image via missilethreat.com
Round 1 was a typical debate. It was characterized by a skill level mismatch between the two teams and the negative’s final argument was not well executed at all. The affirmative was to build space based lasers for a ballistic missile defense. It’s a supposedly good idea because the system can shoot down missiles if a war breaks out. That war need not involve the US — any war, anywhere on the globe.The negative’s argument was that we should not think of the world, especially space, as a place or territory worth weaponizing. The affirmative wins because even if the negative is correct that the plan would destabilize global powers, there is no impact to that destabilization as the BMD system would be able to contain the conflict. It’s an easy fix for the negative to make this argument better.
Round 2. The affirmative was Solar Powered Satellites. Those satellites collect solar energy and would ‘beam’ down the energy, replacing our current environmentally destructive energy policies. The negative had a few arguments. They said that instead of the government funding these satellites, the federal government should incentivize private companies doing it. This is a preferential policy because it would not empower the GOP to block Obama’s pushing of a free trade agreement with South Korea. The second argument was that we should not view the world as a standing reserve where the environment is passively awaiting our actions to tap into the resources of the world. It’s the argument made famous by Heidegger. The second affirmative speaker is relatively new to the activity and it showed. Nothing tricky. He didn’t even make many answers to the negative arguments. The negative settled in with her weaponization argument. The plan is misperceived by others, and that angers them so they accelerate their weaponization attempts. Those attempts then fuel others, causing global weaponization efforts. These efforts prevent most of the benefits of the plan, as the fighting makes space inhospitable and diverts resources from the program. I vote negative because the arms race occurs when the plan happens and before the actually benefits of the plan are delivered. In fact, the preemption and escalation possibly short circuits the plan, preventing any of the benefits from actually occurring. The last affirmative speech focused only on the benefits of the SSP satellites, but failed to understand how the negative arguments short circuit those gains.
Round 3. It’s the same affirmative as round 1: space based laser ballistic missile defense. The negative offers up three alternatives to the plan: one is a Code of Conduct CP, think of a treaty without the formal ratification process or the verification process; the other is similar to the Heidigger criticism of round 2; the final argument is that the affirmative plan falls outside the resolution and hence the negative should win. The interior negative speeches show their hand by collapsing down to the Heidigger criticism and the topicality question. It’s probably not the most strategic of decisions, as keeping the next affirmative speech off guard about the negative’s final option keeps the affirmative from making as many strategic decisions. I tell my debaters being negative is like wearing a bathing suit. Choose a one piece. More coverage creates more allure and seduction. The negative decides to finish off on the topicality argument. It’s a fine performance, much better than the affirmative’s, however, the negative makes a few errors which cost them the win. Instead of discussing the educational benefits of voting negative, the negative merely talks about how they have a more limiting interpretation of the topic. True, but the the affirmative understands that limiting is not necessarily good and extols some of the virtues of a more inclusive interpretation, which allows the affirmative’s proposal.
Round 4 is a mess. These are young debaters, each of which may have debated a year. If they have more experience than that, then they are beyond help. The affirmative is SPS, same as round 2. The negative made some nonsensical arguments. The final negative speech was about the horrors of a nationalist takeover in Russia, but there was no reason given why the affirmative proposal would cause those cataclysmic scenarios. Oh well.
Round 5. SPS again. This time there is an aerospace advantage: the industry is on the brink of collapsing and the plan would be the massive injection of funds needed. They then claim that all that is good in the world (peace, stability, cheap products, and American pie) require a healthy aerospace industry. The negative claims the plan would be seen with suspicion by much of the world and the space weaponization efforts would ramp up. This arms race would cause wars through miscalculation and accidents. The affirmative does not have a good defense of how the plan would be seen, instead they claim a robust weapons platform would deter other states from pursuing space weapon options. The negative wins the debate, however, by pointing out that the weaponization process begins with plan adoption and happens well before the actual SPS birds get up in the air. The time lag between SPS adoption and actual launch and implementation is several years and probably never happens because of the misperceptions of the proposal.
Round 6. I’m judging one of the more obnoxious juniors at the camp this summer. He’s charismatic, I cannot not like him even though he’s been a near constant pain in my ass. This is the best debate I’ll see at this tournament, even though the negative made some egregious errors. All four of them seem composed and sure of themselves. The affirmative is like the ballistic missile defense plan I’ve seen a few times now. The difference is that they specify a Brilliant Pebbles model. Brilliant Pebbles was abandoned in 1994 by the BMDO and the reasons why would have made an interesting set of negative arguments. Oh well. The debate does not go well for the negative. They fail to answer some fairly important arguments, forcing topicality to be their only chance to win the debate. Sure enough the negative decides to sit on the topicality argument. The 1AR made some interesting arguments, most of them brand new and without any explanation. The last affirmative speech then takes an interesting critical approach to topicality instead of the usual tact of conceding topicality is important. One that I, and most judges would, find unpersuasive. Easy errors for the affirmative to fix. In a later round.
Judging some of the out rounds would be nice, there are some very good young debaters here who know the literature base well. Sadly, I have too much to do to make sure the camp ends well and all the campers make it home on time without getting into (too much) trouble.
Since it’s the first tournament on the topic it was interesting to see how it measured up against my expectations. Because the topic allows almost any proposal, I did expect to see some more funk on the affirmative. While the funk is not very strategic I still expected to see some. The topic has condensed into a military topic much faster than I thought it would. It looks a lot like I predicted it would, except my prediction was for the end of the season. Over a year this topic will probably become very stale. I’m excited for the young debaters, because for them it will be fresh, but after 20 years of this it’s as crusty as gym shorts.
Topic voting record: 3-3