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

I would have wrote an aff... but I knew Con would do it for me. AT Disad1:A. Terminally non-unique: no political capital now. Opp's source 4 argues republicans need major concession. Also that republicans are unlikely to compromise on energy because of the Solyndra failure. Obama has no plans to grant oil concessions. Republican fillibuster use is at an all time high. This demonstrates no political capital for Obama. [1] CPI proves that even some concession will not mollify republican leaders. [2] They are stalwart. Massive failures in bipartisan action over the last 9 months (see budget debate sources) indicate that Obama's political capital is at an all time low. Obama will not be able to pass Alt Energy plans with his current political capital. B. Straight Turn: Republicans view Lunar Tech as an olive branch, as long as they control the funding. The resolution states that the USFG initiates a contract bid. It does not state that the USFG will fund a contract. Ultimately republicans, who hold fillibuster power, get to decide. If the price is too high, or the offer unsatisfactory, then they can refuse. Republicans want lunar tech... extend my opponents arguments stating that Bush junior, senior, and Newt Gingrich all advocated for it. He argues that Newt Gingrich was laughed at... Newt Gingrich won key space coast states in the primary because of his position! Also Romney's only position was that it would be expensive, extend the fact that republicans get to choose the price. Republicans desperately want to privatize the moon, as evidenced by the Tea Parties new pro lunar exploration platform. [3] The olive branch mollifies republicans on the energy debate. It gives them a quid-pro-quo for accepting the $2 billion budget. This indicates that I control the directionality of the DA 1 debate and that it functions as a Net Benefit to case. AT Disad 2: A. Non-unique: Budget Talks Will Fail SQ. Con cites the one man who's job is to paint a rosy picture for the budget talks. Too bad for him that the decision doesn't depend on the treasury secretary. John Boehner indicates no desire to compromise with Obama, frequently citing an fathomless idealogical divide. [4] Extend the CPI analysis from above. This proves no compromise will occur SQ. Budget talks have failed three times previously. In fact, with looming credit downgrades from Moody's and S&P republican leaders still failed to agree on the budget. [5] This is a massive argument propensity indicating that budget talks will fail barring some kind of major concession. B. Straight Turn: Case Solves the Budget Talk Crisis Extend the olive branch and "republicans decide spending" analysis. Con argues that this would be uber expensive for NASA. Luckily the private industry is not NASA. Elon Musk recently stated that launching the Dragon Spaceshuttle cost only $800 million. [6] This was the first private industry launch, and indicates the massive cost saving through privatization. Notice the resolution delineates "pilot program" and not "FULL FLEDGED MOON BASE OMG!". The cost of terraforming one cubic meter of the moon is likely much less than the current trips to the ISS that SpaceX already conducts. My opponent briefly argues that the government would have to keep spending in the same way that they do for F35 fighters. Not true, government contracts can be drafted as "fixed price". [7] Case rectifies the link debate because of promotion of bipartisan politics. Stepping across the isle and giving republicans control on the Space Program is an unprecedented step for the Obama administration. This has a high propensity of pacify Boehner on the spending debate, which means that I control the direcitonality of this scenario. AT CP 1:A. Perm do both. The CP is not mutually exclusive and does not suggest an opportunity cost. B. Links to DAs: CP1 supercharges the clean energy DA link level. Powering through some clean energy spending without bipartisan support makes republicans much less likely to support the $2 billion budget. CP1 externally link to the funding DA. In a world where Obama strongarms energy spending republican leaders are loathe to compromise on a budget. Passing CP1 suggests reckless partisan spending. Con tries to hedge arguments about CP1 not tripping the link level. He doesn't define spending levels for either CP1 or a brightline for the DA2. The only difference between this CP and plan is that plan allows republican leadership to choose spending or not. The counterplan mandates some spending level which is a link to the disad. CP 1 fails to turn either DA meaning they function as net benefits only to the case and the perm. Extend the solyndra argument from Con's own source. This is not an olive branch to republicans. C. CP 1 fails to garner the advantages of Case. AT CP 2: A. Perm do both. The CP offers no mutual exclusivity. It is not an opportunity lost. B. Links to DAs: CP 2 fails to rationalize the non-uniques of either disad, this indicates that both scenarios are terminally non-unique in a world of just CP 2. CP 2 fails to offer an olive branch, it mandates prize levels from the get go. Republicans are precluded from making a funding choice which is partisan in nature. This neither pacifies republicans on the budget debate nor does it allow them to choose spending levels on the alt energy debate. Furthermore CP 2 does not engage in the republican premise of moon colonization. A pilot terraforming program is an obvious step in this direction where as asteroid and lunar mining is not. CP 2 "industrial support" is captured by case as well. The private industry taking on the job indicates a Net Benefit for the private sector. C. Non-unique x-prize is already offering a prize for lunar rover technology. Rover technology is the lynchpen for mining operations because it solves the transportation issue. Extend con's arguments about x-prize being solvent. [8] D. The CP does not capture the try-or-die advantge on case. Meaning even in a world where CP somehow avoids the DA, it still is outweighed magnititudinally on case. Case Advantage: Try-or-Die A. Stephen Hawking and prevelant thinkers suggest that life on earth is vunerable to a serious extinction threat within the next 100 years. This may occur via asteroid collisions, accidental nuclear launch resulting in thermo-nuclear war, oceanic methane pockets rupturing, ocean acidfication via the carbonic cycle, and various other man-made/natural phenomena. [9]B. Case provides the necessary first step to getting off the rock. It begins the technological innvotation necessary for creating habitats on other stellar bodies. This is an advantage over space stations because allows proximity to necessary resources. C. Con makes arguments about no atmopshere being an impediment to implementation. Luckily terraforming is partially the process of creating an artifical atmopshere. A pilot-project would do so within a contained space where it would not be lost to vacuum. D. Con also makes some arguments about the scary soil (c'mon you're an engineer dude...). Contained spaces solves for lunar dust as does technological innovation.E. Ultimately this advantage outweighs all other impacts in the round. It is a try or die scenario for human and all other forms of life. Neither CP isolates this. Time-frame analysis is pretty pointless in a world where it is our only chance.Misc Case AttacksA. This won't bankrupt the economy since republicans have budget control and the fillibuster. PresumptionA. Even in a world where republican leaders strike down all proposals and do not fund anything the case is net beneficial. It invigorates industry to consider the problem which is still a form of progress. No case pacifies DA links. Sources: http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com... http://tinyurl.com...