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

Overview:These are the rebuttals which mean two things. First new arguments shouldn't be considered, and second, previously dropped arugments are dropped. My opponent drops a few too many arguments to win this debate. DA 1:A. Uniqueness Debate Dropping CPI is a death knell to my opponent. Republican leaders blatantly stated that concessions on chained CPI would allow them to vote for the budget deal. When Obama agreed to concede chained CPI they literally retracted their position and refused to compromise. This demonstrates that republicans have no desire to compromise on the issue no matter the concession offered to them. My opponent tries to say keystone concessions will work... but he fails to interact with my concessions argument. Additionally, Obama has already struck down keystone once and my opponent's source is inaccessible. These are all indicators that republicans will not collaborate on renewables. My opponent also fails to interact with either my fillibuster or failed budget analysis. These are all indications that there is no chance of the alternative energy plan passing. Con articulates that this plan not passing means that global warming will overtake the human race and cause extinction. He also articulates that this is the most plausible and largest impact which I will concede. The dropped uniqueness means that extinction is going to happen status quo, case only has a chance of saving us. B. Straight Turns: Con argues that plan doesn't privatize space. Yes it does, it offers money to a private company to do something in space. It is a shift from NASA (a government organization) to a company (the private industry) doing space missions. The definition of privatization is "the process of transferring a public enterprise to the private sector." Let's consider for a moment that plan and counterplan are effectively doing the same thing. They both take money from tax payer dollars and they both give them to a private organization. Con briefly says that my plan is tantamount to NASA spending. No it's not, it gives the money to a private organization to do the job. Counterplan also gives money to a private organization to complete a job. They are not functionally different on this level. If I stopped there, we could conclude that CP and Plan are equal. But my opponent drops his three examples of key republican leaders wanting moon bases. He's also drops that the tea party specifically wants a "Lunar Base" This is an indication that my plan has a much better chance of turning the DA1, since CP does not advocate lunar bases. And finally, my opponent straight loses the debate with his final arugment on this turn. Con states, "Republicans want a balanced budget, any major spending will tick them off". Which is the beauty of my case, and the reason the counterplan fails. Case allows republicans to choose the spending level, meaning it is viewed as the ultimate olive branch. Meanwhile counterplan, as written by my opponent, states that a prize will be given. This means that counterplan gives republicans absolutely no say over the number one issue that they care about. Remember voters, I only need a risk of prevening extinction to win this debate round. Plan is simply an olive branch to republicans from democrats. Instead of a concession, it gives them the ability to run a program. It doesn't pigeon hole them into spending; the counterplan does pigeon hole them. Additionally the counterplan spending is never specified which indicates that it still has a major risk of biting this DA. DA 2:A. Uniqueness I need very few arguments here. My opponent cites that Paul Ryan is hopeful. Too bad the person in control is John Boehner, the house majority leader. My source indicates that he won't compromise, meaning Paul Ryan's hope is vapid. My opponent briefly articulates that deficit spending is bad. I still say it happens anyways. Extend the arguments about CPI and the deficit talks failing three times. In fact, I articulate in round 3 that republicans wouldn't compromise on the deficit even when the United States was on the verge of a double credit downgrade. There is absolutely no chance that they compromise now. This means long term deficit spending is going to happen status quo and there is only a chance of turning it around. B. Turns Con tries to argue again that terraforming is expensive. He says it would be more expensive than launching the dragon. There is no chance that this is true. The dragon was a full scale space flight to the ISS, it was not a small scale pilot program. Creating a tiny terraforming area on the lunar surface does not even necessitate human involvement. Consider for a moment that developing a fully automated robot (Curiosity) and sending it to planet 100x further away (Mars), required only 2.5 billion dollars. And now remember that this is a private company (cheaper) doing the mission much closer to earth. Regardless case rectifies the link debate by offering the republicans an open check to do with what they please. If they think it is too expensive then they can not do it. This indicates that the olive branch argumentation is true and that case turns this DA. CP2 doesn't for the same reasons as above. Finally my opponent argues that fixed price contracts have a history of failure. Maybe in general, but not in space: see SpaceX contract from NASA lololololol [1]. But also the argument doesn't interact with my turns. On a timeline the turns preceed whether or not the program succeeds because they functions based on republican perception of an olive branch. CP2:A. Extend my opponent's #3 argument where he says, "by saying X Prize solves- this effectively says status quo will solve case." Now extend my argument where I say that X-Prize is already offering my opponents counterplan. This means that the try-or-die scenario is solved SQ and that DA1 becomes the largest/only impact in this debate round. My opponent also argues that DA1 is the most probable. B. This also means plan and CP have no meaningful difference excepting how they interact with DA1. My opponent's arguments about industry invigoration are meaningles in a world where the prize is already being offered. C. However, while the CP and Plan don't have impacts anymore, they are different in-so-far as they associate with DA1. Con makes a mistake by dropping my argument stating that x-prize is already solving the CP. This is an indication that republican leaders will view CP as a redudancy. Meanwhile, plan is a novel concept, which is advocated by republican leaders and the tea party. Case: A. I don't need any of these arugments. My opponent concedes that x-prize is already solving the try-or-die, it's not an impact in this round. Underview:A. Why I Win. The only tangible impact in this debate round is DA1. Too many dropped arguments on DA1 uniqueness indicates that extinction will happen now. Case and CP only have a chance of solving this. First, CP2 fails to turn DA1 because it is not a lunar base. Both my opponents argument about republican leaders and my arguments about the tea party call for steps to a lunar base. Second, CP2 mandates spending, which my opponent dileneates as the #1 hot button issue for republicans. It does not give republicans the option of saying no. My opponent never specifies the cost of CP2, which means I win risk that it further alienates republicans. Third, CP2 is already implemented status quo via x-prize. This means republican leaders will view any spending on CP2 as UBER useless. For all these reasons CP2 has no risk of being the olive branch that republicans are looking for. Plan does. First, plan advocates a lunar base. Second, plan gives republicans the purse strings, they can decide if they'd like. Third, plan is not an already existant program. For all of these reasons, plan is the olive branch republicans need. It only has a risk of solving the GW extinction scenario. As a bonus, plan turns DA2! Sources: http://tinyurl.com...