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

DA1: 1) Obama"s energy plan will pass- it is budget neutral by allocating federal revenue from oil and gas and it is built on Republican policy suggestions. Bipartisan support for the plan already exists, Republicans are just making noise for pro-oil concessions. Obama is expected to offer concessions on issues like Keystone pipeline to placate Republicans [1]. This just shows that the issue is at the brink, controversial spending only stands to hurt negotiations. 2) Pro"s source 3 says Tea Party favors PRIVITZATION of space and notably cites the prize-on-deliver Space X program as one the Tea Party supports. Pro is just the government contracting space development out, just like we do with military equipment. CP2 actually incentivizes private sector space engagement; Pro"s source [3] proves CP2 does not link to the tradeoff DA. 3) Republicans want to cut NASA funding and NASA funding is viewed as an issue Obama supports [3] Pro has private companies execute the job, but all funding is still provided by the USFG, making it tantamount to NASA spending: 4) Republicans want a balanced budget, any major spending will tick them off- even spending on a lunar colony [2]. 5) All Pro"s olive branch arguments are bogus, he offers one piece of evidence that only says the Tea Party wants a US moon (via the private sector) in the face of massive Republican opposition to spending and NASA funding. 6) Alternative energy is crucial to preventing catastrophic impacts of global warming. Global warming is an immediate and present threat to the survival of the human race, if we don"t act now we face the destruction of earth. The extinction threats cited by Pro (e.g. asteroids) are low probability " we have plenty of time to develop technology to solve. Prioritize immediate and solvable issues like global warming and oil dependence. DA2 1) Key Republicans like Paul Ryan think budget deal is possible, the key issue is a balanced budget. There is light at the end of the tunnel but massive long term spending will make a balanced budget impossible. [2] 2) My argument functions on two levels: the first is that major long term spending kills budget compromise, the second is that major long term deficit spending is independently undesirable given the current state of the US deficit. This second level impact is directly proportional to the amount of spending a plan requires; the more money spent the more damage done to the US deficit. Even if I lose that budget compromise will happen (which I won"t), I still win that deficit spending is undesirable. 3) Even if NASA isn"t the agent, my dollar estimate is still the most accurate- comparing the research required to develop terraforming technology, develop a way to implement it, then actually terraform the moon is a massive undertaking not at all comparable to the Dragon Spaceshuttle. Pro says he isn"t advocating a moon base, but later says terraforming could occur in an "enclosed space;" I guess he"s technically advocating a moon greenhouse? The fact is terraforming technology is science fiction at this point so no realistic cost estimate exists- such a program would be a trillion dollar decades long R&D effort. 4) Fixed price contracts have a history of failure, especially on non-standard research projects [4]. Pro"s bidding mechanism is just an incarnation of defense contract work- more inefficient government spending. Pro Case: 1)Pro concedes he only calls for bids but doesn"t guarantee funding. This means his case has no guaranteed solvency- Republicans will shut down funding, cross apply my DA1 arguments. 2)Calling for bids does nothing to spur industry- all it does is get some companies to price out the contract. Companies will do the minimum work required to put together a competitive bid and nothing more. Pro does literally nothing to help colonization. 3)Extend that terraforming the moon faces immense technical difficulties: solar radiation means the moon atmosphere is periodically destroyed, preventing atmosphere cultivation; enclosed structures face the problem of bombardment by space debris (think of all the craters on the moon); lunar soil IS a problem as it is fine and highly abrasive- it damages equipment and finds its way into everything. These are up front technical problems that will require extensive R&D, making Pro"s plan extremely expensive. 4)Even if the plan is put out but not funded, it still triggers DA1 and DA2- extend that NASA funding is viewed as an Obama issue. The right will view it as a massive push for government spending, tanking any hope for compromise on the budget and aggravating compromise on alternative energy. 5)Cross apply [4] that fixed price contracts have a history of failure, especially on cutting edge tech projects. Even if funded, Pro will fail. CP1: I will concede the perm- CP1 is not a reason to reject the resolution. CP2: 1)Perm fails a.Space privatization is the true olive branch- cross apply that Tea Party wants space privatization. Only CP2 privatizes space, meaning CP2 turns both DA1 and DA2 via the olive branch mechanism explained by Pro. Pro"s case is just another government space program, linking to DA1 and DA2. The Perm links to both DA"s while CP2 alone straight turns both. b.CP2 is factors of magnitude less expensive, meaning any risk of linking to spending DA is marginal compared to Pro. CP2 alone is best option. c.Extend my On-case: Pro is a do nothing plan while CP2 solves case. The massive solvency deficit means CP2 alone is best option. 2)Privatization of space solves industry and tech innovation infinitely better than Pro. CP2 links development of space technology to profit motives, ensuring long term commitment to development of space; Pro relies on continued government funding for solvency. Privatization spurs innovation through competition and engaging wider base. 3)Pro concedes CP2 solvency in his point 3) by saying X Prize solves- this effectively says status quo will solve case, which means Pro is still undesirable since he links to DA 1 and DA2. 4)Extend my R2 [6] " a $10 million dollar prize cause $100 million in private investment; this demonstrates the massive potential of prize-on-delivery for spurring private industry and the magnitude of cost efficiency involved. 5)Development of asteroid mining tech solves Pro"s extinction scenario- in case of emergency just shoot Bruce Willis into space while I look after Liv Tyler. 6)Resources are a prerequisite to colonization- Mining operations ensure access to minerals, hydrogen, etc. needed to sustain colonization. Mining better solves colonization than plan. 7)Mining anchors colonization efforts to industry- economic drive for mining access will spur technology needed for space colonization. CP2 establishes momentum for private sector drive for colonization, better capturing try-or-die scenario of plan. 8)Privatization offers best path to economically viable colonization. Private efforts ensure that most feasible space colonization effort emerges through free market innovation and economic pressure. Pro forces expensive R&D down the path of lunar colonization, ignoring the possibility that alternatives might be better. 9)If I win that CP2 alone solves colonization at least as well as the Plan, then any risk of DA1 or DA2 is a compelling reason to vote Con. CP2 best spurs industry and space colonization, so there is no reason to add trillions to the deficit on a government terraforming program, nor risk angering republicans with a massive spending proposal and tank the budget talks and Obama"s alternative energy plan. [1] http://www.ft.com... [2] http://www.cbsnews.com... [3]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...