Georgetown 201112

1 Its M|chae| koo

1
T - ITS 1NC SHELL

1. The interpretation - Its means ownership or possession to the noun it refers to
English Grammar 5
(Clossary of Lngllsh Crammar 1erms hLLp//wwwuslngengllshcom/glossary/possesslvepronounhLml)

Mlne yours hls hers lLs ours Lhelrs are Lhe possesslve pronouns used Lo subsLlLuLe a noun and Lo show
possesslon or ownershlp LC 1hls ls your dlsk and LhaLs mlne (Mlne subsLlLuLes Lhe word dlsk and shows LhaL lL
belongs Lo me)

. VioIation - The pIan has the FederaI Government buying private actor's SoIar
Power which does not beIong to the USFG

3. Standards

A. Limits- Our interpretation specificaIIy targets projects by the U.S. federaI
government. AIIowing the private sector to be incIuded in the industry aIIows the
AFF to run pIans that target specific private projects on any project with non
governmentaI actors or other governments. This creates infinite avenues through
which pIans couId be advocated making an impossibIe research burden for the
negative.

8 NLG ground Cur |nterpretat|on makes the NLG ground reasonab|e w|thout over ||m|t|ng
the AII 1he aff |nterpretat|on stea|s core neg ground counterp|ans and d|sadvantages
re|ated to the free market and |nternat|ona| actors here's a ||st of C you stea|!!
Iakhu 8uzdugan lnsLlLuLe of Alr and Space Law McClll unlverslLy 8 (SepLember 2008 8am
Marla AsLropollLlcs uLvLLCMLn1 Cl 1PL nA1u8AL 8LSCu8CLS Cl 1PL MCCn Anu C1PL8
CLLLS1lAL 8CulLS LCCnCMlC Anu LLCAL ASLC1S" volume 6 number 3 !M)
1he nexL secLlon Lurns Lo Lhe lssue under debaLe as Lo wheLher Lhe governmenL should geL lnvolved ln asslsLlng
largescale developmenL of Lhe space fleld by Lhe prlvaLe secLor and lf so whaL are Lhe ways ln whlch
governmenLs can geL lnvolved CovernmenL lncenLlves Lo romoLe rlvaLe SecLor lnvolvemenL Clven Lhe percelved
dlfflculLles LhaL confronL prlvaLe companles from sLarLlng largescale developmenL of space appllcaLlons relaLed Lo
naLural resources from Lhe Moon and oLher celesLlal bodles governmenLs should asslsL Lhe prlvaLe secLor ln
several ways lL can be expecLed LhaL Lhe prlvaLe secLor mlghL Lake over once Lhe dlfflculLles of coverlng Lhe sLarL
up cosLs and bulldlng lnlLlal lnfrasLrucLure are overcome
Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


AsslsLance can Lake on dlfferenL arrangemenLs dlscussed below 1 lundlng 8aslc 8esearch and uevelopmenL
(8u) Lspeclally ln Lhose areas where 8u cosLs are hlgh Lhe payback Llmes are long and Lhe percelved
rlsks are hlgh governmenLs could provlde fundlng for 8u63 1he resulLs of governmenLfunded 8u should be
made avallable Lo all compeLlng prlvaLe companles Lhus ensurlng a basls for falr compeLlLlon64 2 lundlng
ueploymenL of lnlLlal lnfrasLrucLure CovernmenLs should fund Lhe lnlLlal lnfrasLrucLure for example a space
sLaLlon and lnLerorblLal vehlcles63 1he servlces provlded by such lnfrasLrucLure should be aucLloned Lo Lhe
hlghesL bldder however Lhe prlvaLe secLor should be allowed Lo provlde addlLlonal servlces Cnce Lhe
prlvaLe secLor sLarLs provldlng Lhe same servlces Lhe governmenL should leL Lhe prlvaLe secLor Lake over
LhaL markeL66 3 rovldlng a CuaranLeed MarkeL/lnlLlal CusLomer Pere Lhe governmenL should noL fund any
developmenL buL slmply guaranLee a mlnlmum markeL for Lhe producLs resulLlng from Lhe exLracLlon and use of
space resources 1he prlvaLe secLor needs Lo be sure LhaL lf Lhey produce for example fuel propellanLs or
radlaLlon shleldlng from lunar maLerlals Lhese producLs noL only wlll be markeLable buL LhaL Lhere ls an
lmmedlaLe cusLomer for Lhem and Lhere ls a guaranLeed prlce for producLs and servlces from space
maLerlals67 CovernmenLs could guaranLee LhaL Lhey would buy a cerLaln quanLlLy of such producLs aL a
cerLaln prlce ln case no oLher cusLomer made a slmllar offer Cbvlously lf a prlvaLe cusLomer offers a
hlgher prlce Lhe governmenL ls relleved of Lhe obllgaLlon Lo buy Lhe producLs68 4 rovldlng CovernmenL
sponsored lnsurance Slnce space based acLlvlLles are hlgh rlsk Lhe lnsurance cosLs Lo cover such endeavors are
also very hlgh69 8uylng sufflclenL lnsurance ls ln many lnsLances an obsLacle for sLarLup companles Lo geL lnLo
Lhe space buslness CovernmenLs could cover parLlally Lhe lnsurance assoclaLed wlLh carrylng ouL exploraLlon and
exLracLlon of resources on Lhe Moon or oLher celesLlal bodles70 ln Lhls way Lhe sLarLup cosLs and Lhe rlsk for
lnLeresLed prlvaLe companles would be reduced 3 LnacLlng LeglslaLlon rovldlng Lhe necessary 8egulaLory
lramework for romoLlon and LlberallzaLlon of Commerclal Space AcLlvlLles CovernmenLs should adopL laws and
regulaLlons LhaL would clarlfy lssues of prlvaLe properLy and lnLellecLual properLy relaLed Lo exploraLlon and use of
space naLural resources conslsLenL wlLh Lhelr lnLernaLlonal responslblllLles Also a proper regulaLory
framework needs Lo address lssues of publlc lnLeresL and safeLy SLeve uoyle summarlzed Lhe role of
governmenLs ''1he funcLlon of governmenLs ls Lo proLecL Lhe publlc lnLeresL by llcenslng or oLherwlse
regulaLlng Lhe use of resources and ensurlng LhaL commerclal operaLlons are safe and envlronmenLally
accepLable''71 6 CranLlng 1ax lncenLlves and Loans aL referred lnLeresL 8aLes lollowlng Lhe same raLlonale as
above lL ls suggesLed LhaL governmenLs should provlde lnLeresLed prlvaLe companles wlLh Lax lncenLlves and loans
aL lower lnLeresL raLes Lhan hlghrlsk loans 7 Sponsorshlp of uevelopmenL of ApproprlaLe 1echnology and
SysLems uevelopmenL Such lnlLlaLlve ls underLaken ln Lhe uS where nASA's CenLennlal Challenge program
cosponsors wlLh Lhe xrlze loundaLlon a compeLlLlon offerlng $2 mllllon Lo Lhe prlvaLe company LhaL deslgns a
Lunar Lander Analog 1hls challenge alms Lo sLlmulaLe Lhe developmenL of Lhe klnds of ''rockeLs and landlng
sysLems LhaL nASA needs Lo reLurn Lo Lhe Moon whlle also acceleraLlng Lhe developmenL of Lhe prlvaLe sub
orblLal space fllghL lndusLry''72

. Voter for fairness and education, there is in round and potentiaI abuse through
their interpretation

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

3
5. Competing interpretations are key, reasonabiIity Ieads to judge bias aIong with
bad division of ground by bIurring the concise definition of words
Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


NC - OVERVIEW

T is an interpretation of the resoIution that questions the exact wording of the
pIan test

Our interpretation is that the USFG must deveIop space on its own, not through
another actor.

Extend our EngIish Grammar evidence its means ownership or possession to the
noun it refers

refer our def|n|t|on |ts |n the context of actors and cap|ta||sm and |ts [ust p|a|n Lng||sh grammar

1he v|o|at|on |s c|ear |n th|s debate the|r ptext says that the US w||| |ncent|v|ze and be an
anchor tenant 1h|s means the S8S deve|oped |s not the USIG's and or|g|na||y be|ong to
pr|vate sectors 1he who|e po|nt of |ncent|v|z|ng means that |t doesn't be|ong to you cuz you
want |t from them

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

5
NC - STANDARDS EXTENSION (SHORT)

Lxtend our L|m|ts the|r |nterpretat|on makes the |nf|n|te amount of pr|vate actors and 200+
countr|es top|ca| th|s exp|odes our research burden and creates no ||m|ts to the top|c at a||
Iakhu and 8udzugan ev|dence |s great on th|s anchor tenant |s one of the spec|f|c ways the
government can |ncent|v|ze pr|vate deve|opment but the federa| government |s |n no way the
actor


Extend ground - their interpretation takes our core neg ground incIuding poIitics
DA's, Spending DA's, Government K's, private actor CP's, and internationaI actor
CP's, just by using a different actor than the federaI government.
Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


NC - STANDARDS EXTENSION (LONG)

L|m|ts 1he|r |nterpretat|on puts |nto the top|c g|ant and |nf|n|te|y grow|ng amount of pr|vate sectors a|ong w|th
the 200 + countr|es |n the wor|d thus we have the most ||m|t|ng def|n|t|on and the most fa|r one for neg research
burden

We'|| set the br|ght||ne here 1he federa| government |s the most pred|ctab|e ||m|t due to th|s be|ng a domest|c
top|c about a federa| po||cy Cur Iakhu and 8uzdugan quotes governmenLs should asslsL Lhe prlvaLe secLor ln
several ways lL can be expecLed
AsslsLance can Lake on dlfferenL arrangemenLs dlscussed below lncludlng belng a CuaranLeed MarkeL/lnlLlal
CusLomer 1here |s a d|st|nct|on between USIG deve|opment and the USIG ass|st|ng pr|vate sector deve|opment
of space


Ground 1he br|ght||ne test w||| be hav|ng the federa| government do the p|an 8y hav|ng another actor do the
actua| deve|opment the|r |nterpretat|on sp|kes out of a|| top|c spec|f|c po||t|cs ||nks spend|ng ||nks any free
market and |nternat|ona| actor C's even government k's [ust by say|ng the government doesn't do the p|an
1hese are a|| core examp|es of core neg ground that are top|c spec|f|c

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


NC - TOPICAL VERSION OF AFF

There's a topicaI version of the affirmative, you couId have used one of the MANY
actors under the federaI government, incIuding the executive branch, the DOD,
and freakin NASA, the biggest soIvency advocate on the topic.

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


NC - PREDICTABILITY

Their interpretation unIimits the topic and makes debate unpredictabIe

1. KiIIs education - unpredictabIe affs make it impossibIe to engage the aff on the
substance of their argument

. KiIIs cIash - we need to agree and know what we'II debate on if we are to even
have a debate on it

3. Key to criticaI thinking - strategy deveIopment and research require
predictabIe Iimits
Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo


NC - FAIRNESS

Fairness - If the negative can't provide a check on the number of affs the aff wins
every round because wiII just break a new unpredictabIe aff every round

1. Jurisdiction - If they aren't within the scope of the resoIution you don't have
the jurisdiction to vote aff

. Education - In depth strategies are a pre-condition to an educationaI debate,
the affirmative interpretation for in-depth negative strat because of the number of
cases the counter interpretation aIIows

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

10
NC - EXTRA T VIOLATION

At best they are extra topicaI, they use the private sector to access more
soIvency and advantage ground.

Independent reason to vote neg, extra T destroys reasonabiIity and proves the
resoIution is a bad idea which is the negative roIe of the baIIot


Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

11
A - POTENTIAL ABUSE IS NOT A VOTER,

They say potentiaI abuse is not a voter but it is

1. Future precedent - your baIIot sets a precedent against future abuses. Vote on
potentiaI abuse now to prevent it from occurring in the future.

. Ground Ioss - we were unabIe to utiIize the strategy that wouId have aIIowed
them to be abusive. In foregoing this strategy we experienced a ground Ioss.

3. Justifies poor pIan text writing - if the aff team is aIIowed to write a pIan text
that is non-topicaI yet stiII wins the debate because they didn't use it to spike out
of any arguments then any aff pIan couId be poorIy written and we'd never be
abIe to beat it.

. Justifies non-topicaI affs never dropping on T - they'II never drop a round on T
because the neg wiII aIways have to show in-round abuse. Don't Iet them win T
every round because of their untopicaI pIan.

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - "RELATING TO" C/I

They say that Its means "reIating to" but

1. reIating to" is not contextuaI, you wiII prefer our EngIish grammar evidence
because it is specificaIIy in the context of possessive pronouns which is the
format of the resoIution, its may mean reIating to in other contexts

. StiII Iinks to our standards, steaIs our and expIodes Iimits, proving abuse
means that this C/I sucks

3. We have a specific vioIation and a brightIine between private and federaI actors.
This interp stiII crosses the brightIine

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

13
A - WE MEET

They say we meet but they don't

1. If they met our interpretation, they shouId have met our standards, proving in
round abuse means that they specificaIIy don't

. C/A the vioIation from the overview, there's a brightIine between private sector
and federaI government deveIopment

3. "reIating to" is not contextuaI, you wiII prefer our EngIish grammar evidence
because it is specificaIIy in the context of possessive pronouns which is the
format of the resoIution, its may mean reIating to in other contexts.

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - OVERLIMITING

1. We set the most fair Iimits through Iimiting to USFG action, you can IiteraIIy do
any affirmative under your interp as Iong as the federaI government does it

UnderIimiting is better

1. PredictabiIity outweighs - even if we overIimit, there is stiII predictabIe ground
on which both teams can be prepared to debate.

. Fairness-unIimiting kiIIs fairness-affirmative aIways wins-they wiII aIways have
a new affirmative that the negative wiII never be abIe to beat down.

3. UnderIimiting is infiniteIy worse because it kiIIs the negative whiIe overIimiting
means more in depth debates that underIimiting wouId not be abIe to achieve.

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

15
A - MORE NEG GROUND

1. Name 3 arguments we gain from your interpretation

. C/A the ground debate from the overview, you Iimit out aII our int actor and free
market CP's

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - ONLY PRIVATE SECTORS

1. There are unIimited private sectors cross appIy this from the overview

. We set the most predictabIe brightIine of the federaI govenrment


Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - REASONABILITY GOOD

They say reasonabiIity is good but its bad

1. Arbitrary - what is reasonabIe can vary between judges which guarantees

inaccurate decision making and judge intervention; competing interps Ieaves the
debate with the debaters.

. Discourages good debate - under their paradigm the affirmative can get away
with haIf-assing answers to neg arguments with the basic assumption that as
Iong as they are cIose, you shouId err aff.

3. They aren't reasonabIy topicaI-the negative interpretation provides a specific
brightIine in which on how the they are not US deveIopment of space. There is no
grey ground in which they can be "reasonabIy topicaI". If they cIaim that they are
reasonabIy topicaI, they are not topicaI at aII - its aII or nothing

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - BREATH OVER DEPTH

We set the best brightIine for debate and capture the most education

AIso depth is better

1. We get topic specific education and become speciaIized on the argument of an
increase.

. predictabiIity captures this - as Iong as aII of the affs were predictabIe, there
couId be debate about aII of them, creating spread

3. We soIve for breadth - We aIso aIIow aII affs that don't have extrapoIated
advantages and actuaIIy increase US space deveIopment

. Depth inherent in aII debates - the 1AC and 1NC Iay out the entirety of the
affirmative and negative positions and then each successive speech adds depth
to these arguments. The team that wins is the team whose arguments are more
deveIoped and in depth than the other team, and Iimits shouId refIect this
emphasis on depth

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - COMPETING INTERPS BAD

1. Not a race to the bottom - the affirmative can simpIy argue that overIimiting is
bad or that another standard outweighs Iimits, proving that is not the determinant
to T debate.

. Education - competing interpretations is key to accessing in-depth
grammaticaI debate over the meaning of the resoIution in context based on
standards debates.

3. Most objective - onIy our paradigm can actuaIIy determine the winner of the
topicaIity debate with compIete neutraIity by evaIuating it based on offense and
defense instead of whether the judge thinks the affirmative interpretation is
accurate.

A arbitrary
1. not as arbitrary as aIIowing the judge his personaI opinion in deciding whats T
and whats not
. interps provide a tangibIe definition of how you shouId view the res.

Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

0
A - OTHER WORDS IN THE REZ CHECK

1. You aIso vioIate United States FederaI Government by not deveIoping its SSP,
we turn aII your arguments

. SubstantiaIIy doesn't check using other actors to go to space, nor do any other
words in the rez. Go ahead and name one word, there isn't any

3. TerribIe standard that justifies running pIans from 10 years ago because "The
United States FederaI Government shouId substantiaIIy" "checks"
Georgetown 201112
1 Its M|chae| koo

1
A - LIT CHECKS
They Say Lit Checks but No:

1. Lit doesn't check - if you googIed USFG space deveIopment, you wouId not
find buying the product of private SPS anywhere near the first page. Just because
the Iit on SPS taIks about the private sphere doesn't justify spiking out of USFG
space action - the education that he cIaims shouId be on the neg, not the aff

. Turn - Iiterature worsens the probIem if it is not predictabIe - then the aff gets
aII the Iit it needs, and the neg gets none.

. No bright Iine - you couId never say when a topic has a substantiaI amount of
Iiterature and when not.

5. TopicaIity shouId be independent of soIvency - under this argument, that is not
true; as Iong as it is predictabIe, it can be used to create an aff