Policy Debate 2011-2012 Resolution

Sorry for some missing credentials in my cards in the 1AC, I needed more room to make arguments. .. Road Map: 1. Inherency 1 2. Topicality 3. Solvency/Inherency 2 4. Spending 5. Debris 6. Advantages Inherency 1: - First of all, Con is saying that SPS will not be built because Solaren is already doing this, but Solaren's SPS will not make use of Sub-Molniya Orbits and Fresnal lenses like my SPS does. They do not have the technology that the federal government has. What's more, extend my U. S. Chamber of Commerce 8 card which states that the U. S. federal government involvement is key in building SPS and getting the global advantages we need. Also, Solaren is a PRIVATE company which means that there WILL be a solvency deficit and they will create SPS for their own benefit Topicality: - First on his "SPS is a violation" argument: Double bind: If he's going to bring this argument up, he also contradicts and takes out his own Inherency argument that Solaren is already doing the plan and that it will be better. Keep note of that as you go down the flow. Also, he has no link to that card, anyway. No where in that evidence does it say that SPS specifically will be a weapon(which it won't). - Next, he brings up some definitions of his own presumably to challenge mine. Well, you can't really call this a T argument at all actually. .. He gives no reasons to prefer his definitions nor any reasons why T matters in this debate. You can take that right out of the flow. So prefer my definitions which are more fair and give the Con enough ground and limit my own. Solvency/Inherency 2: - The Con states that SPS will not be built because it is not feasible due to the fact that we don't have any way to get it up into space and that the tech is not ready. Extend my SSPW 11 card which states that SPS critics base their argument on flawed data and designs. Their arguments come from critics of SPS who have been looking at bad plans for SPS. Given the great advancements in SPS technology, we are ready to build it now, but what's stopping us is that we just haven't put it together yet. As for launch mechanisms, SPS need not be launched into space using rockets; we can utilize inflatable SPS as shown in this card Inflatable SPS solves feasibility and monetary issues. Brown '09 [Trevor, author focused on political, economic, and military strategy for the medium of space. He holds a BA from Indiana University and an MSc from Nanyang Technological University, SSP: a spherical architecture, June 1, 2009, . http://www.thespacereview.com...] The concept of an inflatable photovoltaic sphere is a simple idea that could possibly overcome many of the obstacles that SSP faces. By crafting a balloon-like satellite, the inflatable sphere would eliminate the many structural components that conventional SSP spacecraft possess. the inflatable sphere would slash the overall launch costs by lessening the amount of launches required while still producing a massive surface area for the production of solar energy Spending: -Now on to spending: Okay NO IMPACT anywhere on the evidence. This is a huge problem for Con. If he can't show why spending is bad, he really has NO argument against SPS. -Anyway, it's also non-unique because we've been spending so much and also turn the link; spending has and will boost the economy. Recent stimulus plans have helped us out and that involves federal spending. The Hoover Dam successfully provides lots of energy for everyone and that also involved federal spending in an economy that was WORSE than the one we are in right now. So, straight turn this entire DA. Debris: - My opponent argues that space debris will stop SPS from being launched into space, however, SPS will not be affected by space debris as proven in my Jones 10 card which states that Sub-Molniya orbits resolve all feasibility issues. SBSP satellites are safe from debris Powersat 2010((international SBSP cooperation) . http://www.powersat.com...) JA Collision with space junk is unlikely for a number of reasons. PowerSats reside in a geosynchronous orbit which is much higher than the low earth orbit debris band. -That orbit is the Sub-Molniya Orbit. -Link turn: SPS will also SOLVE for space debris as shown in this card SPS solves Space Debris Examiner, '10, December 11th, 2010, (Troy Pearce, Solar powered micro-satellite will clean space debris, . http://www.examiner.com...) We are constantly sending satellites, experimental space planes, and privately owned space crafts into orbit. NASA working on a way to eliminate the thousands of unused satellites. This makes them the first agency to eject a micro-satellite from a larger, solar powered satellite. This proves that NASA has the capability to deploy a small cubesat payload from an autonomous micro-satellite in space. Advantages: -Extend my first advantages which my opponent has conceded. SPS will solve for energy problems, global warming, and extinction. Becuase of how serious of an impact extinction is, I control magnitude, timeframe, and probability of all impacts and outweigh the impacts of the Con (if he has any). He has also dropped and conceded the fact that SPS will end dependency on the fossil fuel market by providing virtually UNLIMITED clean baseload energy.