{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":12,"sheets":["Inh","Solvency","T","unilateral cp","Dip Cap DA","asat shift da","Deterrence","multilat","Resilience cp","Collission","Off 6","Macros"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":11,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1904"}

{"sheet":"Inh","index":0,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"Solvency","index":1,"n_rows":1,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":1,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]

{"sheet":"T","index":2,"n_rows":21,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":21,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Space weapons are ABMs and ASATs --- excludes dual use systems and jamming",null,null,"Topical space weapons affirmatives must control weapons that destroy or damage objects in or from space – that excludes dual use systems and jamming. "]
[null,1,null,"That’s important for limits – the topic is already massive---expanding it to include any object that could potentially harm something places an untenable research burden on the neg. "]
["Zones don’t limit weapons",null,null,"Their topic also allows affs to read advantages off of the non-space weapons portion of dual use systems, outside the scope of the 6 topic categories---that ensures shallow preparation that puts the neg at a structural disadvantage and breaks down rigorous argumentative engagement. "]
[null,null,null,"Their interpretation is a limits disaster---with six topic areas and one or both of two topic countries, they make the neg prepare for nearly sixty affs even before teams start combining topic areas and cooperating over minor subsets of each topic area."]
["Vote neg for limits---our interpretation restricts topical arms control to a small, finite set of weapons---theirs includes every weapon tangentially related to space ",null,null,"Limits outweigh – large topics guarantee that each debate is shallow and poorly-prepped for, or worse, the aff breaks new every debate and every team goes 4-4. "]
[null,null,null,"Definitional precision is vital in space policy debates"]
[]
[null,null,null,"The aff is not STM or SSA"]
[null,null,"we are stm"]
[null,null,"B—We’re situational awareness—we exchange data on satellite movements and manage it with keep-out zones.","STM is collision management---the aff doesn’t do that "]
[null,null,null,"doesn't define space weapon"]
[]
[null,null,"Counterinterp—arms control is limiting military weapons or limiting the military uses of dual-use tech.","We don’t over limit --- space satellites are dual-use, but ABM and ASATs are not--- they are exclusively military systems\nThe aff is an explicit alternative to space arms control \n"]
[]
[null,null,null,"\nPrefer competing interps – \n1. Judge intervention – reasonability justifies it since it is impossible for debate to decide what is “reasonable.” Leads to judges intserting their opinions of what affs should be topical into their decisions \n2. Limits – the combination of all “reasonable” affs would explode the topic, especially since every judge would have a different set of “reasonable affs” impact work to that was done above \n"]
[null,null,"Prefer our interpretation—it solves overlimiting—all space tech is dual use—they gut the whole arms control topic.","we are stm"]
[null,null,null,"Newsome just says it isn’t an agreed upon STM system, not that it isn’t STM, also newsome is unilat. "]
[null,null,null,"type of space weapon"]
[null,null,null,"STM is provisions for space traversal free from interference."]
[null,null,"No neg offense—\nB—Reasonability—competing interps crowds out substance and makes a moral hazard to go for T—that undermines clash.\n\n","we are ssa"]

{"sheet":"unilateral cp","index":3,"n_rows":23,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":23,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The United States federal government should \n--  [adopt measures that establish satellite self-defense zones, including at least establishing zones around satellites in geosynchronous orbit spanning 0.2 degrees in longitude or inclination]\n--  substantially increase development and deployment of defensive ‘bodyguard’ satellites \n--  Engage in dialogue and policy coordination with its European and East Asian allies regarding [establishing zones around satellites in geosynchronous orbit].\n",null,null,"solves-same self defense","too long term","war turns waring, key to coop, global solutions are key"]
[null,null,null,"customary international law","cooperation is key"]
[null,null,null,"follow on-they like safe zones","gallaghaerseees it as preemption","cp avoirs north kore war"]
[null,null,"doesn't solve multilat",null,"pdb"]
[null,null,null,"2nd it solves multilat--we would inrease defensei satelites-1st adv says sufficient-if everyone has same tech and understanding of zones--it soves their concerns","ev is too generic","unilat restratin"]
["Unilateral declarations of intent create legally binding international obligations in space arms control---solves perception and defuses security dilemmas ",null,"pdcp",null,null,"no back and forth--dip cap net benfity"]
[null,null,null,"pdcp severs--russia china negotaitons"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"CIL norm"]
[null,null,"Permutation—do both—that’s the plan and combinations of every plank.","pdb--dip cap",null,"reverses US uniltearlaism"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"precedent and modeling"]
[null,null,null,"Unilaterally-declared self-defense zones are fully legitimate under international space law, resolve ambiguity and build confidence ",null,"cooperative intent about arms control"]
[]
[null,null,"It’s perceived as aggressive—including a diplomatic component is key to solve multilat.\nGallagher 5","The ‘Nike Doctrine’ solvency warrant about cutting through endless negotiations specifically applies to self-defense zones and co-orbital ASATs ",null,"1ar still eading--kelley just says take leadership role"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"say yes applies to the CP"]
[]
[null,null,"links cuz it does stuff??","The CP’s sufficient to solve miscalc and signal restraint "]
[null,null,null,null,null,"perm links to dip cap"]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"modeling solves"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,null,"kick that plank"]

{"sheet":"Dip Cap DA","index":4,"n_rows":27,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":27,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["North Korean denuclearization talks now---Pompeo is moving to devote resources",null,null,"Dropped all the links---only arg they get to make about the DA is this quote that they don’t like Pompeo.","plan solvs because china coop","both acces etintion, other page plus new ipacts"]
["Space cooperation drains dip-cap ",1,null,"Diplomatic focus on NoKo is essential---plan risks Armageddon---use-it-or-lose-it pressures make them launch an all-out nuclear attack on America and South Korea which independently kills millions. Even if we win, we can’t keep track of remaining nukes---guarantees prolif---that’s Bandow.","aspirational willing to talk","link to asat something, they will test other weaons"]
["North Korean diplomacy solves nuke war\nDoug Bandow 19, ",null,null,null,"no impact to bioweapons","that takes out rels"]
[null,null,null,null,"no emp impact","take out debris"]
[null,null,null,null,"no extinction from nuke war"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"empy not desponvie, north kore won't care about tracing"]
[null,null,"pompeo wrecks nk diplomacy","nk coming back to table",null,"no industrial civ"]
[null,null,null,"newer ev about coming to table",null,"turns warming and worse"]
[null,null,null,"U.S. is pushing for new negotiations---the state department is directly involved"]
[null,null,null,"Pompeo says the state department’s primary goal is getting back to the negotiating table"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Pompeo takes a hands-on approach and it’s working---plan funding stops it and ensures Pompeo gets involved with China"]
[null,null,"Cooperation with China increases diplomatic capital."]
[null,null,null,"causes nuke winter turns environment"]
[]
[null,null,"Coop with china solves NK – aff spills up"]
[null,null,null,"State Department overstretch means not enough security staff to protect diplomats---tanks solvency, risks prolif and foreign access to key info"]
[null,null,null,"cimbala 15"]
[null,null,"No Noko war – structural factors make de-escalation inevitable, despite rhetoric "]
[null,null,null,"nk bioweapons mod"]
[]
[null,null,null,"emp impact mod"]
[]
[null,null,null,"takes out satelites"]
[]
[null,null,null,"takes out industrial civ"]

{"sheet":"asat shift da","index":5,"n_rows":16,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":16,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Satellite congestion means self-defense zones would have to be small---that reduces their utility---and adversaries will develop more advanced ASATs that don’t rely on co-orbiting ",null,"Conceed sankin – no asat attacks ever","They’ve conceded the aff’s norm leads others to develop kinetic ASAT weapons --- that turns multilat because the arms race still exists\n\nWe don’t need to win China will actually use the weapons in a crisis --- after the plan they pursue them so they still have an ASAT capability \n","why turn case","test kinetic asats after the lan"]
["The plan’s norm locks in acceptance of and legitimacy for ASAT methods other than co-orbitals---specifically kinetic and cyber attacks which turn case and cause debris cascades",1,null,"They’ll test new systems","why would china asat collapse","won't attack in crisis"]
["Satellites solves pandemics\nRamesh Krishnamurthy 18",null,null,"Plan makes China test Kinetic ASATs","xxxxx","test for deterrence"]
["bar yam",null,"no disease impact--adalja 16","That makes space debris exponentially worse---wrecks satellites",null,"test new capabilities"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"not finished yet"]
[null,null,null,"Debris turns the warming IL because we don’t have satellites that collect info anymore",null,"they would need to change from rpo's"]
[null,null,"no russia war bandow 17",null,null,"won't do that in squo because something strategy"]
[]
[null,null,null,"Yes disease impact --- no burnout and genetic variation doesn’t’ solve --- global transportation networks"]
[]
[null,null,null,"zoo disease=extinction"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,"High risk of global pandemics\nEzra Klein 5/27/15"]

{"sheet":"Deterrence","index":6,"n_rows":19,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":19,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["Attack satellites, or space stalkers, threaten US space infrastructure—their proximity and stealth mean they can destroy many targets simultaneously.",null,"No Taiwan war---cole","framing issue--they have read defense to their da's","It causes Ozone and environmental destruction---turns warming impacts",null,"kick the defo stuff"]
["US military strength deters invasion of Taiwan—China has to beat US forces in order to invade.",null,null,"nuke war doesn't cause extinction","Nuclear blast burns down the Amazon and destroy the environment","all this is nuclear winter","ozone stuff doesn't work for neg--motreal is uq"]
["Space stalkers encourage invasion of Taiwan and space war—China could try to deter US intervention by hitting all our space infrastructure at once.",null,"seitz 11","concede no asat usage","Burning down the amazon causes extinction","Montreal protocol solves- ozone layer improving","nukes would destory ozone"]
["1—The US would defend Taiwan—any war with China goes nuclear.",null,null,null,"Amazon key to prevent broad climate change","no impact deforetation","sun too hot to survive"]
["2—Otherwise—international isolation would constrain the PRC to seeking legitimacy via dominance—that causes nuclear great power war.",null,"U.S. satellites aren’t vulnerable and China won’t choose to attack them ","Russia’s emerging space-stalking threat erodes deterrence—they can attempt to prevent NATO involvement and invade the Baltics.]","We positively change the long-term potential of humanity, even if we don’t prevent an existential risk-",null,"means no adaptation"]
["Even a small war causes extinction.\nCribb 17",null,null,null,null,null,"1nc said no nuke winter"]
["1—Enforcement—it’s uniquely verifiable.",null,null,"Plan causes FMCT"]
["2—Defense tech—the plan catalyzes deployment of relevant defense technology to guard zones.",null,"no space pearl harbor"]
["3—Russia and China will say yes – or we convince them"]
[null,null,"ac norms fail--inf and competition"]
[]
[]
[null,null,"nobody agrees to plan"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Dual-use satellites with soft-kill ASAT capabilities are key to U.S. space dominance---they enable crisis bargaining between adversaries that settles disputes with far less violence than alternatives and allow the U.S. to deny military satellites to adversaries without risking kinetic ASAT attacks "]
[null,null,"The impact is nuclear great power war, emboldened rogue powers, and global terrorism---maximum latitude with new weapons enables effective solutions to each "]

{"sheet":"multilat","index":7,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The current unilateral approach to space risks political backlash and isolation on space policy—including a multilateral component is key.",null,null,"trump doesn't thump, global norms something writ large",null,"us unilat bad","they don't have internal link-water down claim","warming extinction--turns north korea scearnio"]
["Specifically—lack of leadership on space weapons erodes momentum for global space governance—other actors lose faith in space multilateralism and act in self-interest.",1,"space force inev","finish wood evidence","No internal link to all sats being lost\n\n","we solve alt causes","less effectie","nuke war can't cause extincton"]
["Space governances solves coming satellite challenges that crush earth monitoring satellites ",null,null,"warming adaptation impact","No internal link to warming --- we wont’ act on data","satelites are key to adaptaiton","ITU-enhance the stas we have--doesn't say necessary/impossible","don't let them contraict themselves"]
["Drought monitoring solves food scarcity",null,"no spillover","only extinction impact","no coop, paris is a sham","yes spillover ??",null,"itc ineffective-crowind out satelites"]
["fdi 12",null,null,null,null,"we need data right now for coop?","warming doesn't cause extinction 12 degrees something","warming is a threat now"]
["Monitoring solves warming adaptation",null,null,"safety zones causes global norms","No warming impact  curry 19","adaptation is the only option?",null,"we solve satlite interference??"]
["Successful adaptation is the only way to prevent extinction",null,"no food wars--card",null,null,"investment in ITU is good?"]
[null,null,null,null,"Extinction requires 12 degrees ","plan solves-balances rhetoric"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"cribb 14"]
[null,null,null,null,null,"golkanay 11"]
[null,null,null,null,"No individual risk can be tied to a specific probability or temperature increase, and most climate risks are small modifications to fundamental societal risks that we’ve dealt with for millennia","hart 15"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"IPCC models overestimate warming impacts – don’t assume cascade uncertainty from mixing scenarios "]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"war turns warming because intl coop"]
[]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"too many uncertiatnies to resolve curry 19"]
[]
[]
[null,null,null,null,"space weather is an alt cause to satelites"]

{"sheet":"Resilience cp","index":8,"n_rows":9,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":9,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["The United States federal government should substantially increase investment in and development of:\n--  space resilience measures including hosted payloads, on-orbit spares, and increased rapid replacement abilities\n--  ground-based resilience measures including proliferating ground control links, additional mission control facilities, and non-fixed launch sites \n--  alternatives to space reliance in the design of weapons systems \n--  counter-ASAT attribution capabilities\n",null,"only multilat now"]
[null,1]
[]
[]
[null,null,"Defensive capabilities alone fail—space stalkers specifically are too fast and strong. "]
[]
[]
["Investing in a suite of resilience and diversity measures as well as non-space alternatives for future weapons systems changes China’s calculus on ASAT attacks by denying benefit "]

{"sheet":"Collission","index":9,"n_rows":8,"n_cols":8,"rows_kept":8,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1AC",null,"1NC","2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
["We have systems for sharing satellite movement plans, but Russia and China don’t cooperate—they carry out uncoordinated rendezvous and proximity operations, or RPO, which will cause collisions.",null,null,"no space war--takes out da's"]
["Amidst ballooning RPO activity, collisions are inevitable absent coordination—safety zones assuage fears of satellite interference, which encourages transparency.",1,"No space war impact","adr can't be used for da's--no dual use"]
["Even if they don’t ultimately collide—unannounced proximity operations can be perceived as targeting and invite preemption."]
["Any satellite attack invites nuclear escalation.",null,"ADR satellites won’t be used as ASATs "]
["Structural factors about space ensure crises will escalate"]
["Cognitive biases ensure escalation"]
["We guarantee info sharing without stifling tech development."]

{"sheet":"Off 6","index":10,"n_rows":3,"n_cols":7,"rows_kept":3,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["1NC",null,"2AC","2NC","1AR","2NR","2AR"]
[]
[null,1]

{"sheet":"Macros","index":11,"n_rows":18,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":18,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Command","Function "]
["Control+Shift+N","Auto-Numbers"]
[]
["Control + I ","Add Row "]
[]
["control + b","Group Selection "]
[]
["control + shift + b","Undo Group Selection "]
[]
["Control + S ","New Sheet "]
[]
["Control + L ","5 spaces down "]
[]
["Control + K ","5 spaces up"]
[]
["Control + Pageup","Next Sheet to the left"]
[]
["Control + Pagedown ","Next Sheet to the Right "]