WraithLeader 2NR

Will Malson WraithLeader 2NR Page 1 of 7
T-Voters (1), T-EP (2), T-Sig (3), NASA (4), Heg (5), Warming (6-7)
Oh, and no new in the 2AR – warrant later. You’re good judges so you won’t flow new stuff. ; )
T-Voters
1) True or false-
a) 1NC: "Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. If they
aren’t topical, you should vote negative without considering any other issue."
b) 2NC: "Either you own a 72" plasmas tv with HD Packers v. Ravens on and 5.1 Dolby Digital
Surround Sound with two subwoofers or you don't."
c) Either you're T or not. If he's not, vote against him. That's the impact. He has to uphold the
res, not doing so means...
2) …there's no aff team. No one's upholding the resolution, both are "negative", so check the negative
box.
3) Abuse is in the explosion of the topic that neg has to research.
4) You should evaluate T on whether or not they uphold the res, not abuse. (This may be the entire
source of our contention.)
“Radios play this all day every day / Recognize I'm a fool and you loooove me / None of you … better look at me funny / …
You know my name, now give me my money!”
T-EP
1. Refer to my capital punishment example, you have to have the phrase in context with your plan, you
don't even need to define the phrase or the words.
2. Baumert-
a) read the ev! C&t is an EP instrument, carbon tax is not.
b) carbon tax is an "environmental tax".
3. c/i-
a/b/c) he dropped all of these. His interp explodes the topic, creates an unfair research burden,
and his standards are either wack or my interp is supported by it.
4. cross-apply voters.
T-Sig
1/2/3) He doesn't address all my analysis in C. Violation. Use the visa example - it's not a sig reform, it's
only a small reform.
4) NASA only proves it has a big enough effect, or at the most, requires a lot to get a small change
passed. That's fxt, that's bad: Unlimits - Any action taken will eventually lead to topical action, forcing
unfair burdens upon the neg (not new 'cause he said it first).
5) False-
a) C means constructive, meaning I get to construct my arguments (however I want).
b) R means rebuttal, meaning we rebut the things already in play.
c) New in the 2AR is an independent voter for fairness - we don't have a chance to respond to
new arguments, that skews the debate and makes it unfair for the neg.
6) T from spec-
a) New T is based on what he said, it doesn't matter why he said it, he said it so I get to base args
off of it. It doesn't make aft plans impossible at all; there's no warrant for this.
b) competitive equality is better upheld under [a)], he could run new advantages or ks or perms
on whatever I say, it already reciprocates. Denying me this arg means aff always has the
advantage.
7) cross-apply voters.
NASA, order is: "1AR [1NR]." so you can flow our responses better.
1 (1/2). spending- ahhh. If I had understood this earlier, I would've said that not even a third of the 2
trillion had been spent, and that it wasn't going to work, but nasa already works, that'd be new though…
errr. okay.
2 (3/4/5). internat coop vs. comp (whoa, irony)

a) nothing got done, remember? because…
b) …the summits ended in a lack of coop and hostilities, Time 09.
c) doesn't empirically deny anything - shows a progression toward mead already. brink is aff
plan happening.
3 (6). econ-
a) Er, not quite. cross-apply heg #2 from my 1NR - innovation and tech leadership are key to heg
and econ competitiveness. Martino isn't as _directed as aff tries to show he is.
b) he hasn't shown you why my AA ev is flawed. "For forty years, a strong U.S. civil space
program has been a key element in economic competitiveness".
4 (7/8). colonization-
a) "NASA, the U.S. space agency, describes it as "an important step in an evolving process
towards a comprehensive global approach to space exploration.""
b) cross-apply unilateral heg bad again.
5 (9). He's pulling this from this: "If we survive the next century, we are likely to build self-sufficient
colonies in space." The context is specifically the US. But we can't do this without NASA. Again, he's
proving my point here.
6 (10). "concessions"-
a) climate- see 2NC, Warming #4: "Drastic global warming, if it were to happen, would be
devastating - but that's not what's happening now. The author's indications apply only if global
warming is drastic (like it isn't)."
b) bioterror-
i] I have 6 extinction scenarios. That o/w's his 2.
ii] bioterror is best solved with Nasa: see the last card of my 1NC (Matheny!)
7 (11). turn- "shah says US wants to militarize space" is what I'm contending. He says I concede that
crucial warrant, when in reality, that’s the only thing I argued. Obama cancelled missile defense in
order to appease other countries security fears, he won't militarize space, especially if other countries
don't like it. 0% risk of his impact happening.
8 (none). calculus-
a) even if he wins that nasa isn't key to econ, or space colonization, or stopping bioterrorism, it
still is to preventing comets, nuclear threats, and an again sun. I still have three unaddressed
extinction scenarios. that o/w's other scenarios not happening.
Heg:
honestly, I can't figure out at all what exactly he's responding to in each of his points or how they
correlate to mine anymore, so I'm just going to summarize everything in my own points. Sorry if it's
confusing.
1. He says in #1 that China will be angry at us "no matter what", but then in #3 he says that climate
change is a key soft power issue for US-China relations. So we'll go with what he said latest. Therefore,
my point still stands -
a) China backlash, US-China arms race.
b) unilaterally using hegemony is a bad bad thing. He says it's cooperative leadership, but his
plan is all unilateral. It can't be both.
2. Spencer and Foster-interp ain't wrong: at the meeting cited, china and india didn't have to make any
commitment. "both should have been pleased that there was no attempt to set specific targets for their
own greenhouse gas emissions, which they have refused to consider." and yet, they rejected the idea. We
don't have a climate agreement. Cross-apply G(X) summits ended in hostilities.
3. Parallel-this is new. My 1NC was a turn on heg, the 1NR on heg was adding onto the turn, his 2AC
didn't include this. Throw it out.
4. He dropped my #7 - without global order there's nothing to prevent Khalizad 05 from "stepping in."
Analysis below.
5. Summation-
a) increases in hegemony are bad because of the political backlash and the arms race impact.
b) unilateral hegemony is bad!
c) Khalizad 05 is on my side - without global order there's nothing to prevent a major war.
Global order is clearly preferable to global DISorder.
Warming
Distilled into 2 points:
I. Warming ain't anthropogenic
1. Robinson et al, #2 in the 2NC:

a) he doesn't respond! so we can see that: "The Earth has been much warmer during the past
3,000 years without catastrophic effects."
2. Bast, (1/2) under #13:

a) his response had zero proof. I'm not even sure what it's supposed to mean. Don't flow it.
b) "Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), …were higher
than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC,
known as the "climatic optimum," was even warmer…"
3. AT:
a) sea levels - he doesn't respond.
b) ice - he doesn't respond. both conceded.
4. Sun:
What matters is what we can observe. There is a direct correlation between sunspots and land
temperature in the Northern Hemisphere. Benoit 01
Gary Benoit [editor of The New American (John Birch Society-affiliated biweekly magazine whose mission is encapsulated by the slogan on its cover —
“That Freedom Shall Not Perish.”). He has been associated with the magazine since its inception in 1985 and has been editor for most of its existence.
Joined The John Birch Society while still a teenager in 1968 and has been a member ever since. He joined the staff in 1977 and over the years has held a
number of different positions in the organization including eastern manager of the Society’s Speakers Bureau, director of the Society’s Research
Department, national director of the Society’s tax reform program, and editor of The John Birch Society Bulletin. He graduated from the University of
Lowell (now the University of Massachusetts – Lowell) magna cum laude in physics in 1976 and worked one summer at a nuclear power plant while still in
college. But before graduating he decided he wanted to make the John Birch Society his career, believing that the Society provides the organized means for
preserving our freedoms. Benoit is qualified to speak on a variety of subjects including the fundamentals of Americanism, The John Birch Society, The New
American, the politics and science of global warming, and major media bias including how to read between the lines], “Myths and Meteorology”, July 30,
2001, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435624/posts, brackets added (HEG)
• Man's effect on the climate: In the interest of scrupulous accuracy, Dr. Lindzen acknowledged in his May 2nd Senate testimony that "man, like the
butterfly, has some impact on climate." Obviously this was true when the Vikings were able to cultivate Greenland, Iceland, and Newfoundland. But it is
true even today. In the April 3rd issue of the Wall Street Journal, George Melloan noted that, according to "serious scientists," "the greenhouse gases are a
fundamental part of the biosphere, necessary to all life, and … industrial activity generates less than 5% of them, if that." • Carbon dioxide's effect on
climate: According to the global warming theory, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has been established, is causing the global
temperature to rise. Most of the increase in the surface temperature during the past century occurred before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2. The
temperature in 1940, recall, was not much different than it is now. Yet, as astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas pointed out in a letter published in the August 5,
1999 Wall Street Journal, "more than 80% of the manmade carbon dioxide has entered the air since the ’40s." One reason why the global warming theory
may be flawed is that the amount of atmospheric CO2 is not the only variable determining the earth’s temperature. It is not even the main "greenhouse" gas.
In a chapter appearing in the compendium Earth Report 2000, Dr. Roy Spencer, senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center,
noted: "It is estimated that water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of the earth’s natural greenhouse effect, whereas carbon dioxide contributes most of the
remaining 5 percent. Global warming projections assume that water vapor will increase along with any warming resulting from the increases in carbon
dioxide concentrations." The projected "positive feedback" to the initial CO2-induced warming may not occur to the extent that global warming theorists are
predicting, however. As Dr. Spencer points out, "there remain substantial uncertainties in our understanding of how the climate system will respond to
increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." Moreover, the natural greenhouse effect that heats the earth is moderated by
natural cooling processes. "In other words," concluded Dr. Spencer, "the natural greenhouse effect cannot be considered in isolation as a process warming
the earth, without at the same time accounting for cooling processes that actually keep the greenhouse effect from scorching us all." • The sun's effect on
climate: One factor global warming theorists ignore is the effect that the sun’s changing activity may have on the global temperature. A
brighter sun
may cause the global temperature to rise, and vice versa. Dr. Baliunas [an astrophysicist], in the Wall
Street Journal letter referenced above, explained how the sun’s activity can be measured by the length of the sunspot
cycle (the shorter the cycle, the more active the sun). Dr. Baliunas’ letter included a chart showing a
close correlation between changes in the length of the sunspot cycle and Northern Hemisphere land
temperature for 1750-1978.
4. Dates-who cares? empirics is empirics. If I get a card from 2k showing data from 50 years prior, and
then from 09 showing data from 59 years prior, why does it matter?
II. Impacts
All of his impacts (biodiversity, extinction, etc) hinge upon global warming actually being a major
threat. It's not; I've shown it's not anthropogenic, it's completely natural. In the past, it's been higher than
even the worst-case scenario and we've been absolutely fine. In fact, it helped.

WraithLeader 2NR

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WraithLeader 2NR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Will Malson WraithLeader 2NR Page 1 of 7

3) Abuse is in the explosion of the topic that neg has to research.

2 (3/4/5). internat coop vs. comp (whoa, irony)

I. Warming ain't anthropogenic

1. Robinson et al, #2 in the 2NC:

2. Bast, (1/2) under #13:

You might also like