Tournament: Cougar Classic | Round: 2 | Opponent: Cooper City NR | Judge: Demarcus Powell
Interp: The affirmative may only garner offense from the hypothetical implementation that the appropriation of outer space by private entities is unjust and may not garner offense external to that.
Parcher 1. ~Jeff. 2/26/01. "Re: Jeff P—Is the resolution a question?" https://web.archive.org/web/20050122044927/http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200102/0790.html~~ Justin
(1) Pardon me if I turn to a source besides Bill. American
AND
question before a legislative body. Should this statement be adopted or not.
TIMOTHY JUSTIN TRAPP, JD Candidate @ UIUC Law, '13, TAKING UP SPACE BY ANY OTHER MEANS: COMING TO TERMS WITH THE NONAPPROPRIATION ARTICLE OF THE OUTER SPACE TREATY UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LAW REVIEW ~Vol. 2013 No. 4~
The issues presented in relation to the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty should
AND
the Bogotá Declaration were trying to accomplish, albeit through different means.219
Violation: They don't: At best they're extra topical which is a voter for exploding limits and inflating aff solvency or effects topical which is worse, since any small aff can spill up to the resolution.
Vote neg for competitive equity and clash: changing the topic favors the aff because it destroys the only stasis point and makes prep impossible because any ground is self-serving, concessionary, and from distorted literature bases. Their model allows someone to specialize for 4 years giving them an edge over people who switch every 2 months. Filter this through debate's nature of being a game where both teams want to win, which becomes meaningless without constraints.
Ralf Poscher 16, director of the Institute for Staatswissenschaft and Philosophy of Law, Professor of Public Law and Legal Philosophy, "Why We Argue About the Law: An Agonistic Account of Legal Disagreement," in Metaphilosophy of Law, ed. Gizbert-Studnicki, Dyrda, Banas, 2/19/16, SSRNRecut Aanya
Hegel's dialectical thinking powerfully exploits the idea of negation. It is a central feature
AND
concept of justice to art such as to engage in an intelligible controversy.
3~ TVA – defend an affirmative that defends the topic – their whole aff is about how private entities exploration of space is bad\
Drop the debater – Changing your advocacy kills NC strat because the 1ac advocacy is the only stasis point for NC offense, anything else moots all clash and fairness. No cross apps from the aff since framework proves that that layer was skewed to begin with so we can't actually test the truth of cross applications to the affirmative.
New 2nr answers to AC preempts because they are hidden, and implications are unknown until the 1ar.
No impact turns or rvis - A~ Perfcon – if T's bad and you vote for them on that arg, you're voting on T. B~ Substance – if T's bad then we should try debating on substance – impact turns force me to go for T since I need to defend my position