SPACE IS THE PLACE
My team is gonna KILL me for this.A great affirmative case is weapons in space. The evidence is awesome, the impacts are staggering. There is one problem: The 1964 Outer Space Treaty prohibits "weapons of mass destruction" in orbit.
How to get around that: there are THREE ways:
First, some authors suggest that just about all space weapons constitute weapons of mass destruction. See, e.g., M.N. Andem, Implementation of Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 During the 21st Century, in PROCEEDINGS OF THE FORTIETH COLLOQUIUM ON THE LAW OF OUTER SPACE 338, 344 (1998).
Second, no WMD are prohibited in LIMITED orbit. You could ban that.
Third, there is no firm definition for WMD in the treaty. Observers fear this could justify things like nuclear-powered lasers in space. The plan could clarify the definition of WMD in the treaty. See Major Robert A. Ramey, Air Force Judge Advocate General School
The Air Force Law Review, 2000, 48 A.F. L. Rev. 1 for a good treatment on space law.
posted by Jeff Shaw Thursday, August 30, 2001
Like running Executive Orders or the Congress Counterplan? This article, "Treaties Don't Belong to Presidents Alone," argues that Congress has (or should have) a stronger role in foreign policy-making than normally assumed. Like all NYT articles, it requires free registration.
posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, August 29, 2001
SPECIAL DISARM ISSUEYowza. The Earth Island Journal's most recent issue contains a story, "The Nuclear Body Count," that KICKS ASS. It documents all the death that mere possession -- not use -- of nuclear technology has caused, and tallies
it at more than all the war death combined. Now THESE are disarm harms cards.Last paragraph: "The holocaust that peace campaigners warned of if war broke out between the old superpowers has already happened - and with barely a shot being fired. Its toll is greater than that of all the wars in history, yet no one is counted as among the war dead. Rosalie Bertell argues that we need to learn a new language to express a terrifying possibility: "The concept of species annihilation means a relatively swift, deliberately induced end to history, culture, science, biological reproduction and
memory. It is the ultimate human rejection of the gift of life, an act which requires a new word to describe it: omnicide.""Like I said, Yowza. Put these cards in your 1AC NOW.
Some people ask me what to run against disarm. I say, "there is nothing good to run against disarm." And that's true: you have to counterplan, or you lose. Simple as that. But two possibly good arguments include ...
Disposal: where to put the nuclear material? You can't just leave it out, or it might get stolen. It might also get dumped places -- like Yucca Mountain, on Western Shosone holy land -- that it shouldn't.
Answers: I suggest immobilization, a process of mixing the nuclear material with nuclear waste. Any disadvantage to that is non-unique -- the waste already exists, you're just adding to it. (Check out the first plutonium link below for more on that).
There are other possible answers, like sub-sea bed disposal, but I think the immobilization cards are better.
I think I'll save the other disarm answers for my squad and the WDI crew. The WDI folks know what counterplan I think is best ... it's in the file!
Another disarm link: check out the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Coming tomorrow: irony answers!
posted by Jeff Shaw Wednesday, August 29, 2001
Hey, it’s another article for the plutonium case! Not that I’m trying to push you to run this case – it probably falls under the category of “great idea for the real world, average debate case” – but there’s so much good stuff being written about it, I can hardly ignore it.
All of y’all running the War on Drugs aff – here’s an article arguing that is inherently racist.In a shameless effort to draw traffic to this little web links diary, and to www.nwdebate.org and the message boards we have going on over there for Northwest debaters, I’ll post a bunch of answers to the Irony case and Normativity here and there today or tomorrow.
Oh yeah, did I mention I hate those two positions? I guess I did.
posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, August 28, 2001
A new article says that NMD is LEAST likely able to prevent the MOST likely threats, i.e. crude weapons launched by so-called "rogue states." Another reason missile defense is a bad idea. Yet this deranged lunatic Republican from Mississippi still thinks we ought to withdraw from the ABM treaty. Amazing.And remember the plutoniom case I talked about a couple of days ago? The New York Times has an editorial out endorsing the plan.
posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, August 27, 2001
It's no secret many debaters are hyper-competitive. The fact that debate season mirrors the NFL season (takes place in fall and winter, involves lots of preparation during the week for competition on the weekends) means one thing: we get addicted to fantasy football. I know I am.So are some friends of mine who have kindly invited me to join the Debate Football League, a Yahoo! public league including such luminaries as Glen Frappier and Peter McCollum of Gonzaga University fame (among others). Check out our draft results. My team is the Mt. Vernon Geoducks.
Casey and I are also in an auction league I set up on fanball.com. That hasn't drafted yet.
posted by Jeff Shaw Monday, August 27, 2001
So Casey Binz has this website, see? It's called www.nwdebate.org, the home of the Northwest Debate Society. Meant to be a forum to advance this activity in the northwest.He's recently launched a new discussion board at http://www.nwdebate.org/cgi-bin/ib/ikonboard.cgi for northwest debaters to chat about matters of importance in debating. Check it out. Warning: don't get all freaky and start posting about random stuff, as happened to another debate board recently. It will bum everyone out and get you banned.
Have a good time!
posted by Jeff Shaw Friday, August 24, 2001
AFFIRMATIVE CASE IDEAS(Not really the) President Bush may nix a plan to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium through immobilization. If he does, reversing the decision will be a great affirmative case: Read the NY Times article. It requires free registration.
posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, August 21, 2001
The first annual Women's Debate Institute, an inexpensive all-female debate camp, went off wonderfully well this past weekend. Thanks are in order to a number of people.I am one of those that always means to journal/blog, but gets busy. I am renewing a commitment to doing it, seeing as how my wife Kari and I are probably going to be extremely involved in debate over the next year. It could be a cool record of the Sehome High School debate team, where we coach along with the inimitable Casey Binz.
The goal? One update a week, usually on Fridays. More if I can do it. With Norm in law school, somebody's gotta keep the blogging train rolling along.
For you debaters out there, this site will ive you a couple or three things:
1. A window into how I, a frequent judge, think about events in the debate community;
2. Links to free evidence and other debate topic information;
3. A hopefully humorous record of the 2001-2 debate season. And trust me: if there's a better team than Sehome to provide amusement, I don't know who they are.
Yowza. I'm tired from WDI -- one of the coolest things I've been a part of in this life, BTW -- so we'll leave it at that for now.
posted by Jeff Shaw Tuesday, August 21, 2001
