Harrison Gessner Neg
| Tournament | Round | Opponent | Judge | Cites | Round Report | Open Source | Edit/Delete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational | 1 | Southlake Carroll PK | Chris Randall |
|
|
| |
| Columbia University | 1 | Bergen County Academies AK | Andrea Reier |
|
|
| |
| Harvard | 2 | Acton-Boxborough LK | Yvonne Feng |
|
|
| |
| Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | 2 | Bronx Science AS | Ashish Mittal |
|
|
| |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | 4 | Peninsula AJ | Nick Jalbert |
|
|
| |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | 6 | Durham PA | Shampurna Mitra |
|
|
| |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Quarters | Lexington MS | Brent Lamb, Arjun Garg, Christal St Clair |
|
|
| |
| Woodward | 2 | Tampa Jesuit TG | Valorie Lam |
|
|
| |
| Woodward | Quarters | American Heritage Broward JW | David McGinnis, Nick Smith, Jonathan Waters |
|
|
|
| Tournament | Round | Report |
|---|---|---|
| Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational | 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Chris Randall AC- Constellations Sino-India Space War NC- Resource DA case 1AR- Sino-India constellations NR- Resource DA Case Turns 2AR- Constellations (Starlink) |
| Columbia University | 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Andrea Reier AC- Treaty Plan Space war advantage extinction NC- Appropriation Necessary Advantage Resources Disad 1AR- Advantages NR- Both Offs 2AR- Advantages |
| Harvard | 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough LK | Judge: Yvonne Feng AC- Gov't better NC- Resource Depletion Tech Innovation 1AR- Extinction First Aff gov't ow NR- Resource Depletion Maximize Needs 2AR- Extinction |
| Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science AS | Judge: Ashish Mittal I won on conceded turn and went for those The case only had one off no surprises |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AJ | Judge: Nick Jalbert AC- Debirs Colonialism NC- Disclosure K Ownership NC Cap and Trade CP 1AR- Debris NR- Disclosure K Ownership NC Cap Trade CP 2AR- Debris Nuclear War |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | 6 | Opponent: Durham PA | Judge: Shampurna Mitra AC- iLaw Heg Advantage Util NC- Mimicry K iLaw DA 1AR- iLaw Util NR- Mimicry K 2AR- Util |
| National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Quarters | Opponent: Lexington MS | Judge: Brent Lamb, Arjun Garg, Christal St Clair AC- Extinction NC- 1D Thought K Debris CP 1AR- Oh no we shouldn't care about equality if we're "All dead" NR- 1D Thought K Debris CP 2AR- Guess Extinction |
| Woodward | 2 | Opponent: Tampa Jesuit TG | Judge: Valorie Lam AC- Extinction NC- Resource DA Satellite DA Citations 1AR- Util Extinction NR- Satellite DA Independent Citiation 2AR- Extinction outweighs |
| Woodward | Quarters | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: David McGinnis, Nick Smith, Jonathan Waters AC- Phil Stuff NC- Resource DA iLaw DA 1AR- Phil Suff NR- iLaw DA 2AR- Incomprehensible Phil |
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
| Entry | Date |
|---|---|
Outer Space Fifth NegTournament: Woodward | Round: 2 | Opponent: Tampa Jesuit TG | Judge: Valorie Lam
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff A2 Inequality Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all. Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021 Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding. A2 Environmental harms Burnham Private entities are making environmentally friendly space developments !/T Capitalism is good. Capitalism expands the economy in outer space, which allows for a larger benefit for more people, the economy is finite on earth, space opens the door to possibilities Rhonheimer Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020. Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil. He Adds: What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread. | 3/22/22 |
Outer Space Harvard NegTournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Acton-Boxborough LK | Judge: Yvonne Feng Private Entities Private entities as defined by Law Insider is Private entities means individuals or organizations other than federal, state, or local personnel or agencies. Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG “We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff A2 Utrata1 Dvorsky It is a waste of time to fear colonization. It will never happen Dvorsky: Dvorsky, George, Gizmodo Astronomy specialist. “Humans Will Never Colonize Mars” Gizmodo 2021 Yet despite these and a plethora of other issues, there’s this popular idea floating around that we’ll soon be able to set up colonies on Mars with ease. SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is projecting colonies on Mars as early as the 2050s, while astrobiologist Lewis Darnell, a professor at the University of Westminster, has offered a more modest estimate, saying it’ll be about 50 to 100 years before “substantial numbers of people have moved to Mars to live in self-sustaining towns.” The United Arab Emirates is aiming to build a Martian city of 600,000 occupants by 2117, in one of the more ambitious visions of the future. Sadly, this is literally science fiction. While there’s no doubt in my mind that humans will eventually visit Mars and even build a base or two, the notion that we’ll soon set up colonies inhabited by hundreds or thousands of people is pure nonsense, and an unmitigated denial of the tremendous challenges posed by such a prospect. A2 Utrata2 Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all. Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021 Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding. A2 Utrata3 Henderson and Salter We can promote more discoveries with a profit motive. A2 McCan Rhonheimer Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020. Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil. He Adds: What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread. | 2/20/22 |
Outer Space NegTournament: Malcom A Bump Memorial an NYCFL Event | Round: 2 | Opponent: Bronx Science AS | Judge: Ashish Mittal Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG “We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff | 1/24/22 |
Outer Space Ownership NegTournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 4 | Opponent: Peninsula AJ | Judge: Nick Jalbert A. Link Link The aff hasn’t disclosed prep they’ve read at this tournament – they last updated their Wiki at the Berkely tournament two months ago Screen shots B. Impacts
choice to disclose – they’re benefiting from it, which is EXCLUSIVE CAPITALISM. Rury and Rife: Rury, John L. Professor of Education and History, University of Kansas, and Aaron Tyler Rife Assistant Professor, Wichita State University. “Race, Schools, and Opportunity Hoarding: Evidence From a Post-War American Metropolis.” History of Education, Journal of the History of Education Society, Vol. 47, Issue 1, 2018. CH Opportunity hoarding was originally articulated and defined by sociologist Charles Tilly. In his words, it represents a mechanism of social inequality that ‘operates when members of a categorically bounded network acquire access to a resource that is valuable, renewable, subject to monopoly, supportive of network activities, and enhanced by the network’s modus operandi’.4 4 Charles Tilly, Durable Inequality (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 10. View all notes Such a resource could be an occupational designation, a residential area, an educational credential, a lifestyle classification, or other categories that convey distinction, exclude other groups and are subject to conditions described above. Consequently, the concept of opportunity hoarding is applicable to a range of social settings and circumstances, contributing advantages to members of both elites and non-elites who can restrict access to resources and opportunities to eligible participants. Tilly employs the term somewhat differently from others, however, and distinctions in its definition and use are important. TURNS CASE – THEIR PERFORMANCE ACTIVELY PROPS UP STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE/UNDERMINES LIBERATION STRATEGIES OR: alternate link to framework. INDEPENDENT REASON TO DROP THEM – they’re not consistent with their own framework, and they don’t get to weigh substance against the K, since I question their ability to read it in the first place. 2. Nails Second, CRITICAL CONTESTATION – they never have to withstand the best objections to their aff/offs if no one can do research against them in advance. Nails: Nails, Jacob. Former Policy Debater, Georgia State University “A Defense of Disclosure (Including Third-Party Disclosure).” NSD Update, 2013. CH I fall squarely on the side of disclosure. I find that the largest advantage of widespread disclosure is the educational value it provides. First, disclosure streamlines research. Rather than every team and every lone wolf researching completely in the dark, the wiki provides a public body of knowledge that everyone can contribute to and build off of. Students can look through the different studies on the topic and choose the best ones on an informed basis without the prohibitively large burden of personally surveying all of the literature. The best arguments are identified and replicated, which is a natural result of an open marketplace of ideas. Quality of evidence increases across the board. In theory, the increased quality of information could trade off with quantity. If debaters could just look to the wiki for evidence, it might remove the competitive incentive to do one’s own research. Empirically, however, the opposite has been true. In fact, a second advantage of disclosure is that it motivates research. Debaters cannot expect to make it a whole topic with the same stock AC – that is, unless they are continually updating and frontlining it. Likewise, debaters with access to their opponents’ cases can do more targeted and specific research. Students can go to a new level of depth, researching not just the pros and cons of the topic but the specific authors, arguments, and adovcacies employed by other debaters. The incentive to cut author-specific indicts is low if there’s little guarantee that the author will ever be cited in a round but high if one knows that specific schools are using that author in rounds. In this way, disclosure increases incentive to research by altering a student’s cost-benefit analysis so that the time spent researching is more valuable, i.e. more likely to produce useful evidence because it is more directed. In any case, if publicly accessible evidence jeopardized research, backfiles and briefs would have done LD in a long time ago. Lastly, and to my mind most significantly, disclosure weeds out anti-educational arguments. I have in mind the sort of theory spikes and underdeveloped analytics whose strategic value comes only from the fact that the time to think of and enunciate responses to them takes longer than the time spent making the arguments themselves. If these arguments were made on a level playing field where each side had equal time to craft answers, they would seldom win rounds, which is a testimony to the real world applicability (or lack thereof) of such strategies. A model in which arguments have to withstand close scrutiny to win rounds creates incentive to find the best arguments on the topic rather than the shadiest. Having transitioned from LD to policy where disclosure is more universal, I can say that debates are more substantive, developed, and responsive when both sides know what they’re getting into prior to the round. The educational benefits of disclosure alone aren’t likely to convince the fairness-outweighs-education crowd, but I’ve learned over the course of many theory debates that most of that crowd has a very warped and confusing conception of fairness. Debaters who produce better research are more deserving of a win. Debaters who can make smart arguments and defend them from criticism should win out over debaters who hide behind obfuscation. That so many rounds these days are resolved on frivolous theory and dropped, single-sentence blips suggests that wins are not going to the “better debaters” in any meaningful sense of the term. The structure of LD in the status quo doesn’t incentivize better debating. TURNS CASE – if their method is good, that’s ALL THE MORE REASON they should disclose it and modify it to withstand well-researched objections. C. Implication Implication REJECT THEIR PERFORMANCE AND DROP THE DEBATER – they should lose for performatively contradicting their benefits AND for making debate less educational. A loss at least creates a risk that they’ll disclose in the future – that’s worth it if it improves the quality of in-round education. Ownership Framework Value I negate and value Justice, meaning policies that respect people’s due. Ripstein As agents capable of making choices, people deserve equal freedom. People can use property and negative liberty to set their own ends, so long as they don’t violate others’ ends. Ripstein: Ripstein, Arthur. Kantian Philosopher "Beyond the Harm Principle," 2006. KK All of the standard objections to the idea of equal freedom conceive of freedom as a person’s ability to achieve his or her purposes unhindered by others. This understanding of freedom, described as “negative liberty” in Isaiah Berlin’s essay “Two Concepts of Liberty,” characterizes any intentional actions or regulations that prevent a person from achieving his or her purposes as hindrances to freedom. Some critics have questioned the special significance of the actions of others in limiting freedom on this account – lack of resources, or internal obstacles may frustrate your purposes just as much as my deliberate actions. The difficulty for the idea of equal freedom is different. It comes from the role of successful attainment of your purposes in this conception of freedom. If our purposes come into conflict, so too must our freedom. Any purpose, whether my private purpose of crossing your yard, or that state’s public purpose of coordinating traffic flow, can come in to conflict with some person’s ability to get what he or she wants. The closest such a conception of freedom can come to an idea of equal freedom is some distributive system that would be likely to equalize people’s chances of success.23 The sovereignty principle conceives of freedom differently, in terms of the mutual independence of persons from each other. Such freedom cannot be defined, let alone secured, if it depends on the particular purposes that different people happen to have, because part of the reason freedom is important is that it allows each person to decide what purposes to pursue. Instead, equal freedom is understood as each person’s ability to set and pursue his or her own purposes, consistent with the freedom of others to do the same. Each person's entitlement to decide how their powers will be used precludes prohibiting many of the setbacks people suffer as effects of other people’s non- dominating conduct. People always exercise their powers in a particular context, but that context is normally the result of other people's exercises of their own freedom. To protect me against the harms that I suffer as you go about your legitimate business, perhaps because you set a bad example for others, or deprive me of their custom, would be inconsistent with your freedom, because it would require you to use your powers in the way that most suited my wishes or vulnerabilities. You do not dominate me if you fail to provide me with a suitable context in which to pursue my favoured purposes. To the contrary, I would dominate you if I could call upon the law to force you to provide me with my preferred context for those purposes. That would just be requiring you to act on my behalf, to advance purposes I had set. That is, it would empower me to use force to turn you into my means. Refusing to provide me with a favourable context to exercise my powers is an exercise of your freedom, not a violation of mine, however mean spirited you may be about that refusal.31 He adds: In the case of property, even if “abstinence” is the rule that makes up the practice, the harm principle demands a positive case be made to show that enforcing it is the only way to protect the practice. Rules always prohibit their own violation – that is what makes them rules – and rules that make up a practice will “call for” enforcement even in cases where the institution is not in danger. Whenever the rationale for enforcing the rules of chess or baseball, it is not that otherwise chess or baseball would be vulnerable to collapse.16 The most that can be said about games and other purely conventional practices is that making the rules and prohibiting their violation comes down to the same thing. We do not need to look to the effects of violations, either in particular or in general, in order to recognize that the rules create the game by prohibiting their violation. This is not the place to examine the idea that institutions such as property are best analyzed on the model of a conventional game. The problem is that there seem to be only two ways of understanding this idea, and neither of them is consistent with the harm principle. One says that the rules must be enforced on pain of collapse of the practice. But that just reintroduces the distinction between harm and wrongdoing that created the difficulty about our example. If a class of violations are harmless to the practice, the harm principle provides no rationale for prohibiting them. The other model says that the rules make up the practice. It makes no reference to the concept of harm, because it makes no reference to the effects of violations. The harm principle appears to have no way of engaging with the idea of a valuable social practice, and so cannot use it to explain why harmless wrongs should be prohibited.17 Criterion My criterion is Protecting a System of Equal Freedom. Protecting a System of Equal Freedom means giving all people the ability to pursue their own ends. In other words, my right to swing my fist ends when it hits someone else’s face. Under this standard, the negative burden is to show that private space appropriation alone does not violate equal freedom. Conversely, the affirmative burden is to show that private space appropriation alone violates equal freedom. Thesis/Contention Thesis My thesis and sole contention is that since asserting ownership over something does not, by itself, harm others, the process of appropriation can’t be considered unjust. Hayase and Ura The mere process of owning something isn’t the same as using it, it doesn’t justify violating equal freedom. Hayase and Ura: Hayase, Kohji Graduate School of Integrated Arts and Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan and Mitsuhiro Ura. Faculty of Psychology, Otemon University, Osaka, Japan, “Ownership or Taking Action: Which Is More Important for Happiness?” May 2015. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH_2015051309482001.pdf AC Forty years ago, John Lennon sang, “Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can”. The concept of possession itself is interesting to consider, and investigate, and debate (Curchin, 2007). A recent report explained happiness and well-being as agential flourishing (Raibley, 2012). Possession (ownership) and taking action are concepts that contrast with each other, since the former represents stasis or little movement, and the latter is dynamic and movement itself. Thus, we have arrived at a significant question, psychologically and philosophically: Which is more important to achieve happiness, ownership (possession) or taking action? There is little research about the preference for ownership or taking action in relation to happiness. In this paper, we examine the happiness that people feel from possession or ownership in comparison to the happiness they achieve as a result of taking action. The purpose of this paper is to investigate Japanese people’s preference for ownership (possession) or taking action, to evaluate the correlations of this preference with gender, age, level of education, and annual income, and to discuss reasons for people’s preference. They add: On the other hand, there is little research about the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action in relation to happiness. One reason could be the difficulty in differentiating the terms “taking action”, and “experience”. One possible difference between the terms action and experience might be that people valued taking action for its achievement value, in addition to its experiential value (Nozick, 1974) . According to Webster’s New World Dictionary, action is the doing of something and/or state of being in motion or of working, whereas experience is the act of living through an event or events; personal involvement in or observation of events as they occur. These meanings are similar in Japanese. Taking action might have broader meaning beyond its experiential value (i.e., experiencing an event or events), such as work or achievement of value, and/or volunteering and making charitable contributions. Moreover, happiness from taking action is to some extent different from happiness from experience or experiential purchase, in accordance with the distinction between episodic happiness and well-being (Raibley, 2012) , since experience or experiential purchase is related or connected to an episode, an event, or events. We investigated the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action, in relation to hap- piness, considering that the term taking action included the term experience. We think that ownership is not only related to purchasing behavior, but also related to the monopolization of materials, which is close to being selfish. Psychological study of monopolization materials (Why do some people like to monopolize materials instead of freely transferring them to others?) is a very important and useful topic for the psychology of happiness and/or peace. When we look deeply into the question of ownership, we can find very broad and meaningful aspects in ownership, as like as in taking action. We think that taking action and ownership are also comparable in their broad meanings. Then, we carried out the research about the preference for ownership (possession) or taking action in relation to happiness. Nelson and Block And private property appropriation respects a system of equal freedom. Nelson and Block write in the context of space appropriation: Nelson, Peter Lothian Professional engineer, and Walter E. Block American Austrian School economist. Space Capitalism: How Humans Will Colonize Planets, Moons, and Asteroids. Switzerland: Palgrave MacMillan, 2018. CH In sharp contrast, each and every transaction that occurs under laissezfaire capitalism can boast volunteerism. When A purchases a pen from B for $1, they both agreed to the transaction. It was unanimous. And the same goes for all other commercial interactions, whether buying or selling, trading or bartering, lending or borrowing, or saving and investing. Thus, if property remains in the private sector, there is no violation of any just law as there is with public property. How can property rights be established? From the libertarian perspective, this is accomplished through homesteading. How does this work? The general rule is simple.8 One mixes his labor with the land, by planting a field or harvesting trees; a man captures and domesticates an animal, or kills one for food. Then, he becomes the owner of the resource owners establishes just title. So, if one man grows corn, and another milks a cow, and then they barter, the farmer owns the milk, even though he did not produce it, as does the rancher the corn, ditto. But, both can trace titles to what they now own to initial homesteading and voluntary interaction. The problem with so-called government ownership is that no politician, no bureaucrat, ever homesteaded or freely traded anything.9 Instead, the king, or the congress, simply declared control over certain territories. But this is on a par with everything else done by this institution. There is no justification, merely the fraudulent claim: “Might makes right.” We therefore conclude that private property, the very basis of the free enterprise system, is justified. Commons What of unowned property not controlled by either government or private individuals? The ethical status of the commons depends upon exactly how and why this occurs. The short answer is, if property is unowned because it is sub-marginal, then all is well. If, on the other hand, this status arises because the state refuses to allow private parties to homestead virgin territory and take ownership over it, then this is contrary to the libertarian ethos. The unowned property itself, of course, is not to blame; it is inanimate. The fault lies with the institution that refuses to allow homesteading and settlement on it. Why is some land sub-marginal? This is because it does not pay to settle on it. The terrain is too rough, or too far away from civilization to be economical, or too dangerous, or for any other reason unsuitable for habitation by any but the heartiest and most adventurous persons and even then, only temporarily. Since affirming denies rights without any wrongdoing from private entities, it violates the criterion and justice. Cap-and-Trade CP A. Text Trapp 1 Instead of banning private space appropriation OR: affirming, states should set up a cap-and-trade system. This entails: A imposing a global limit on allowable space debris; B regularly recalculating that limit; and C creating a database to track all space objects. Trapp 1: Trapp, Timothy Justin. J.D., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign School of Law; tax associate “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, August 2013. https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2013/4/Trapp.pdf JP/CH To effectively combat the space debris problem, a cap-and-trade system should be set up that will both be effective and withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. As such, an international regulatory agency should be created to serve two functions: first, the agency should impose an international limit to the addition of debris and should then apportion these allowances to nations based on their current use of space. The total allowable debris addition should be recalculated yearly based on the state of the space environment, and individual allowances should also be recalculated annually to account for changes in the abilities and needs of different nations. Second, the agency should allot specific LEO area orbital trajectories, such as the ITU allots GEO orbital slots.294 Though this will be more difficult than allocating GEO slots, since those slots appear stationary while LEO orbital paths are constantly in motion, it can be done. First, an international electronic database should be produced which tracks the current location of all space objects registered in the Space Object Registry, which should include all spacecraft launched into space. It should also record, to the greatest extent possible, the location and trajectory of any debris. This database should be updated daily to represent the most accurate portrayal of the location and trajectory of space objects by the nations responsible for those space objects. Second, this database should be used to calculate predictions of where spacecraft will be in the future, and LEO orbital slots should be defined both in time and space, as opposed to being defined purely by location. This may seem difficult, but it is actually made quite simple by the use of computers. Though these calculations will become less accurate over longer periods of time, the constant updating of the database will allow these predictions to be constantly updated as well, so that they will be accurate for at least the immediate future. When a nation applies for a trajectory slot, the agency should only allocate that slot if it can be entered into and sustained for a certain amount of time without requiring a trajectory modification of any other spacecraft. With a workable allocation system in place, the agency should be in conformity with the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. To ensure this, it is important that, in allocating slots, both the interests of current space-faring nations, as well as those without the capability to get into space, are provided for. To do so, the agency should only allow actual physical entry into trajectory slots to those who comport with the cap-and-trade regime, while allowing claims to such slots to all nations, on bases similar to those of the ITU.299 This will ensure that this agency will not run into some of the problems that the ITU did when it began.300 In doing this, the agency will be comporting to the ideal that space be preserved for all mankind. Furthermore, since the purpose of the agency would be to mitigate the debris problem, its purpose would be ensuring future access to space. This, in connection to the fact that this is an international agency responding proportionately to an international problem,301 will allow the agency to withstand scrutiny under the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty.302 B. Competition Competition It’s mutually exclusive – private entities can still appropriate outer space under the CP, but can’t under the aff – makes perms impossible. C. Solvency Trapp 2 WE SOLVE 100 OF THE AFF – the CP follows the Outer Space Treaty’s ban on state appropriation, but doesn’t let private entities pollute. Trapp 2: Trapp, Timothy Justin. J.D., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign School of Law; tax associate “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, August 2013. https://www.illinoislawreview.org/wp-content/ilr-content/articles/2013/4/Trapp.pdf JP/CH Space debris poses a threat to future open access to the space environment. Without some sort of action, the problem will continue to escalate, putting at risk the sustainability of the space around our planet. An international regulatory authority that operated under the U.N. to institute a cap-and-trade regulation system and to allocate LEO orbital trajectories is the best way to curb the space debris problem while staying within the mandate of the nonappropriation article of the Outer Space Treaty. The allotment of trajectories would ensure that everyone has fair access to the resource, as well as facilitate the reduction of space debris caused by collision.3 A cap-and-trade system would make sure that the proliferation of further debris is curbed, as well as incentivize actors to contribute to cleaning up the space resource. Since such an agency would operate under the authority of the U.N., it would be of an international character, similar to the ITU. Moreover, since the purpose of the regulation would be to curb the space debris problem, it would fall directly in line with the principle of ensuring continued access to the space resource for all mankind.308 Finally, since the regulation would benefit those nations currently acting in space as well as those who will explore space in the future, without unduly favoring one or the other as some have claimed the ITU allocation procedures have done, it is a proportional response to an international concern. Thus, the suggested system represents the best way to handle the debris problem without effecting a prohibited appropriation of space. Case Duren PRIVATE ENTITIES HELP THE ENVIRONMENT – Carbon Mapper’s nonprofit program will map out emissions to help fight climate change. Duren: Duren, Riley. Research Scientist at the University of Arizona and an Engineering Fellow at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "In Partnership with UArizona, New Nonprofit to Launch Satellite Program to Track Greenhouse Gas Emissions" UArizona. April 15, 2021. TB In a first-of-its-kind coalition to accelerate climate change action, and with help from UArizona researchers, a new nonprofit organization called Carbon Mapper is launching a program to improve scientific understanding of global methane and carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon Mapper, a new nonprofit organization partnering with the University of Arizona, today announced a groundbreaking program to help improve understanding of and accelerate reductions in global methane and carbon dioxide emissions. The Carbon Mapper consortium also announced plans to deploy a satellite constellation to pinpoint, quantify and track methane and carbon dioxide emissions. "This decade represents an all-hands-on-deck moment for humanity to make critical progress in addressing climate change," said Riley Duren, research scientist in the UArizona Office of Research, Innovation and Impact and CEO of Carbon Mapper. "Our mission is to help fill gaps in the emerging global ecosystem of methane and CO2 monitoring systems by delivering data that's timely, actionable and accessible for science-based decision making." Current approaches to measuring methane and carbon dioxide emissions at the scale of individual facilities – particularly intermittent activity – present challenges, especially in terms of transparency, accuracy, scalability and cost. Carbon Mapper – which also is partnering with the state of California, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Planet, Arizona State University, High Tide Foundation and RMI – will help overcome these technological barriers and enable accelerated action by making publicly available high emitting methane and carbon dioxide sources quickly and persistently visible at the facility level. The data collected by the Carbon Mapper constellation of satellites will provide more complete, precise and timely measurement of methane and carbon dioxide source level emissions as well as more than 25 other environmental indicators. Through the Carbon Mapper-UArizona partnership, Duren and other UArizona researchers offer scientific leadership of the methane and carbon dioxide emissions data delivery including developing new algorithms and analytic frameworks for testing them with an ongoing research program. "Time is of the essence when it comes to understanding and mitigating methane and CO2 emissions," said Senior Vice President for Research and Innovation Elizabeth "Betsy" Cantwell. "Partnering with Carbon Mapper will give University of Arizona researchers the tools needed to not only see emissions hot spots, but to understand their causes and develop actionable plans for reducing or eliminating these sources." Carbon Mapper, in collaboration with its public and private partners, is developing the satellite constellation in three phases. The initial study phase, now complete, included two years of preliminary engineering development and manufacturing. The first phase is underway and includes development of the first two satellites by Planet and JPL, scheduled for launch in 2023, accompanying data processing platforms, and ongoing cooperative methane mitigation pilot projects using aircraft in California and other U.S. states. P;’ | 4/9/22 |
Outer Space Second Neg CaseTournament: Columbia University | Round: 1 | Opponent: Bergen County Academies AK | Judge: Andrea Reier Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG “We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff | 1/28/22 |
Outer Space Seventh NegTournament: National Debate Coaches Association National Championships | Round: 6 | Opponent: Durham PA | Judge: Shampurna Mitra ROJ COPYING IS KEY – since technocratic education stymies critical thought and treats students as means to profit-bearing ends, the Role of the Judge is to be an Anti-Technocratic Educator, which pushes back against harms to critical thought. 2 | IMITATION IS A CONSERVATIVE TRANSMISSION MECHANISM In this section, I would like to argue that if imitation is going to function as a high-fidelity transmission mechanism of the sort that cumulative culture requires then imitation, by its very nature, has to be conservative. That is, imitation should be in opposition to the innovation and creativity that also appears necessary for cumulative culture. This is because the modifications that would result from innovation could change the details of a demonstrated behavior, thus jeopardizing the faithful transmission of the tradition. In short, if imitation is a method for transmitting causally opaque technologies or conventional practices, customs, and languages and if its function relies on the precise, detailed, high-fidelity transmission of those practices, then changing the details of the practice, as innovation would require, could undermine its function.13 Another way of thinking about this is from the perspective of perceived as opposed to actual relevance. The way in which imitation works is by allowing relevance to be determined by the model or demonstrator rather than grounding relevance in what appears relevant to the observer. The demonstration becomes authoritative. This seems critical for establishing faithful replication of causally opaque and conventional behaviors since apparent relevance or irrelevance will turn out to be an unreliable guide to actual relevance and irrelevance. So much should be clear since what is required for successfully using a tool with an opaque causal structure or repeating a conventional and thus causally arbitrary custom or practice will have little to do with features whose relevance can be observed independently of the procedure or custom modeled. That is, relevance, in these cases, cannot be discerned by individual perceptual, causal, or logical reasoning. As such, in order to acquire a complex tradition, the observer has to default to precisely repeating the observed behavior. After all, relying on one's own sense of relevance can lead one astray: it may lead to an omission of various necessary elements or to the addition of superfluous and possibly mistaken others. These can then undermine successful transmission of the skill or knowledge.
Within that conflictual economy of colonial discourse which Edward Said describes as the tension between the synchronic panoptical vision of domination-the demand for identity, stasis-and the counter-pressure of the diachrony of history- change, difference - mimicry represents an ironic compromise. If I may adapt Samuel Weber's formulation of the marginalizing vision of castration, then colonial mimicry is the desire for a reformed, recognizable Other, as a subject of a difference that is almost the same, but not quite. Which is to say, that the discourse of mimicry is constructed around an ambivalence; in order to be effective, mimicry must continually produce its slippage, its excess, its difference. The authority of that mode of colonial discourse that I have called mimicry is therefore stricken by an indeterminacy: mimicry emerges as the representation of a difference that is itself a process of disavowal. Mimicry is, thus, the sign of a double articulation; a complex strategy of reform, regulation, and discipline, which “appropriates” the Other as it visualizes power. Mimicry is also the sign of the inappropriate, however, a difference or recalcitrance which coheres the dominant strategic function of colonial power, intensifies surveillance, and poses an immanent threat to both “normalized” knowledges and disciplinary powers. The effect of mimicry on the authority of colonial discourse is profound and disturbing. For in "normalizing" the colonial state or subject, the dream of post-Enlightenment civility alienates its own language of liberty and produces another knowledge of its norms. The ambivalence which thus informs this strategy is discernible, for example, in Locke's Second Treatise which splits to reveal the limitations of liberty in his double use of the word "slave": first simply, descriptively as the locus of a legitimate form of ownership, then as the trope for an intolerable, illegitimate exercise of power. What is articulated in that distance between the two uses is the absolute, imagined difference between the "Colonial" State of Carolina and the Original State of Nature. It is from this area between mimicry and mockery, where the reforming, civilizing mission is threatened by the displacing gaze of its disciplinary double, that my instances of colonial imitation come. What they all share is a discursive process by which the excess or slippage produced by the ambivalence of mimicry (almost the same, but not quite) does not merely "rupture" the discourse, but becomes transformed into an uncertainty which fixes the colonial subject as a “partial presence”. By "partial". I mean both "incomplete" and "virtual." It is as if the very emergence of the "colonial" is dependent for its representation upon some strategic limitation or prohibition within the authoritative discourse itself. The success of colonial appropriation depends on a proliferation of inappropriate objects that ensure its strategic failure, so that mimicry is at once resemblance and menace.
What I have called is not the familiar exercise of colonial mimicry dependent relations through narcissistic identification so that, as Fanon has observed,12 the black man stops being an actional person for only the white man can represent his self-esteem. Mimicry conceals no presence or identity behind its mask: it is not what Cesaire describes as "colonization-thingification"13 behind which there stands the essence of the presence Africaine. The menace of mimicry is its double vision which in disclosing the ambivalence of colonial discourse also disrupts its authority. And it is a double-vision that is a result of what I've described as the partial representation/recognition of the colonial object. Grant's colonial as partial imitator, Macaulay's translator, Naipaul's colonial politician as play- actor, Decoud as the scene setter of the opera bouffe of the New World, these are the appropriate objects of a colonialist chain of command, authorized versions of otherness. But they are also, as I have shown, the figures of a doubling, the part-objects of a metonymy of colonial desire which alienates the modality and normality of those dominant discourses in which they emerge as “inappropriate” colonial subjects. A desire that, through the repetition of partial presence, which is the basis of mimicry, articulates those disturbances of cultural, racial, and historical difference that menace the narcissistic demand of colonial authority. It is a desire that reverses “in part” the colonial appropriation by now producing a partial vision of the colonizer’s presence. A gaze of otherness, that shares the acuity of the genealogical gaze which, as Foucault describes it, liberates marginal elements and shatters the unity of man's being through which he extends his sovereignty. 2. Freiere Second, ANTI-LIBERATION: mimicry forces the oppressed to rely on the “master’s tools” so they can never truly be free. The "fear of freedom" which afflicts the oppressed,3 a fear which may equally well lead them to desire the role of oppressor or bind them to the role of oppressed, should be examined. One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual’s choice upon another transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the preserver’s consciousness. Thus, the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior, following as it does the guidelines of the oppressor. The oppressed, having internalized the image of the oppressor and adopted his guidelines, are fearing of freedom. Freedom would require them to eject this image and replace it with autonomy and responsibility. Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift. It must be pursued constantly and responsibly. Freedom is not an ideal located outside of man; nor is it an idea which becomes myth. It is rather the indispensable condition for the quest for human completion. To surmount the situation of oppression, people must first critically recognize its causes, so that through transforming action they can create a new situation, one which makes possible the pursuit of a fuller humanity. But the struggle to be more fully human has already begun in the authentic struggle to transform the situation. Although the situation of oppression is a dehumanized and dehumanizing totality affecting both the oppressors and those whom they oppress, it is the latter who must, from their stifled humanity, wage for both the struggle for a fuller humanity; the oppressor, who is himself dehumanized because he dehumanizes others, is unable to lead this struggle. However, the oppressed, who have adapted to the structure of domination in which they are immersed, and have become resigned to it, are inhibited from waging the struggle for freedom so long as they feel incapable of running the risks it requires. Moreover, their struggle for freedom threatens not only the oppressor, but also their own oppressed comrades who are fearful of still greater repression. When they discover within themselves the yearning to be free, they perceive that this yearning can be transformed into reality only when the same yearning is aroused in their comrades. But while dominated by the fear of freedom they refuse to appeal to others, or to listen to the appeals of others, or even to the appeals of their own conscience. They prefer gregariousness to authentic comradeship; they prefer the security of conformity with their state of unfreedom to the creative communion produced by freedom and even the very pursuit of freedom. The oppressed suffer from the duality which has established itself in their innermost being. They discover that without freedom they cannot exist authentically. Yet, although they desire authentic existence, they fear it. They are at one and the same time themselves and the oppressor whose consciousness they have internalized. The conflict lies in the choice between being wholly themselves or being divided; between ejecting the oppressor within or not ejecting them; between human solidarity or alienation; between following prescriptions or having choices; between being spectators or actors; between acting or having the illusion of acting through the action of the oppressors; between speaking out or being silent, castrated in their power to create and re-create, in their power to transform the world. This is the tragic dilemma of the oppressed which their education must take into account. This book will present some aspects of what the writer has termed the pedagogy of the oppressed, a pedagogy which must be forged with, not for, the oppressed (whether individuals or peoples) in the incessant struggle to regain their humanity. This pedagogy makes oppression and its causes objects of reflection by the oppressed, and from that reflection will come their necessary engagement in the struggle for their liberation. And in the struggle this pedagogy will be made and remade. The central problem is this: How can the oppressed, as divided, unauthentic beings, participate in developing the pedagogy of their liberation? Only as they discover themselves to be ‘hosts’ of the oppressor can they contribute to the midwifery of their liberating pedagogy. As long as they live in the duality in which to be is to be like, and to be like is to be like the oppressor, this contribution is impossible. The pedagogy of the oppressed is an instrument for their critical discovery that both they and their oppressors are manifestations of dehumanization. Thus, C. Alternative Marcuse Reject the aff’s plan in favor of a politics of authentic freedom. To clarify, reject top-down international mandates and let people choose for themselves how they want to be governed. The intensity, the satisfaction and even the character of human needs, beyond the biological level, have always been preconditioned. Whether or not the possibility of doing or leaving, enjoying or destroying, possessing or rejecting something is seized as a need depend on whether or not it can be seen as desirable and necessary for the prevailing societal institutions and interests. In this sense, human needs are historical needs and, to the extent to which the society demands the repressive development of the individual, his needs themselves and their claim for satisfaction are subject to overriding critical standards. We may distinguish both true and false needs. ‘False’ are those which are superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression: the needs which perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery, and injustice. Their satisfaction might be most gratifying to the individual, but this happiness is not a condition which has to be maintained and protected if it serves to arrest the development of the ability (his own and others) to recognize the disease of the whole and grasp the chances of curing the disease. The result then is euphoria in unhappiness. Most of the prevailing needs to relax, to have fun, to behave and consume in accordance with the advertisements, to love and hate what others love and hate, belong to this category of false needs. Such needs have a societal content and function which are determined by external powers over which the individual has no control; the development and satisfaction of these needs is heteronomous. No matter how much such needs may have become the individual's own, reproduced and fortified by the conditions of his existence; no matter how much he identifies himself with them and finds himself in their satisfaction, they continue to be what they were from the beginning - products of a society whose dominant interest demands repression. 16 The prevalence of repressive needs is an accomplished fact, accepted in ignorance and defeat, but a fact that must be undone in the interest of the happy individual as well as all those whose misery is the price of his satisfaction. The only needs that have an unqualified claim for satisfaction are the vital ones - nourishment, clothing, lodging at the attainable level of culture. The satisfaction of these needs is the prerequisite for the realization of all needs, of the unsublimated as well as the sublimated ones. For any consciousness and conscience, for any experience which does not accept the prevailing societal interest as the supreme law of thought and behaviour, the established universe of needs and satisfactions is a fact to be questioned - questioned in terms of truth and falsehood. These terms are historical throughout, and their objectivity is historical. The judgment of needs and their satisfaction, under the given conditions, involves standards of priority - standards which refer to the optimal development of the individual, of all individuals, under the optimal utilization of the material and intellectual resources available to man. The resources are calculable. “Truth” and “falsehood” of needs designate objective conditions to the extent to which the universal satisfaction of vital needs and, beyond it, the progressive alleviation of toil and poverty, are universally valid standards. But as historical standards, they do not only vary according to area and stage of development, they also can be defined only in (greater or lesser) contradiction to the prevailing ones. What tribunal can possibly claim the authority of decision? In the last analysis, the question of what are true and false needs must be answered by the individuals themselves, but only in the last analysis; that is, if and when they are free to give their own answer. As long as they are kept incapable of being autonomous, as long as they are indoctrinated and manipulated (down to their very instincts), their answer to this question cannot be taken as their own. By the same token, however, no tribunal can justly arrogate to itself the right to decide which needs should be developed and satisfied. Any such tribunal is reprehensible, although our revulsion does not do away with the question: how can the people who have been the object of effective and productive domination by themselves create the conditions of freedom?4 The more rational, productive, technical, and total the repressive administration of society becomes, the more unimaginable the means and ways by which the administered individuals might break their servitude and seize their own liberation. To be sure, to impose Reason upon an entire society is a paradoxical and scandalous idea - although one might dispute the righteousness of a society which ridicules this idea while making its own population into objects of total administration. All liberation depends on the consciousness of servitude, and the emergence of this consciousness is always hampered by the predominance of needs and satisfactions which, to a great extent, have become the individual's own. The process always replaces one system of pre-conditioning by another; the optimal goal is the replacement of false needs by true ones, the abandonment of repressive satisfaction. The distinguishing feature of advanced industrial society is its effective suffocation of those needs which demand liberation - liberation also from that which is tolerable and rewarding and comfortable - while it sustains and absolves the destructive power and repressive function of the affluent society. Here, the social controls exact the overwhelming need for the production and consumption of waste; the need for stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity; the need for modes of relaxation which soothe and prolong this stupefaction; the need for maintaining such deceptive liberties as free competition at administered prices, a free press which censors itself, free choice between brands and gadgets. Under the rule of a repressive whole, liberty can be made into a powerful instrument of domination. The range of choice open to the individual is not the decisive factor in determining the degree of human freedom, but what can be chosen and what is chosen by the individual. The criterion for free choice can never be an absolute one, but neither is it entirely relative. Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves. Free choice among a wide variety of goods and services does not signify freedom if these goods and services sustain social controls over a life of toil and fear - that is, if they sustain alienation. And the spontaneous reproduction of superimposed needs by the individual does not establish autonomy; it only testifies to the efficacy of the controls. Zvobgo and Loken 1 The aff is rooted in INHERENTLY RACIST tenants of international law– their race-neutral extinction scenarios are an “all lives matter” approach that ignores ILAW’s racism. Race is not a perspective on international relations; it is a central organizing feature of world politics. Anti-Japanese racism guided and sustained U.S. engagement in World War II, and broader anti-Asian sentiment influenced the development and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During the Cold War, racism and anti-communism were inextricably linked in the containment strategy that defined Washington’s approach to Africa, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. And today race shapes threat perception and responses to violent extremism, inside and outside the “war on terror.” Yet mainstream international relations (IR) scholarship denies race as essential to understanding the world, to the cost of the field’s integrity. Take the “big three” IR paradigms: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These dominant frames for understanding global politics are built on raced and racist intellectual foundations that limit the field’s ability to answer important questions about international security and organization. Core concepts, like anarchy and hierarchy, are raced: They are rooted in discourses that center and favor Europe and the West. These concepts implicitly and explicitly pit “developed” against “undeveloped,” “modern” against “primitive,” “civilized” against “uncivilized.” And their use is racist: These invented binaries are used to explain subjugation and exploitation around the globe. While realism and liberalism were built on Eurocentrism and used to justify white imperialism, this fact is not widely acknowledged in the field. For instance, according to neorealists, there exists a “balance of power” between and among “great powers.” Most of these great powers are, not incidentally, white-majority states, and they sit atop the hierarchy, with small and notably less-white powers organized below them. In a similar vein, raced hierarchies and conceptions of control ground the concept of cooperation in neoliberal thought: Major powers own the proverbial table, set the chairs, and arrange the place settings. Zvobgo and Loken 2 Justifies racism, always be enforced in an unjust way against countries of color. Between 1945 and 1993, among the five major IR journals of the period—International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Review of International Studies, and World Politics—only one published an article with the word “race” in the title. Another four articles included “minorities” and 13 included “ethnicity.” Since then, mainstream IR has neglected race in theorizing, in historical explanation, and in prescription, and shuttled race (and gender) to the side as “other perspectives.” When IR scholars do engage with race, it is often in discussions of outwardly raced issues such as colonialism. Yet one cannot comprehend world politics while ignoring race and racism. Textbooks that neglect historical and modern slavery when explaining development and globalization obscure the realities of state-building and deny the harms committed in the process. Similarly, when scholarship fails to call attention to the role that race plays in Western nations’ use of international law as a pretext for military intervention, it provides cover for the modern-day equivalent of “civilizing missions.” Likewise, studies of trade and dispute settlement almost always overlook modern arbitration’s deep roots in the transatlantic slave trade. This history is often lost in analyses of wins and losses in negotiations. Race and the racism of historical statecraft are inextricable from the modern study and practice of international relations. They are also not artefacts: Race continues to shape international and domestic threat perceptions and consequent foreign policy; international responses to immigrants and refugees; and access to health and environmental stability. Because mainstream IR does not take race or racism seriously, it also does not take diversity and inclusion in the profession seriously. In the United States, which is the largest producer of IR scholarship, only 8 percent of scholars identify as black or Latino, compared to 12 percent of scholars in comparative politics and 14 percent in U.S. politics. They add: Constructivism, which rounds out the “big three” approaches, is perhaps best positioned to tackle race and racism. Constructivists reject the as-given condition of anarchy and maintain that anarchy, security, and other concerns are socially constructed based on shared ideas, histories, and experiences. Yet with few notable exceptions, constructivists rarely acknowledge how race shapes what is shared. Despite the dominance of the “big three” in the modern study of IR, many of the arguments they advance, such as the balance of power, are not actually supported by evidence outside of modern Europe. Consider the democratic peace theory. The theory makes two key propositions: that democracies are less likely to go to war than are nondemocracies, and that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. The historical record shows that democracies have actually not been less likely to fight wars—if you include their colonial conquests. Meanwhile, in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa, democratizing states have experienced more internal conflicts than their less-democratic peers. Yet leaders in the West have invoked democratic peace theory to justify invading and occupying less-democratic, and notably less-white, countries. This is a key element of IR’s racial exclusion: The state system that IR seeks to explain arises from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and established European principles of statehood and sovereignty. Far from 17th-century relics, these principles are enshrined in the United Nations Charter—the foundation for global governance since 1945. But non-European nations did not voluntarily adopt European understandings of statehood and sovereignty, as IR scholars often mythologize. Instead, Europe, justified by Westphalia, divided the world between the modern, “civilized” states and conquered those which they did not think belonged in the international system. IR scholar Sankaran Krishna has argued that, because IR privileges theorizing over historical description and analysis, the field enables this kind of whitewashing. Western concepts are prioritized at the expense of their applicability in the world. Krishna called this “a systematic politics of forgetting, a willful amnesia, on the question of race.” Importantly, IR has not always ignored race. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, foundational texts invoked race as the linchpin holding together colonial administration and war. Belief in white people’s biological and sociological supremacy offered a tidy dualism between the civilized and the savage that justified the former’s murderous exploitation of the latter. Paul Samuel Reinsch, a founder of modern IR and foreign policy, christened the 20th century as the “age of national imperialism.” He concluded that states “endeavor to increase their resources … through the absorption or exploitation of undeveloped regions and inferior races.” Yet, he assured readers that this was “not inconsistent with respect for … other nationalities” because states avoid exerting control over “highly civilized nations.” TURNS AND OUTWEIGHS THE AFF – they worsen security threats to non-White states – all of 20th century history proves it. | 4/10/22 |
Outer Space Sixth NegTournament: Woodward | Round: Quarters | Opponent: American Heritage Broward JW | Judge: David McGinnis, Nick Smith, Jonathan Waters Zvobgo and Loken 1 The aff is rooted in INHERENTLY RACIST tenants of international law– their race-neutral extinction scenarios are an “all lives matter” approach that ignores ILAW’s racism. Race is not a perspective on international relations; it is a central organizing feature of world politics. Anti-Japanese racism guided and sustained U.S. engagement in World War II, and broader anti-Asian sentiment influenced the development and structure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. During the Cold War, racism and anti-communism were inextricably linked in the containment strategy that defined Washington’s approach to Africa, Asia, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America. And today race shapes threat perception and responses to violent extremism, inside and outside the “war on terror.” Yet mainstream international relations (IR) scholarship denies race as essential to understanding the world, to the cost of the field’s integrity. Take the “big three” IR paradigms: realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These dominant frames for understanding global politics are built on raced and racist intellectual foundations that limit the field’s ability to answer important questions about international security and organization. Core concepts, like anarchy and hierarchy, are raced: They are rooted in discourses that center and favor Europe and the West. These concepts implicitly and explicitly pit “developed” against “undeveloped,” “modern” against “primitive,” “civilized” against “uncivilized.” And their use is racist: These invented binaries are used to explain subjugation and exploitation around the globe. While realism and liberalism were built on Eurocentrism and used to justify white imperialism, this fact is not widely acknowledged in the field. For instance, according to neorealists, there exists a “balance of power” between and among “great powers.” Most of these great powers are, not incidentally, white-majority states, and they sit atop the hierarchy, with small and notably less-white powers organized below them. In a similar vein, raced hierarchies and conceptions of control ground the concept of cooperation in neoliberal thought: Major powers own the proverbial table, set the chairs, and arrange the place settings. Zvobgo and Loken 2 Justifies racism, always be enforced in an unjust way against countries of color. Between 1945 and 1993, among the five major IR journals of the period—International Organization, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Review of International Studies, and World Politics—only one published an article with the word “race” in the title. Another four articles included “minorities” and 13 included “ethnicity.” Since then, mainstream IR has neglected race in theorizing, in historical explanation, and in prescription, and shuttled race (and gender) to the side as “other perspectives.” When IR scholars do engage with race, it is often in discussions of outwardly raced issues such as colonialism. Yet one cannot comprehend world politics while ignoring race and racism. Textbooks that neglect historical and modern slavery when explaining development and globalization obscure the realities of state-building and deny the harms committed in the process. Similarly, when scholarship fails to call attention to the role that race plays in Western nations’ use of international law as a pretext for military intervention, it provides cover for the modern-day equivalent of “civilizing missions.” Likewise, studies of trade and dispute settlement almost always overlook modern arbitration’s deep roots in the transatlantic slave trade. This history is often lost in analyses of wins and losses in negotiations. Race and the racism of historical statecraft are inextricable from the modern study and practice of international relations. They are also not artefacts: Race continues to shape international and domestic threat perceptions and consequent foreign policy; international responses to immigrants and refugees; and access to health and environmental stability. Because mainstream IR does not take race or racism seriously, it also does not take diversity and inclusion in the profession seriously. In the United States, which is the largest producer of IR scholarship, only 8 percent of scholars identify as black or Latino, compared to 12 percent of scholars in comparative politics and 14 percent in U.S. politics. They add: Constructivism, which rounds out the “big three” approaches, is perhaps best positioned to tackle race and racism. Constructivists reject the as-given condition of anarchy and maintain that anarchy, security, and other concerns are socially constructed based on shared ideas, histories, and experiences. Yet with few notable exceptions, constructivists rarely acknowledge how race shapes what is shared. Despite the dominance of the “big three” in the modern study of IR, many of the arguments they advance, such as the balance of power, are not actually supported by evidence outside of modern Europe. Consider the democratic peace theory. The theory makes two key propositions: that democracies are less likely to go to war than are nondemocracies, and that democracies are less likely to go to war with each other. The historical record shows that democracies have actually not been less likely to fight wars—if you include their colonial conquests. Meanwhile, in regions such as the Middle East and North Africa, democratizing states have experienced more internal conflicts than their less-democratic peers. Yet leaders in the West have invoked democratic peace theory to justify invading and occupying less-democratic, and notably less-white, countries. This is a key element of IR’s racial exclusion: The state system that IR seeks to explain arises from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War and established European principles of statehood and sovereignty. Far from 17th-century relics, these principles are enshrined in the United Nations Charter—the foundation for global governance since 1945. But non-European nations did not voluntarily adopt European understandings of statehood and sovereignty, as IR scholars often mythologize. Instead, Europe, justified by Westphalia, divided the world between the modern, “civilized” states and conquered those which they did not think belonged in the international system. IR scholar Sankaran Krishna has argued that, because IR privileges theorizing over historical description and analysis, the field enables this kind of whitewashing. Western concepts are prioritized at the expense of their applicability in the world. Krishna called this “a systematic politics of forgetting, a willful amnesia, on the question of race.” Importantly, IR has not always ignored race. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, foundational texts invoked race as the linchpin holding together colonial administration and war. Belief in white people’s biological and sociological supremacy offered a tidy dualism between the civilized and the savage that justified the former’s murderous exploitation of the latter. Paul Samuel Reinsch, a founder of modern IR and foreign policy, christened the 20th century as the “age of national imperialism.” He concluded that states “endeavor to increase their resources … through the absorption or exploitation of undeveloped regions and inferior races.” Yet, he assured readers that this was “not inconsistent with respect for … other nationalities” because states avoid exerting control over “highly civilized nations.” TURNS AND OUTWEIGHS THE AFF – they worsen security threats to non-White states – all of 20th century history proves it.
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff A2 Inequality Goguichvili et al Treaties have been formulated to ensure space safety and integrity for all. Goguichvili: Goguichvili, Sophie, American University “The Global Legal Landscape of Space: Who Writes the Rules on the Final Frontier?” Wilson Center 2021 Following the ratification of the five U.N. foundational space treaties—whether with great or little support—the international space law community transitioned to the development of voluntary consensus principles and guidelines for space operations, debris mitigation and space sustainability. In addition to the five general multilateral treaties, the U.N. oversaw the drafting and formulation of five sets of principles adopted by the General Assembly, including the Declaration of Legal Principles. Although such influential voluntary international guidelines may contain more detailed, challenging, and aspirational goals, they are non-binding. A2 Environmental harms Burnham Private entities are making environmentally friendly space developments !/T Capitalism is good. Capitalism expands the economy in outer space, which allows for a larger benefit for more people, the economy is finite on earth, space opens the door to possibilities Rhonheimer Rhonheimer: Rhomheimer, Martin. Professor of Ethics at the University of The Holy Cross in Rome. “Capitalism is Good for the Poor – and for the Environment” Austrian Institute 2020. Capitalism and the market economy have solved what is probably humanity’s biggest problem: the problem of mass poverty. But what is capitalism? “Capitalism” means: the productive use of private wealth for the purpose of entrepreneurial profit-seeking, free market-based exchange and competition, as well as international trade – all on the foundation of state protection of property rights, generally applicable legal rules, and legal certainty. This should be good news for the Church, which has always paid special attention to the well-being of the poor and is today also concerned about the environment, nature and, the climate. But misunderstandings and defensive reflexes predominate. Capitalism, profit-seeking and the market economy do not have a good reputation in church circles. Instead, they are blamed for today’s problems and turmoil. He Adds: What is important is that what made today’s mass prosperity possible – a phenomenon unprecedented in history – was not social policy or social legislation, organised trade union pressure, or corrective interventions in the capitalist economy, but rather market capitalism itself, due to its enormous potential for innovation and the ever-increasing productivity of human labour that resulted from it. Increasing prosperity and quality of life are always the result of increasing labour productivity. Only increased productivity enabled higher social standards, better working conditions, the overcoming of child labour, a higher level of education, and the emergence of human capital. This process of increasing triumph over poverty and the constantly rising living standards of the general masses is taking place on a global scale – but only where the market economy and capitalist entrepreneurship are able to spread. | 3/22/22 |
Outer Space Third NegTournament: Colleyville Heritage Winter Invitational | Round: 1 | Opponent: Southlake Carroll PK | Judge: Chris Randall Fernholz: Fernholz Tim, Economy and politics, NASA Has Always Needed Private Companies to go to the moon, Quartz 2021 JG “We got to the Moon without private contractors, if I’m not mistaken,” US rep. Jamaal Bowman said yesterday, leading me to collapse in a frothing heap. NASA administrator Bill Nelson had a calmer response: “In the Apollo program, Mr. Congressman, we got to the Moon with American corporations.” A dozen major US companies worked closely with the US space agency to build the vehicles that took the first humans to the lunar surface. NASA scientists and engineers planned the mission and the technology needed to accomplish it, then worked with the most advanced tech firms of the day to produce rockets, capsules, landers, suits, and rovers. There’s no doubt Apollo was a big government program, but the private sector was essential. Why does this history matter? In the last decade, the US space program has made major leaps by handing more work directly to private firms. Rather than designing a new space vehicle to carry cargo or astronauts to the International Space Station and hiring someone to build it, NASA effectively told its needs to the marketplace, and accepted proposals from companies that would not only design the spacecraft, but operate them as a service. This choice launched SpaceX and a new era of private sector space in the US. The logic of this kind of partnership rests on several factors: These are tasks that have been done before, paving the way for new organizations to take them on more easily. Private firms are now willing to invest their own capital alongside the government, saving public money. They can take more risk, and use more advanced program management techniques than government-run programs. And they seem to result in more accountability for taxpayers when things go wrong: NASA shoulders the extra cost for Boeing’s long-delayed and over-budget SLS rocket, a traditional program; the same company is paying hundreds of millions of dollars to re-test its Starliner spacecraft, bought through a public-private partnership
Because government appropriation of space is just, and private entities will have to abide by the same laws, and it is unfair to limit private entities’ usage of outer space I negate and move onto the aff | 2/5/22 |
Open Source
| Filename | Date | Uploaded By | Delete |
|---|---|---|---|
2/5/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
1/28/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
2/20/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
1/24/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
4/9/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
4/10/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
3/22/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
| |
3/22/22 | jackedup2030@gmailcom |
|