The USFG Should Substantially Increase Its Exploration of Earths Oceans

I'll post citations in the commentsGreetings, judges. This is the negative's first constructive, and the base reasons for why you vote negative on this debate.First, TopicalityIt was previously established that the resolution of this debate would be "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its non-military development and/or exploration of the earth's oeans." They are not topical to this resolution for a few reasons:T-DevelopmentWe define development as "utilization of a resource".That's Daniel Owen of 2003 They do not meet this interpretation because their plan doesn't develop "ocean resources". This is a voter issue for 2 reasons:Ground---resource-focus provides a stable and predictable direction for the topic and creates a balanced set of arguments for each side---depth of literature on oil, gas, and renewables is strong and creates high-quality debatesLimits---other interpretations make all ocean activity topical---explodes research burdens and makes preparation impossible T-Exploration“Exploration” must include data collection. That's Nortquist of 2007.Aff doesn’t---voting issue for functional limits---there are few exclusive definitions of “exploration” or “development”---requiring at least one central activity provides stable ground that functionally limits out tiny Affs that can’t beat a PIC out of data---limits are key to manageable research, preparation, and clash T-ItsWe define "its" as it appears in the resolution to refer to the USFG as it stands and is possessive. That's Updegrave of 1991. They do not meet this interpretation because the affirmative does not use the USFG as its actor, they specify no other actor than the Arctic Offshore Mining Committee. This is a voter issue for 3 reasons:1. Limits---allowing effectual reductions explodes the topic. Any action can potentially result in less exploration/development. Limits are key to depth of preparation and clash. 2. Ground---our interpretation is key to establish a stable mechanism of legal prohibition that guarantees core ground based on topic direction. They allow the Aff to defend completely different processes that dodge core DAs and rob the best counterplan ground.3. Effects—the plan itself doesn’t explore, it gets other organizations to do it. That can potentially explode the topic Next, a Critique of CapitalismWe are at a crossroads – capitalism’s cumulative impact across Earth’s biological realms has created a metabolic rift. Critical interrogation of capitalist ocean policy is necessary for historical materialist praxis. That's Rebecca Clausen and Brent Clark of 2005. The affirmative does a few things that problematizes capitalism's impact on Earth: First, their approach to rare earth metals as a commodity inherently is embedded in the logic of capitalism. That's Exner, Lauk, and Zittel of 2014.Next, Fear of economic crisis will always be exploited to prevent radical social change. These fears are not objective, but make sense only if we take for granted the logic of capitalism. That's Zizek in 1997.Third, Attempts to cure recession have led to continued crisis – further attempts to remedy economic meltdown will lead to never ending wars. That's Zizek in 9.Fourth, The aff's faith in the state as an agent of social change draws on a concept of civil society that serves to further capitalism. That's Meikisens-Wood in 95.Fifth, Only when we break away from the state can we have a successful revolution. That;s Negri in 2009. Capitalism’s exploitation of labor and resources will collapse modern civilization—radical redistribution of resources is necessary to avert mass violence. That's Ahmed of 2014. Lastly, Voting negative rejects their mechanistic market approach to ecology in favor of revolutionizing social relations for sustainable socialist praxis. That's Foster of 2008. Thus, our alternative is to vote negative in order to endorse a strategy of revolutionizing social relations for sustainable socialist praxis.The CaseFirst, their representation of economy is all hype-- there is no impact to economic decline. That's Drezner of 2012.Second, there is no correlation between US involvement in anything and international stability. That's Fettweis, 11 Finally, While it’s true that China has a hegemony over “rare earth minerals”, it’s all hype—China’s “heg” means nothing as a) it’s unsustainable, b) rare earth metals are not rare. This takes out their call to solvency. That's Wortsall 10. Open for Cross-X.