2AC Frontlines Starter Pack Aff

2AC Frontlines – Starter Pack Aff

A-to “T – Exploration”

Note

There are many Neg T violations on the word “exploration” – this frontline answers the 1NC exploration violation from the opening packet.

2AC v. “Exploration”

( ) We meet – their Ocean Policy Committee ev is mostly spin. Many parts of searching for the plane aren’t under the investigator's control – including weather, currents, unknown parts of the ocean.

( ) We meet the Ban card as well – we’re not purely a targeted search. We’re exploring unknown aspects of the Indian Ocean.

( ) Counter-interpretation – “Exploration” includes some intentional targets.

Mineart ‘2

Gary M. Mineart and Fred C. Klein, Mitretek Systems, “A Data Management Strategy for the Ocean Exploration Program”, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.2580&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The Frontier Report defines ocean exploration as “discovery through disciplined diverse observations and recording of the findings” [2]. The U.S. Navy, a partner in the President’s Panel process, has refined its definition as the systematic examination of the oceans for the purposes of discovery; cataloging and documenting what one finds; boldly going where no one has gone before; and providing an initial knowledge base for hypothesis-based science and for exploitation [3]. This definition recognizes that true ocean exploration is planned and executed to achieve discoveries as an intentional process rather than relying on serendipitous discoveries that sporadically emerge from typical oceanographic research programs. This definition also emphasizes the recording of results to facilitate the sharing of each new baseline level of knowledge across a broad, multidisciplinary user community.

( ) Neg leaves us with indefensible Affs. Raw exploration – just for the sake of knowledge – is thin on advantages and massively links to politics and spending. Allowing some targeted goal is important for allowing the Aff to win.

( ) Poor education – almost no one in Congress would expect a bill without any goal to pass. Teaches us poor policymaking skills.

( ) Overlimits – all affs could be spun as “having a hidden goal”. Limits out every Aff and we’d never win.

( ) No neg ground loss – we ran a whole advantage about topographic knowledge and there’s no disad they’ve lost because we specified the 370 search area.

( ) Reasonability before competing interpretations – any other stance causes a race to the bottom that hurts topic-specific education.

A-to “T – Non-Military”

Notes to students

First – this is by far the deepest of the three sets of Aff T answers. This is because I think this violation will get a lot of play this season.

Second – the card under the header “Must-read 1AR versus Non-Military T” is one of the stronger Aff T cards on the topic.

I did not include it in the frontline for reasons that I can explain upon request – but I could easily see an Aff choosing to do so.

… I also think the some Negs are going to claim that the *2AC* Zedalis ’79 ev spins Neg (I don’t share this assessment, but I think it might emerge). The 1AR “must-read” card from Zedalis ’79 is useful because – in addition to helping the Aff for the reasons cited in the tag of the card – it also should put spin games about what the author “really thinks” to bed.

Third – the first T answer on this frontline is tricky. I could see creating interesting discussions in lab. It applies differently based upon how the plan is worded.

2AC

2AC Frontline

( ) We meet – plan commits to a “non-military” search. If they win we can’t be “dual-use” assets – that solely re-defines the plan and commits us to different tech.

( ) Counter-interpretation and challenge – make Negs explain factual existence of “non-military” ops that are carried out with military assets.

Gvosdev ‘10

Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a professor of national security studies at the U.S. Naval War College. He is currently a senior editor at The National Interest. – internally quoting Derek Reveron, who is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College – “The Defense Exports” – The National Interest – October 10, 2010 – http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-defense-exports-4201

Derek Reveron’s concept of “exporting security” (discussed in detail in a book of the same name just released by Georgetown University Press) could provide a way forward out of this impasse. Although the public’s attention is drawn to the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, much of what the U.S. military is doing today is strengthening the capacities of partners—strengthening their abilities to exercise effective control over their territories and coastlines and to be in a position to repel outside threats. The United States has security-assistance programs with 149 other nations. Some of it is active, kinetic support in combating insurgents, terrorist groups or drug cartels, as in Yemen and Colombia. Some of it is developing partnership and training programs to enhance the ability of nations to deploy peacekeeping forces or coast guards. It can encompass the gamut from humanitarian relief operations to creating defensive alliances. The net result of all of these efforts is to “develop enduring relations” with other states that gives the United States access to a global network of bases and platforms, but also “strengthens key partners and reduces both the need for American presence and the negative attention it sometimes generates”—and in so doing, can also reduce the burden on the United States to have to act as a global sheriff. Reveron’s approach avoids the “stocking up” approach to military procurement, because the emphasis would be on finding ways to deploy and use assets, rather than warehousing systems “in case of emergency.” For instance, in the maritime realm, the carriers, amphibious vessels and destroyers that were designed to contain the Soviet navy and protect sea lines of communication (and which might be used in a similar role vis-à-vis China in the future) are now being used “to conduct activities ashore to improve human security.” The 2010 response to the Haiti earthquake saw an aircraft carrier and sixteen other warships deployed to provide humanitarian relief and rescue services; such “nonmilitary” missions, in turn, help to reduce the factors which can produce security threats to the United States and reinforce American ties with other states. Reveron quotes a navy official who notes that using “war” assets for non-military missions such as training and humanitarian relief means “We can show up, provide training, provide resources, and then leave very little footprint behind.” An “exporting security” approach guides future procurement decisions towards “multiuse” platforms that can combine conventional and non-conventional missions.

( ) We don’t de-limit – we have literature proving we’re non-military and we don’t bleed to combat ops.

( ) Neg overlmits. Makes exploring the unknown impossible. Also limits-out sonar or cameras because they’re “dual-use”.

Hollins ‘99

Ernest Hollings – Democratic Senator from South Carolina – STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS. Part of this card is part of the Ocean Act legislation that Mr. Hollins CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: May 5, 1999 -- http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Foceanservice.noaa.gov%2Fwebsites%2Fretiredsites%2Foceanpanel.pdf&ei=n6ilU5LHMYiayASr_IK4DA&usg=AFQjCNHjeaR2TuboYv5E7lpoP5s9Taa2mw

Nowhere is the need for U.S. leadership more evident than in the area of ocean exploration. Today, we still have explored only a tiny fraction of the sea, but with the use of new technologies what we have found is truly incredible. For example, hydrothermal vents, hot water geysers on the deep ocean floor, were discovered just 20 years ago by oceanographers trying to understand the formation of the earth's crust. Now this discovery had led to the identification of nearly 300 new types of marine animals with untold pharmaceutical and biomedical potential. In recent years, scientists from 19 nations have joined in an international partnership, headed by Admiral Watkins, to explore the history and structure of the Earth beneath the oceans basins. Their ship, the Resolution, is the world's largest scientific research vessel and can drill in water depths of up 8,200 meters. Over the past 12 years, it has recovered more than 115 miles of core samples through the world oceans. Recently ship scientists worked off the coast of South Carolina collecting new evidence of a large meteor that struck the Earth 65 million years ago, and is thought to have triggered climate change that may be linked to the disappearance of the dinosaurs. Many of our marine research efforts could have profound impacts on our economic wellbeing. For example, research on coastal ocean currents and other processes that affect shoreline erosion is critical to effective management of the shoreline. Oceanographers are working with federal, state, and local managers to use this new understanding in protecting beachfront property and the lives of those who reside and work in coastal communities. Development of underwater cameras and sonar, begun in the 1940s for the U.S. Navy, has led to major strides not only for military uses, but for marine archaeologists and scientists exploring unknown stretches of sea floor. Consumers have benefited from the technology now used in video cameras. Sonar has broad applications in both the military and commercial sector. Finally, marine biotechnology research is thought to be one of the greatest remaining technological and industrial frontiers. Among the opportunities which it may offer are to: restore and protect marine ecosystems; monitor human health and treat disease; increase food supplies through aquaculture; enhance seafood safety and quality; provide new types and sources of industrial materials and processes; and understand biological and geochemical processes in the world ocean. In addition to the economic opportunities offered by our marine research investment, traditional marine activities play an important role in our national economic outlook. Ninety-five percent of our international trade is shipped on the ocean. In 1996, commercial fishermen in the United States landed almost 10 billion pounds of fish with a value of $3.5 billion. Their fishing-related activities contributed over $42 billion to the U.S. economy. During the same period, marine anglers contributed another $20 billion. Travel and tourism also contribute over $700 billion to our economy, much of which is generated in coastal areas. With a sound national ocean and coastal policy and effective marine resource management, these numbers have nowhere to go but up. With respect to public safety, it is particularly important to develop ocean and coastal priorities that reflect the changes we have seen in recent years. Before World War II, most of the U.S. shoreline was sparsely populated. There were long, wild stretches of coast, dotted with an occasional port city, fishing village, or sleepy resort. Most barrier islands had few residents or were uninhabited. After the war, people began pouring in, and coastal development began a period of explosive growth. In my state of South Carolina, our beaches attract millions of visitors every year, and more and more people are choosing to move to the coast-making the coastal counties the fastest growing ones in the state. Seventeen of the twenty fastest growing states in the nation are coastal stateswhich compounds the situation that the most densely populated regions already border the ocean. With population growth comes the demand for highways, shopping centers, schools, and sewers that permanently alter the landscape. If people are to continue to live and work on the coast, we must do a better job of planning how we impact the very regions in which we all want to live. There is no better example of how our ocean and coastal policies affect public safety, than to look at the effects of hurricanes. Throughout the 1920s, hurricanes killed 2,122 Americans while causing about $1.8 billion in property damages. By contrast, in the first five years of the 1990s, hurricanes killed 111 Americans, and resulted in damages of about $35 billion. While we have made notable advances in early warning and evacuation systems to protect human lives, the risk of property loss continues to escalate and coastal inhabitants are more vulnerable to major storms than they ever have been. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo came ashore in South Carolina, leaving more than $6 billion in damages. Of that total from Hugo, the federal government paid out more than $2.8 billion in disaster assistance and more than $400 million from the National Flood Insurance Program. The payments from private insurance companies were equally staggering. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew struck southern Florida and slammed into low lying areas of Louisiana, forever changing the lives of more than a quarter of a million people and causing an estimated $25 to $30 billion dollars in damage. Hurricanes demonstrate that the human desire to live near the ocean and along the coast comes with both a responsibility and a cost. The oceans are part of our culture, part of our heritage, part of our economy, and part of our future. Those who doubt the need for this legislation need only pick up a newspaper and they will be face to face with pressing ocean and coastal issues. And while our coastal waters are governed by the United States or all of us, beyond our waters progress relies primarily on international cooperation. There are no boundaries at sea, no national borders with fences and checkpoints.