ORION PLAN VAGUENESS (PLAN-SPECIFICATION/ABUSE) A.

VIOLATION Orion, specifically talking within the realm of aerospace engineering, which is predictable given the topic of the resolution, the affirmative could be referring to any one of multiple missions/equipment designs that NASA formerly or current has developed, was developing, or had its production cancelled: Orion (spacecraft), a manned spacecraft Orion Lite, a proposed stripped-down version of the Orion spacecraft Orion CEV, also known as the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, as part of the U.S. Constellation program. Orion (U.S. rocket) Orion (Argentine rocket) Orion 1 and Orion 2 Space Observatories Orion, the Apollo Lunar Module used in the Apollo 16 mission Orion, a series of rocket motors used in the Pegasus rockets Orion Asteroid Mission, a proposed NASA mission(s) to asteroid(s) within the Constellation program. Orion Mars Mission, a proposed NASA mission to land humans on the planet Mars within the Constellation program. Project Orion (nuclear propulsion), a project of nuclear pulse propulsion utilizing atomic bomb explosions Project Orion, a project to build a laser broom for the International Space Station THE AFFIRMATIVE IS DIRECTLY CLAIMING ADVANTAGES FROM UTILIZING A MYSTERIOUS ORION PROGRAM herein lies the violation that proves the abuse. The affirmative specifically claims the advantages of asteroid deflection via the Orion program. By not specifying, the Negative cannot approach the correct evidence to counter specific programs and that is wrong because, B. STANDARDS 1. Ground the affirmative has the burden in the round to provide a copy of a detailed plan to the Negative in order to create clash for the round. The key to the Negative having the ability to effectively compete in the round is a specific plan text. In order for

us to discuss any potential disadvantages that will come out of adopting the affirmative case, we as the Negative and you as the judge should have the opportunity to know what specifically the Affirmative plans to do. 2. Fairness The affirmative has unlimited time to prepare their case for this debate. We as the Negative team only know what affirmative case the team chooses to run within the first minute of their first affirmative constructive. Therefore, as far as preparation goes, the affirmative in already infinitely more advantaged than the negative. The Affirmative, by not specifying their plan text, is being strategically deceptive. In order for the Negative to engage the substantive issues of the debate they should provide information on case upfront. Theyre hoping that they can avoid all disadvantages by being vague. 3. Severability By not specifically stating which Orion project the affirmative hopes to revive or continue in order to be resolutionally topical, the Negative then has to presume that they are considering one of the projects. Therefore, we offer disadvantages to an Orion spacecraft, the Negative can say we dont mean the Orion spacecraft, we mean any of these other alternatives [as provided by the list above] This makes the affirmative a moving target. They can sever out of any arguments saying were doing this project, or that project meaning that we never get effective disadvantage link ground. 4. Education If the negative cannot engage the affirmative on account of its vagueness in order to weigh the opportunity costs of plan via criticizing the advantage to passing the affirmative plan (solvency of harms) then they reduce clash in the round. Clash is key to education. In order for the debate to be successful, both teams should be equally matched to competitively seek the ballot. When the affirmative is abusive to the ends listed in these standards they are deliberatively and irrevocably destroying the educational value of debate. C. VOTERS 1. A priori or by priority the judge should consider whether the competitors are competing fairly in the round before evaluating the substantive, evidentiary debate. This is first priority. The affirmative teams deliberately abusive vagueness is a terrible standard to set in debate therefore you should punish them first by voting against them here. 2. The abuse has occurred Im not talking about potential abuse, Im talking actual

abuse. When the non-specific plan was presented in the first Affirmative they irrevocably damaged the negatives ground. We cannot get the affirmative explanation on plan and their specific internal links of plan to the advantages of case until theyve presented the 2 Affirmative speech. That will make my speech a waste if only my partner can debate the specifics of plan. 3. Rules of the Game vagueness is glorified cheating. Its intended to decrease the Negatives ability to engage the negative consequences of the Affirmative case. Make the Affirmative play by the rules and give the Negative the access as defined by the rules to analyze the case rather than allowing them to conceivably be talking about any one of the 12 cases that I listed above.