| ... |
... |
@@ -1,107
+1,0 @@ |
| 1 |
|
-====Interpretation: The affirmative should only defend the hypothetical implementation of the resolution or just an epistemological==== |
| 2 |
|
-wrongfully taking another's property as one's own. The term appropriation is often used not only with respect to real property but also with water. According to U.S. case law, a person completes an appropriation of water by diversion of the water and an application of the water to beneficial use.167 This common use of the term "appropriation" with respect to water illustrates two key points: (1) the term applies to natural resources-e.g., water or minerals-not just real property, and (2) mining space resources and putting them to beneficial use-e.g., selling or manufacturing the mined resources could reasonably be interpreted as an "appropriation" of outer space. While the ordinary meaning of "appropriation" reasonably includes the taking of natural resources as well as land, whether the drafters and parties to the OST envisioned such a broad meaning of the term remains difficult to determine with any certainty. The prohibition against appropriation "by any other means" supports such a reading, though, by expanding the prohibition to other types not explicitly described.168 |
| 3 |
|
-As illustrated by this analysis, considerable ambiguity remains after this ordinary-meaning analysis |
| 4 |
|
- |
| 5 |
|
-AND |
| 6 |
|
- |
| 7 |
|
-any other celestial body could be taken as justification for national appropriation. 174 |
| 8 |
|
- |
| 9 |
|
- |
| 10 |
|
- |
| 11 |
|
-====This response implies that Article II acts as a qualification on Article I's broad provision for free exploration and use of outer space by all. Activity such as resource extraction would be viewed as national appropriation and such activity cannot be justified given Article II's prohibition, not even by falling within the ordinary ==== |
| 12 |
|
- |
| 13 |
|
- |
| 14 |
|
- |
| 15 |
|
-====Resolved means a legislative policy==== |
| 16 |
|
-**Words and Phrases 64** Words and Phrases Permanent Edition. "Resolved". 1964. ED |
| 17 |
|
-Definition of the word "resolve," given by Webster is "to express an |
| 18 |
|
- |
| 19 |
|
-AND |
| 20 |
|
- |
| 21 |
|
-," which is defined by Bouvier as meaning "to establish by law". |
| 22 |
|
- |
| 23 |
|
- |
| 24 |
|
- |
| 25 |
|
-====Outer space means anything above Earth’s Karman line==== |
| 26 |
|
-**Dunnett 21** (Oliver Tristan, lecturer in geography at Queen’s University Belfast). Earth, Cosmos and Culture: Geographies of Outer Space in Britain, 1900–2020 (1st ed.). Routledge. 2021. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780815356301 EE |
| 27 |
|
-In such ways, this book argues that Britain became a home to rich discourses |
| 28 |
|
- |
| 29 |
|
-AND |
| 30 |
|
- |
| 31 |
|
-start of the last century; and the geographical underpinnings of their relationship. |
| 32 |
|
- |
| 33 |
|
- |
| 34 |
|
- |
| 35 |
|
-===="Appropriation" means to take as property – prefer our definition since it’s contextual to space==== |
| 36 |
|
-**Leon 18** (Amanda M., Associate, Caplin and Drysdale, JD UVA Law) "Mining for Meaning: An Examination of the Legality of Property Rights in Space Resources." Virginia Law Review, vol. 104, no. 3, May 2018, p. 497-547. HeinOnline. |
| 37 |
|
-Appropriation. The term "appropriation" also remains ambiguous. Webster's defines the verb |
| 38 |
|
- |
| 39 |
|
-AND |
| 40 |
|
- |
| 41 |
|
-. Historically, claims to mineral rights have resulted in just as contentious conflict |
| 42 |
|
- |
| 43 |
|
- |
| 44 |
|
- |
| 45 |
|
-====Private entity = majority nonstate==== |
| 46 |
|
-**Warners 20 **(Bill, JD Candidate, May 2021, at UIC John Marshall Law School) "Patents 254 Miles up: Jurisdictional Issues Onboard the International Space Station." UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law, vol. 19, no. 4, 2020, p. 365-380. HeinOnline. |
| 47 |
|
-To satisfy these three necessary requirements for a new patent regime, the ISS IGA |
| 48 |
|
- |
| 49 |
|
-AND |
| 50 |
|
- |
| 51 |
|
-in outer space have operated in space almostas comprehensively as national organizations. 102 |
| 52 |
|
- |
| 53 |
|
- |
| 54 |
|
- |
| 55 |
|
-====They violate—==== |
| 56 |
|
- |
| 57 |
|
- |
| 58 |
|
- |
| 59 |
|
-====Standards: ==== |
| 60 |
|
- |
| 61 |
|
- |
| 62 |
|
- |
| 63 |
|
-====1~~ Competitive equity – 3 warrants: ==== |
| 64 |
|
- |
| 65 |
|
- |
| 66 |
|
- |
| 67 |
|
-====A~~ Ground: they get to pick the topic ex post facto which incentivizes vague argumentation that’s not grounded in a consistent, stable mechanism – they’re playing dodgeball with hand grenades – caselists are concessionary, unpredictable, beaten by perms, and don’t justify their model. ==== |
| 68 |
|
- |
| 69 |
|
- |
| 70 |
|
- |
| 71 |
|
-====B~~ Limits: their model has no resolutional bound and creates the possibility for literally an infinite number of 1ACs. Not debating the topic allows someone to specialize in one area of the library for 4 years giving them a huge edge over people who switch research focus ever 2 months. Cutting negs to every possible aff is a commitment even large squads can’t handle, let alone small schools like us. Counter-interpretations are arbitrary, unpredictable, and don’t solve the world of neg prep because there’s no grounding in the resolution==== |
| 72 |
|
- |
| 73 |
|
- |
| 74 |
|
- |
| 75 |
|
-====C~~ Causality: debating the resolution forces the affirmative to defend a cause and effect relationship, the state doing x results in y. Non topical affs establish their own barometer "I think x is good for me" that aren’t negatable – that independently decks clash cuz there’s no way for me to engage with the affirmative.==== |
| 76 |
|
- |
| 77 |
|
- |
| 78 |
|
- |
| 79 |
|
-====D~~ Fairness is an impact – ~~1~~ it’s an intrinsic good – some level of competitive equity is necessary to sustain the activity – if it didn’t exist, then there wouldn’t be value to the game since judges could literally vote whatever way they wanted regardless of the competing arguments made ~~2~~ probability – your ballot can’t solve their impacts but it can solve mine – debate can’t alter subjectivity, but can rectify skews ~~3~~ internal link turns every impact – a limited topic promotes in-depth research and engagement which is necessary to access all of their education ~~4~~ comes before substance – deciding any other argument in this debate cannot be disentangled from our inability to prepare for it – any argument you think they’re winning is a link, not a reason to vote for them, since it’s just as likely that they’re winning it because we weren’t able to effectively prepare to defeat it. This means they don’t get to weigh the aff.==== |
| 80 |
|
- |
| 81 |
|
- |
| 82 |
|
- |
| 83 |
|
-====2~~ Switch-side debate – ==== |
| 84 |
|
- |
| 85 |
|
- |
| 86 |
|
- |
| 87 |
|
-====A~~ the reason debate is a unique process is because it demands rigorous testing of advocacy skills through not getting to pick and choose what to defend – it’s the only plausible explanation for the form of the activity – it also solves their offense.==== |
| 88 |
|
- |
| 89 |
|
- |
| 90 |
|
- |
| 91 |
|
-====B~~ topical version of the aff solves – they can still have all their advantages under TVA INSERT TVA==== |
| 92 |
|
- |
| 93 |
|
- |
| 94 |
|
- |
| 95 |
|
-====C~~ Vote negative – A~~ this procedurally evaluates whether their model is good, which is a prior question B~~ they can’t get offense: we don’t exclude them, only persuade you that our methodology is best. Every debate requires a winner and loser, so voting negative doesn’t reject them from debate, it just says they should make a better argument next time.==== |
| 96 |
|
- |
| 97 |
|
- |
| 98 |
|
- |
| 99 |
|
-====3~~ Skills – multiple warrants==== |
| 100 |
|
- |
| 101 |
|
- |
| 102 |
|
- |
| 103 |
|
-====A~~ Argument Refinement and research – forcing them to defend the resolution makes them have to cut new positions every two months and forces them to explore the depths of the literature as opposed to just recycling the same set of non T affs over and over that lead repetitive and stale debates – they reject argument innovation and force every non t debate into either k vs t or k v k. ==== |
| 104 |
|
- |
| 105 |
|
- |
| 106 |
|
- |
| 107 |
|
-====B~~ Education is an impact – it’s the only reason schools fund debate ==== |