MDAW 2011File Name

Lab Name

1NC-Framework
A. InterpretationThe Affirmative Needs to Defend the Enactment of the Plan by the United States Federal Government B.Violation: they dont use the United States federal government as their actor B. Vote Negative 1. Its Bad For EducationThe Affirmative Kills Our Ability to Debate the Policy Aspects of the Debate Which is what We Prepared for in the First Place, Means We Lose All the Educational Aspects of Competition and Fairness 2. Policy Debates About Space Policy are Crucial to Educate the PublicInformed and Viable Democracy is Only Possible Under Our Framework

Brooks 7 (Jeff, Writer and Political Activist, The Space Review, http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1)JFS
I

think we should solve our problemshere on Earth before we go into space.Thisline, or some facsimile of it, has probably been heard countless timesby just about every advocate of space exploration. For many people, it seems to sum up the totality of their thinking on the subject. Not a few politicians invokeiton those rare occasions when space exploration comes up in political discourse. In October of 2006, on the 49th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik, CBS News anchor Katie Couric summarized this attitude when she concluded
her nightly broadcast by saying, NASAs requested budget for 2007 is nearly $17 billion. There are some who argue that money would be better spent on solid ground, for medical research, social programs or in finding solutions to poverty, hunger and homelessness I cant help but wonder what all that money could do for people right here on planet Earth. When space advocates hear this argument, it is difficult not to become irritated or even a little angry. When something that one cares about a great deal is treated with such disparagement, getting upset is a natural reaction. However, responding with irritationand anger does not help and, if anything, merely strengthens the other person inhis or her belief that space exploration is notsomething that should be a national priority. Its important for space advocates to understand that this opinion is held by people not because they are hostile to space exploration, but because they lack sufficient information about it . Thanks to the media, whichgenerally covers space-related stories only when something goeshorribly wrong, a general

impression has been created that space exploration does nothing more than produce a rather small amount of scientific information, of no practical use to anybody, at enormous cost to the taxpayer. Once people have settled into a comfortable belief about something, getting them to change their opinion is far froman easytask.

2. Framework is an A-Priori Voting IssueThe Lack of Effective common Basis for Communication Makes Debate Impossible, Turns Back Fairness and Education

Shively, 2k(Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M, Ruth Lessl, Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2)JFS
The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. Theambiguistsmust say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, wewill also find that they must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognizethe role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake isin thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-thatconsensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest.In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect.We agree on some matters but not on others, ongeneralities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And thiskind of limited agreement is the starting condition ofcontest and debate. As John Courtney Murray writes:We hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them.It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something

if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidenceor good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a
musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must havesome shared ideas about the subjectand/or the terms of their disagreements. The participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.

Page 1 of 2

MDAW 2011File Name

Lab Name

Framework

3. Our Framework is a Prerequisite to All Your Impact ArgumentsOnly Roleplaying as Policymakers About Space Can Allow For True Political Engagement and the Advancement of Social Goals

Stilgoe 6 (Jack, research fellow in science and tech @ U of London, Demos,

http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/exploration/Public/DEMOS_Space_Jury_final_report_v5.pdf)JFS Citizens as policymakersI always thought that those in control say right, I know what I want to do and where we want to go. On the first day of the jury, Colin Hicks, director-general of the British National Space Centre, talked about his role. Asked by jurors who set his agenda, he replied that it was set by the UK Space Board. "And what," he was asked, "is the link between them and us?" His answer was as honest as it was telling. He said his democratic legitimacy is derived from the Space Board, which is chaired by Lord Sainsbury. Lord Sainsbury is a government minister, who is appointed by the current government. The current government is voted in by UK citizens. And that is the link. Unsurprisingly, the jury felt that regular public involvementin ESA strategy is the only way to real involvement and public support for a space exploration programme . Clear communication ofESAs activities and decisions is not enough the jurors wanted to shapeESAs planning, not just hear about itafter the event. Jurors saw this as having real mutual benefit. The ideas and fresh, external perspectives of the public could be of real value."A new pair of eyes is always useful. "Scientists are working in the lab all day, mostly talking to other scientists. Public involvement will keep them grounded, help them work out what's important for everyone, and how to spend the money, our money, better." So the public could play a more active role in helping to maximise the value of space exploration for their fellow tax payers. But there was debate over the extent to which the public should be directly involved in the decisions of space exploration strategy and policy? What questions might this address? Where we should be exploring (should we be going to Mars), or how we should be going about the exploration (robotic or manned missions)? Who should we be working with, how much should we be spending, and ultimately, why are we carrying out space exploration in the first place? There was a large degree of 'pragmatic humility' that emerged about the scope of public inputs. Far from expecting input into every decision madeat ESA, or undermining the importance of scientific expertise, participants were very wary about expressing opinions on scientific priorities.They had strong ideas about where they feel their opinion is backed up and valid (in evaluating the cost, image and communication of missions, and their educational potential for example) and where it is more shaky. Generally, jurors were agreed on the idea that only an informed public would provide useful input, and an uninformed public could not be expected to. In their opinion, the responsibility here lay with ESA. Following a long discussion on this issue, one jury member summed up the groups thinking: "First of all you've got to educate people about it [space exploration], then you've got to do the marketing, andonly then, at the end of it, when you then listen, you're going to get valuable feedback. If you polledthe whole of the UK right now, I'm fairly certain that they would say, 'I don't agree with much about space' or at the least say, 'I don't care'." In short, to have an opinion ona space explorationpolicy, youalso need to have an interest in and understanding of explorationitself. This could be built at both macro and micro levels. The mass methods of communication suggested in the previous section are important as well as genuine and representative dialogue at the micro level. The latter approach might take the form of further citizens' juries in other ESA member states, or by inviting interested but non-expert citizens onto committees as representatives of the wider public.

Page 2 of 2