. C. CP2 solves case while Plan doesn"t- this means if you buy Pro"s argument that the energy bill won"t pass, you sure as heck better vote Con and hope that we privatize space before global warming kills us all. Either way, I am winning the DA1 link debate. Case: A. Try-or-die is an impact: X-prize only proves mechanism solvency, the direction of space mining is crucial to CP2 solvency. Underview: A. Why I Win. 1. Pro concedes that CP2 solves case better than plan- this means all I have to do is show that CP2 is on balance neutral with the plan as far as DA1 and DA2 are concerned. 2. Pro concedes privatization of CP2, guaranteeing solvency to try-or-die. 3. Only CP2 solves try-or-die; it offers the only hope of colonizing space and avoiding extinction. I could concede his uniqueness on both DA1 and DA2 and win the debate on try-or-die alone. 4. CP2 is more favorable to DA1, three reasons: a. GOP views plan same as NASA, guaranteeing plan triggers the link. Every piece of evidence on this topic proves that GOP don"t want to fund space research, with Republicans specifically citing the Dragon X program Pro models as an Obama plan they hate. b. Even if I lose Uniqueness, privatization turns the link. Pro"s own evidence shows the right wants privatization, his own evidence shows they view Pro"s plan as more government spending. Only CP2 has access to the privatization olive branch. c. Even if you don"t buy the CP2 link turn, Plan will always link to DA1 on spending perception. 5. Pro has no claim to olive branch- giving the GOP a chance to not fund a program does nothing for bipartisanship. 6. The plan will always link to DA1 and DA2 stronger than CP2 via spending since plan is magnitudes more expensive- this means CP2 will always be at least equal with the plan. 7. If everything else in the debate is equal- vote con because CP2 is cheaper, its just common sense. The deficit spending link on DA2 is proportional to the magnitude of spending, so CP2 will always come out ahead. [1] . http://www.naturalgaseurope.com...