File Explanation
This file is designed to provide negative teams with a generic strategy against critical
affirmatives that use the word/concept “exploration” in the 1AC. Many affirmatives
will defend an “exploration” of something related (or unrelated) to the oceans in
order to help answer topicality violations and framework arguments. This file contains
two positions that might be helpful against those cases:
1. A topicality violation about “exploration” that can be read independently of a
violation about the USFG. The interpretation requires the affirmative to rigorously
observe and document aspects of the oceans, not just think or theorize about the
oceans.
2. A critique/concept PIC of the frontier mentality implied by the concept and
language of exploration. A concept PIC advocates “doing the aff” but not endorsing a
particular concept included in the 1AC. It is not a “plan inclusive counterplan” because
it is usually a response to affirmatives that don’t advocate a plan, but the basic
theoretical assumptions are the same: instead of attacking the whole aff, the neg
agrees with most of the aff but disagrees about one aspect of it. This argument can
also be introduced as a “dirty word” critique if students are more comfortable with
that genre of argument.
The two positions can be used together: if the affirmative meets the negative’s
topicality interpretation, they link to the critique/concept PIC. Additional impact
evidence for the critique can be found in other negative critique files; the focus of this
project was the link — adding more impacts should be easy.
This file also includes some evidence that might be helpful for affirmatives that want
to play with different meanings of the word “exploration.” These cards can be used to
answer the exploration critique/concept PIC, but the best affirmative responses will
be case-specific and dependent on how the affirmative uses the term “exploration.”
Important SDI Note
This file was constructed to create productive debates about the exploration topicality
and concept PIC arguments against critical (“exploration is our tie to the topic”)
affirmatives. It was not intended to be a bidirectional “word PIC” file that could
facilitate balanced debates in other contexts (especially as a word PIC against policy
affirmatives/plans). Do not use this argument without getting permission from your
lab leader(s).
Negative — Topicality
Explanation
This is a topicality violation that teams can read in addition to the typical T—“USFG”
argument. If you are not reading that topicality argument, omit the opening sentence
and insert the Steffen card about ocean literacy into the 1NC shell. This argument is
best against cases that use broad definitions of “exploration” to justify saying
something or doing something related to the oceans.
1NC — Topicality “Exploration”
Even if they beat our “USFG” violation, other topicality burdens remain.
Specifically, “exploration” is more than just “observation” — it requires direct
intervention in the phenomenon under study.
Cerezo 10 — Jose A. Lopez Cerezo, Professor of the Methodology of Science at the University of Oviedo (Spain),
2010 (“Dimensions of Clinical Observation in the Origins of Scientific Medicine,” New Methodological Perspectives on
Observation and Experimentation in Science, Edited by Wenceslao J. González, Published by Netbiblo, ISBN 8497455304, p.
119)
Footnote 10: I
am following common trends in philosophical literature by
differentiating “observation” from “experimentation,” and both of these from
“exploration,” as basic data production procedures in science. To start, the general
term, “observation,” as, for example, auscultation reveals, may refer to perception of a nonvisual nature. As opposed to “observation,” “exploration” implies a certain
intervention in the phenomenon under study (as a physician does when
performing an autopsy or a geologist, when obtaining a sample of the ground).
“Experimentation,” in turn, implies a systematic manipulation of the phenomenon
to study a certain relation among variables and to test the null hypothesis. See, e.g.,
Harre, R., Great Scientific Experiments: Twenty Experiments that Changed Our View of the World, Phaidon Press,
Oxford, 1981. Spanish translation by Luis Bou: Grandes experimentos cientificos, Labor, Barcelona, 1986, pp. 14-16.
In the context of “ocean exploration,” this requires rigorous observations and
documentation of aspects of the oceans.
NOAA 13 — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, last updated in 2013 (“What Is Ocean Exploration
and Why Is It Important?,” January 7th, Available Online at
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/backmatter/whatisexploration.html, Accessed 07-14-2014)
Ocean exploration is about making new discoveries, searching for things that are
unusual and unexpected.
Although it involves the search for things yet unknown, ocean exploration is
disciplined and systematic. It includes rigorous observations and
documentation of biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archaeological
aspects of the ocean.
Findings made through ocean exploration expand our fundamental scientific
knowledge and understanding, helping to lay the foundation for more detailed,
hypothesis-based scientific investigations.
The affirmative violates this interpretation because they do not rigorously observe
and document biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archaeological aspects of
the oceans. (Explain)
Prefer our interpretation and vote negative.
First, manageable limits — broad definitions of “exploration” not grounded in
oceanography create unrealistic expectations for research and preparation. A smaller
topic with fewer cases fosters specific neg strategies that promote in-depth clash and
argument development while giving the affirmative enough flexibility to innovate.
Second, meaningful ground — adhering to a totally un-negotiated topic after its
announcement by the 1AC deprives the neg of the opportunity to substantively
engage and productively disagree. Our interpretation ensures some level of
predictable neg ground, better challenging the aff to defend their position.
Third, ocean literacy — our interpretation of “exploration” ensures it. This was
impacted on the first violation.
NOAA 13 — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, last updated in 2013 (“What Is Ocean Exploration
and Why Is It Important?,” January 7th, Available Online at
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/backmatter/whatisexploration.html, Accessed 07-14-2014)
Ocean exploration can improve ocean literacy and inspire new generations of
youth to seek careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
The challenges of exploring the deep ocean can provide the basis for problemsolving instruction in technology and engineering that can be applied in other
situations.
Exploration leaves a legacy of new knowledge that can be used by those not yet
born to answer questions not yet posed at the time of exploration.
Interpretation Evidence
“Ocean exploration” requires systematic observation of all facets of the ocean.
McNutt 1 — Marcia K. McNutt, President and CEO of the Monterey Aquarium Research Institute, Griswold
Professor of Geophysics and Director of the Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied Ocean Science and Engineering
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, President of the American Geophysical Union, holds a Ph.D. in Earth
Sciences from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2001 (“Ocean Exploration and Coastal Ocean Observing Systems,”
Prepared Statement for a Joint Oversight Hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
and the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives, July 12 th, Available
Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg73840/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg73840.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014,
p. 54)
What is Ocean Exploration?
Ocean exploration is the systematic observation of all facets of the ocean
(biological, physical, chemical, geological, archaeological, etc.) in all three
dimensions of space and the fourth dimension of time. Ocean exploration
leaves a legacy of carefully documented information for posterity, to address
questions we do not know enough to even pose at the time that the data are
collected. Ocean exploration pushes the envelope for technology as we attempt
to gain access to Earth’s most challenging environments. Ocean exploration leads
to great, but largely unpredictable, rewards: cures for diseases from novel
biological compounds, untapped mineral, energy, and biological resources,
insight as to how the ocean system functions, geological and biological vistas of
unsurpassed beauty, appreciation for mankind’s maritime past. Ocean
exploration captures the attention of the public and provides engaging content
for improving math and science literacy.
“Ocean exploration” requires curiosity-driven research of ocean-related processes,
properties, and places.
Watkins and Panetta 7 — James D. Watkins, Co-Chairman of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Retired
Admiral in the U.S. Navy, served as the U.S. Secretary of Energy during the George H. W. Bush administration, and Leon
E. Panetta, Co-Chairman of the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives,
former Director of the Office of Management and Budget and Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, 2007 (“Ocean
Policy Priorities in the United States; and H.R. 21, Oceans Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21 st
Century Act,” Statement Before The Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans of the Committee on Natural
Resources of the U.S. House of Representatives, Available Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG110hhrg34377/html/CHRG-110hhrg34377.htm, 07-15-2014)
Congress should support an enhanced National Ocean Exploration Program. A
robust exploration program that coordinates, enhances, and strengthens activities across federal agencies is a missing link
in a national strategy to better understand the Earth's environment. Exploration
focuses on curiositydriven research of ocean-related processes, properties, and places that are
poorly known or understood. Put into context, more than 1,500 people have climbed to the summit of
Mount Everest, more than 300 have journeyed into space, and 12 have walked on the moon, but only 2 people have
descended and returned in a single dive to the deepest part of the ocean, spending less than 30 minutes on the ocean
bottom, 95 percent of which remains unexplored.
Violation Evidence
“Ocean exploration” is distinct from research. Even if the aff’s research is related to
the oceans, they aren’t “ocean exploration.”
McNutt 1 — Marcia K. McNutt, President and CEO of the Monterey Aquarium Research Institute, Griswold
Professor of Geophysics and Director of the Joint Program in Oceanography and Applied Ocean Science and Engineering
at the Massachussets Institute of Technology, President of the American Geophysical Union, holds a Ph.D. in Earth
Sciences from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 2001 (“Ocean Exploration and Coastal Ocean Observing Systems,”
Prepared Statement for a Joint Oversight Hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards
and the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives, July 12th, Available
Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg73840/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg73840.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014,
p. 54)
Why does the U.S. need a program in ocean exploration?
It is very simple. The
ocean is essential to life on Earth. The ocean is Earth’s largest
living space and contains most of its biomass. Eighty percent of all known phyla are found only in
the ocean, and most photosynthesis occurs there. The ocean moderates our climate to keep Earth
habitable, and it processes our wastes. The ocean provides an inexpensive source of protein to feed the
global population. Yet 95% of the ocean is unknown and unexplored. How could that have
happened? During the great era of exploration from the 15th through the 18th centuries, the target was unknown lands:
the New World, the Dark Continent, Terra Incognita. Many of the explorers of that era were indeed superb mariners—
Columbus, Magellan, Drake, Cook—but the ocean itself was not the target of their journeys. It was merely a barrier that
needed to be crossed in order to claim new lands and discover new riches. The technology did not even exist at that time
to explore the ocean itself. By
the time we developed the platforms and instruments that
could explore the ocean and its depths, exploration had gone out of favor as most of
the land surface had already been catalogued, and the vast resources of the oceans were
unappreciated. To be sure, much has been learned about the oceans through research
programs supported by Federal agencies, primarily NSF, the Navy, and NOAA. But research is distinct
from exploration. Exploration leads to questions. Research finds answers. Every
day Congress and other legislative bodies are asked to make policy decisions
concerning the oceans, based on the best scientific answers to those posed
questions. But what if we don’t know enough to ask the right questions? For
example, some are now proposing direct sequestration of carbon dioxide in the ocean, below 3 km depth, as a way to
circumvent the atmospheric release that leads to global warming. But how can we assess the biological impact of ocean
sequestration when we don’t know all of the creatures that live in those regions, much less the role they play in the overall health of the ocean ecosystem? As another example, my institution’s ocean observatories documented a 25% drop in
ocean productivity in Monterey Bay in the decade of the 1990’s caused by a 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in ocean surface
tempera- ture. This extreme effect was not predicted by the sophisticated computer models because we have not explored
the ocean sufficiently in the time domain to ask the right questions of the models. In
order to know the right
questions to even ask, the U.S. needs a program in ocean exploration.
“Ocean exploration” is distinct from general oceanography — it requires research
aimed at better utilizing the ocean and its resources. The affirmative violates this
interpretation because they don’t lead to better utilization of the oceans.
NRC 69 — Committee on Oceanography of the National Research Council in the National Academy of Sciences and
the Committee on Ocean Engineering of the National Academy of Engineering, 1969 (“The International Decade of Ocean
Exploration,” Report by the National Academy of Sciences, Available Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CZICgc11-o25-1969/html/CZIC-gc11-o25-1969.htm, Accessed 07-15-2014)
The term “International Decade of Ocean Exploration” can be interpreted very
broadly. Thus the Steering Committee gave early consideration to the features
that could serve to distinguish programs of the Decade from the whole of ocean
science and engineering. A broad statement of the basic objectives of the Decade
was developed, as follows:
To achieve more comprehensive knowledge of ocean characteristics and their
changes and more profound understanding of oceanic processes for the purpose
of more effective utilization of the ocean and its resources.
The emphasis on utilization was considered of primary importance. In contrast
to the total spectrum of oceanography and ocean engineering, the principal focus
of Decade activities would be on exploration effort in support of such objectives
as (a) increased net yield from ocean resources, [end page 2] (b) prediction and
enhanced control of natural phenomena, and (c) improved quality of the marine
environment. Thus Decade investigations should be identifiably relevant to some
aspect of ocean utilization.
The word "exploration" has a number of meanings, extending from broad
reconnaissance to detailed prospecting. Exploration effort of the IDOE should
include the scientific and engineering research and development required to
improve the description of the ocean, its boundaries, and its contents, and to
understand the processes that have led to the observed conditions and that may
cause further changes in those conditions.
Impact Evidence
Ocean exploration is important — it offers tangible benefits to everyone.
NOAA 13 — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, last updated in 2013 (“What Is Ocean Exploration
and Why Is It Important?,” January 7th, Available Online at
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/backmatter/whatisexploration.html, Accessed 07-14-2014)
While new discoveries are always exciting to scientists, information
from ocean exploration is
important to everyone. Unlocking the mysteries of deep-sea ecosystems can
reveal new sources for medical drugs, food, energy resources, and other
products. Information from deep-ocean exploration can help predict
earthquakes and tsunamis and help us understand how we are affecting and
being affected by changes in Earth’s climate and atmosphere. Expeditions to the
unexplored ocean can help focus research into critical geographic and subject
areas that are likely to produce tangible benefits.
Incorporating ocean literacy into the debate curriculum is vital to solve our impacts.
Cava et al. 5 — Francesca Cava, Ocean Literacy Project Manager at the National Geographic Society, holds an
M.P.A. from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, et al., with Sarah Schoedinger, Senior Education
Program Manager at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, holds an M.S. in Marine Sciences from the
University of Delaware, Craig Strang, Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, and Peter Tuddenham, Co-Founder of the College of Exploration, 2005 (“Science Content and Standards for
Ocean Literacy: A Report on Ocean Literacy,” November, Available Online at http://www.coseese.org/files/coseeca/OLit04-05FinalReport.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014, p. 4)
The need for ocean literacy is simple. The most dominant feature on Earth is the
ocean. Understanding the ocean is integral to understanding the planet on which
we live. This understanding is essential to sustaining our planet and our own
well-being. However, for many years core curricula for grades K-12 have not included
ocean topics. In fact, in some cases, the ocean has been completely ignored in formal K12 education. The challenge facing ocean literacy proponents has been how to
incorporate concepts about the ocean into accepted curricula. In the last several years,
several institutions have grappled with this challenge in a variety of ways.
There is a clear scholarly consensus about what constitutes ocean literacy. This should
guide our curriculum.
Cava et al. 5 — Francesca Cava, Ocean Literacy Project Manager at the National Geographic Society, holds an
M.P.A. from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, et al., with Sarah Schoedinger, Senior Education
Program Manager at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, holds an M.S. in Marine Sciences from the
University of Delaware, Craig Strang, Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, and Peter Tuddenham, Co-Founder of the College of Exploration, 2005 (“Science Content and Standards for
Ocean Literacy: A Report on Ocean Literacy,” November, Available Online at http://www.coseese.org/files/coseeca/OLit04-05FinalReport.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014, p. 4-5)
Conclusions and Next Steps
This report represents the completion and documentation of the multi-phase,
national effort to improve ocean literacy. The ocean sciences and education
communities were able to come to consensus about what every person should
know about the ocean in order to make wise and informed decisions about it
and about our future. In so doing, the two communities have taken great and
unprecedented strides toward becoming a single, more unified community. Though
we are not naïve about the different worlds and cultures in which scientists and educators live, we are heartened that so
many have [end page 5] worked together so effectively on this important issue. We also recognize that the inclusion of
scientists in development of educational policy and resources is one that must continue.
Now that agreement has been reached on what must be taught and learned
regarding the ocean, we can turn our attention to how to convey this
information to a variety of learners, audiences and interest groups that include teachers
and teacher leaders, school and district administrators, pre-service educators, professional developers, standards
committees, instructional materials developers, assessment specialists, textbook writers and publishers, exhibit designers
and informal/free-choice educators.
Here’s evidence describing an ocean literate person. The affirmative doesn’t help
anyone better understand any of the seven essential principles.
Cava et al. 5 — Francesca Cava, Ocean Literacy Project Manager at the National Geographic Society, holds an
M.P.A. from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, et al., with Sarah Schoedinger, Senior Education
Program Manager at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, holds an M.S. in Marine Sciences from the
University of Delaware, Craig Strang, Associate Director of Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of CaliforniaBerkeley, and Peter Tuddenham, Co-Founder of the College of Exploration, 2005 (“Science Content and Standards for
Ocean Literacy: A Report on Ocean Literacy,” November, Available Online at http://www.coseese.org/files/coseeca/OLit04-05FinalReport.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014, p. 9)
Definition of Ocean Literacy
Ocean literacy is an understanding of the ocean’s influence on you and your
influence on the ocean. An ocean-literate person understands the fundamental
concepts about the functioning of the ocean, can communicate about the ocean in
a meaningful way, and is able to make informed and responsible decisions
regarding the ocean and its resources.
Essential Principles
Every ocean literate person should know these essential principles:
1. The Earth has one big ocean with many features.
2. The ocean and life in the ocean shape the features of the Earth.
3. The ocean is a major influence on weather and climate.
4. The ocean makes the Earth habitable.
5. The ocean supports a great diversity of life and ecosystems.
6. The ocean and humans are inextricably interconnected.
7. The ocean is largely unexplored.
Negative — Concept PIC/Critique
1NC — Exploration Critique/Concept PIC
(We agree with the 1AC, but we disagree with the way that its content was connected
to the topic via the concept of “exploration.”)
First, “ocean exploration” rests on a frontier mentality that valorizes conquest of
unknown territory. Even if this isn’t the affirmative’s intended meaning, the concept
of “exploration” is inextricably bound up in frontier assumptions.
Rozwadowski 12 — Helen M. Rozwadowski, Associate Professor of History and Maritime Studies at the
University of Connecticut-Avery Point, 2012 (“Arthur C. Clarke and the Limitations of the Ocean as a Frontier,”
Environmental History, Volume 17, Issue 3, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals, p. 3-5)
Shortly before the 1960s, scientists, explorers, and writers had begun to
characterize the ocean, particularly the undersea world, as a [end page 3] frontier. Many who
were involved in ocean exploration associated the sea with outer space, sometimes
pointing to similarities and sometimes to contrasts between these two forbidding, yet promising, environments. As an
example, consider
how the engineer and popular author Seabrook Hull
characterized the sea in 1964:
Of the two great frontiers, space and the ocean, being opened up in the 20th
Century, only the ocean is close, tangible, and of direct personal significance
to every man, woman, and child on the face of the globe. Another war
might be won or lost in its depths, rather than in outer space. It is a
cornucopia of raw materials for man’s industries, food for his stomach,
health for his body, challenges to his mind, and inspiration to his soul.4
Hull labeled both the sea and space as frontiers, and then he enumerated some
of the reasons why champions of ocean exploration believed it might prove more
pressing, and also more rewarding, to concentrate on the ocean. Reference to the
provision of food and the potential for creating wealth echoed cultural
assumptions about what the American West offered as a frontier. In addition, the
suggestion that the sea promised strength and spiritual sustenance likewise
evoked associations between the western frontier and American individualism
and democracy.5
As Hull’s quote makes clear, promoters of underwater exploration felt it held more immediate potential compared with
space exploration. This was especially the case during the 1950s before Sputnik and the race for the moon. A single
invention, the Aqualung, was most responsible for opening the undersea world, not only to experts but to ordinary
people as well. In 1949 Jacques Cousteau and a colleague invented the Aqualung, the first free-swimming underwater
breathing set.6 Previous underwater breathing gear included helmeted diving suits and wartime innovations such as rebreathers that used carbon dioxide scrubbers to avoid the escape of air bubbles that might reveal the diver below. Such
equipment required significant expertise and was dangerous to use even for professional divers. The Aqualung or, as
subsequent generations of the technology were called, Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus, or SCUBA, was
eagerly embraced by skin divers and spear fishers, and also by newcomers to the sport, including recreationalists,
scientists, filmmakers, and others.7
Among the early users of the Aqualung was Arthur C. Clarke. Relative to his fame for science fiction and space
prognostication, Clarke is less well known for his early and enthusiastic pursuit of diving, spear fishing, underwater
photography and treasure hunting; for his promotion of undersea exploration; and for his predictions of [end page 4]
futuristic ocean industries, technologies, and uses of the sea. He dove and wrote about the oceans in the late 1950s and
early 1960s, and the ideas and preoccupations found in his ocean writings appear and re- appear in popular and scientific
works throughout the 1960s.8 Although many of Clarke’s expectations and predictions regarding the ocean were not
fulfilled, they fell firmly within the range of what ocean scientists and engineers also anticipated.
In Clarke’s words and deeds, and also in
the minds of a generation of scientists,
diver/explorers, engineers, and entrepreneurs, the ocean promised to become
the premier outlet for their economic, intellectual, cultural, and social ambitions.
Their embrace of the frontier analogy signaled their belief that the ocean might
provide not only resources but also necessary challenges. Clarke and some of his
contemporaries believed that an emerging relationship with the ocean formed part of what they considered an
evolutionary trajectory for humanity. In a very concrete sense, the ocean’s resources would in the near future prove
essential for the survival of the growing population. But the relationship with the ocean had another dimension as well
because Clarke believed that humanity required new challenges in order to survive. People had evolved from the sea, and
now the ocean’s depths were expected to serve as the testing ground for both the technology and the spirit that would be
required for humans to break free of the earth to explore space. Clarke’s writings and biography, then, offer a window
into how the ocean was perceived, how experts expected to be able to use it and its resources, and even how the ocean
might figure in world history.
Second, this frontier mentality sanctions capitalist imperialism. Historically, this has
resulted in massive violence.
Marshall 95 — Alan Marshall, holds an M.Phil from the Institute of Development Studies at Massey University
(New Zealand), 1995 (“Development and Imperialism in Space,” Space Policy, Volume 11, Number 1, February, Available
Online to Subscribing Institutions via ScienceDirect, p. 46-47)
Frontierism, however, is not so much a social or psychological concept as an
economic philosophy. It emerges from the individualism so entrenched in
American political and economic thought (which serves to secure the operation of ‘laisser faire-ism’
as sacrosanct). Frontierism involves a belief in the individual to surmount the
challenges of a new situation, a new territory or a new environment and carve
out an existence. Once the individual has done this they deservedly call that
territory or environment their own. By this process the frontier grows larger and
carves out an extended base for economic and demographic expansion, so
contributing to the wealth of the nation (or more accurately to the wealth of the bourgeoisie) by
turning unproductive land into an economic resource. In US history, as in the history of
some of the other New World nations, frontierism was an economic policy designed to tame
the wilderness and present it in economic terms as soon as possible.
In reality frontierism is a more accepted and socially-sensitive word for
capitalist imperialism, since (just as in capitalist imperialism) it involves the appropriation
of economic resources that are considered previously unowned. Like capitalist
imperialism, frontierism perceives nothing of value in the frontier lands except what
can be scraped from it economically and converted into capital. In nineteenthcentury USA, the value of native peoples and the value of the landscape was
arrogantly ignored as the West was made to succumb to the utilitarianism of
the imperialistic capitalists. Such is also the outlook of those who advocate pioneering the ‘Final Frontier’.
Frontierists views that the planets and moons of the solar system are valueless hunks of rock until acted upon by humans
to produce economic value and contribute to capital accumulation. Space frontierists such as Wernher von Braun, Arthur
C Clark, Kraft Ehrick, William Hartmann and Gerard O’Neill feel that imperialism can be excised from their frontierism
by appealing to the innate curiosity in our personal consciousness. To them, frontierism in space will amply channel the
human propensity to explore and expand in a constructive and benevolent way. These rationales for space expansion
must, however, stand up for themselves, since they are ultimately separate from the frontierism experienced in history.
The fact that there is confusion between these socio-psychological elements and the actual economic nature of fronterism
in modern day calls for space development gives credit to the nineteenth century idealogues who so convincingly tied
bourgeois economic policy with populist ideology that it continues to fool so many into believing fronterism is a worthy
nationalist (even universalist) ideal.
Because frontierism is ultimately an economic philosophy its success as a rationale for extraterrestrial development relies
on economic forces. As such, it is as doomed a rationale as the other economic [end page 46] models of space
development discussed earlier. But what of the socio-psychological and socio-biological aspects inherent in modern
frontierist thought. Might they offer a convincing rationale for Solar System development?
They Say: “Case Outweighs/Concept PIC Doesn’t Solve Case”
We also advocate the aff, but we don’t tie it to the topic with the word (and concept
of) “exploration.” This solves the case but avoids our critique of frontierism. Even if we
only win a small risk of the critique, there’s no solvency deficit — none of the benefits
of the 1AC require the use of the term “exploration.”
They Say: “Not Our Exploration – We Mean Something Else”
Frontierism is a bedrock assumption of ocean exploration. There is a necessary
connection between “exploration” and “exploitation.” Reject the concept of
“exploration” to avoid repeating the violence of the American West and the
destruction of the Earth’s oceans.
Rozwadowski 12 — Helen M. Rozwadowski, Associate Professor of History and Maritime Studies at the
University of Connecticut-Avery Point, 2012 (“Arthur C. Clarke and the Limitations of the Ocean as a Frontier,”
Environmental History, Volume 17, Issue 3, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals, p. 18-20)
Notwithstanding the limitations he assigned to the ocean relative to outer space, Clarke
had bold and
ambitious expectations for human use of the sea and its resources. His writings
reveal attitudes toward the ocean that influenced how its resources were
perceived and used. His language and the content of his writings depicted an
ocean that strongly resembled the western frontier as described by Turner and others since,
complete with seemingly unlimited economic potential and great social and
cultural power. Clarke conveyed breathtaking optimism about the expected scale and extent of new uses for the
ocean and, predictably for his time, exhibited blindness about what groups of people would and would not be involved in
or benefit from a deepening human relationship with the ocean.61 Embedded
in his view of the ocean
as a frontier was the bedrock assumption that the sea should be systematically
and maximally exploited, just as the resources of the American West had been.
Science and technology would, to Clarke and contemporary ocean enthusiasts,
enable new and intensified uses of the sea and marine resources. Oceanography
existed not simply to increase understanding of the ocean and its contents and
processes, but to facilitate exploitation. In the late 1960s, ocean scientists and engineers who planned
[end page 18] for the proposed International Decade of Ocean Exploration reflected this view. The overall goal articulated
for the Decade was “To achieve more comprehensive knowledge of ocean characteristics and their changes and more
profound understanding of oceanic processes for the purpose of more effective utilization of the ocean and its resources”
[italics in original]. The sentence immediately following this goal in the Steering Committee report pressed the point:
“The
emphasis on utilization was considered of primary importance.”62
Clarke and his contemporaries had plans for using the ocean that reflected more
accurately their desires than anything inherent about the ocean environment
itself. The sea, like other elements of the natural world, did not simply bend to the will of the engineers and
entrepreneurs of the 1950s and 1960s, however much they expected it to do so. The technologies, industries, and
capabilities that Clarke and others predicted—such as atomic submarine engines transporting cargo underwater in giant
rubber bags, massive-scale farming of plank- ton or ranching of whales, profitable mining of a host of minerals and metals
from seawater, or the possibility of communication with whales and dolphins—did not come to fruition. While the
offshore oil and gas industry did emerge, other undersea industries involving workers operating, even living, deep under
water did not. In 1969 the experimental saturation diving program, SEALAB III, was terminated after the death of diver
Barry Cannon during emplacement of the habitat. Two years earlier, the Apollo program continued after the fiery death
of three astronauts on the launch pad. There are many reasons for the failure of the dreams for using the ocean harbored
by the likes of Clarke and his contemporaries—and for the continuation of space exploration when it seemed, to ocean
enthusiasts, that the promise represented by Trieste and SEALAB went regrettably unfulfilled.
Because the space frontier overshadowed the ocean frontier in the decades after the Second World War, it is essential to
examine these frontiers relative to one another. The ocean possessed characteristics recognized as associated with
Turner’s frontier: resources to fuel economic development and increase standard of living as well as the setting for the
outlet of human energy and the progressive development of human culture. At times the space and ocean frontiers
seemed similar, but analysis of the writings and life of Arthur C. Clarke, who immersed himself in both of these realms,
reveal a crucial difference. The value of the ocean frontier rested in the vastness of its potential economic resources. Space,
however, was ultimately judged a better frontier because of its potential to serve human spiritual and cultural needs
endlessly into the future.
Articulation of this difference offers insight into current ocean issues. It illuminates the frustration expressed by ocean
boosters from the postwar period to the present that ocean exploration is [end page 19] wrongly neglected relative to
exploration of outer space. Boosters of ocean exploration apparently have a hard time arguing that earthbound
exploration is not simply a “mopping-up operation.” The cultural promise offered by the infinite extent of space came to
resonate more strongly, by the end of the 1960s, than the fading dreams of the fabulous wealth to be derived from the
ocean’s depths. The
stubborn persistence in viewing the ocean in terms of its
economic resources has contributed to massive global overfishing, depletion of
other marine resources, and cascades of unintended ecosystem effects. While concepts
of conservation and preservation were applied to land at the turn of the twentieth century, and Aldo Leopold articulated
the need for a land ethic at midcentury, recognition of the ocean as an environment in need of protection and ethical
treatment has emerged slowly and recently.63 The
enthusiastic identification of the ocean as
frontier created a legacy for human use and understanding of the sea and its
resources that remains with us to the present.
Ocean exploration is rooted in frontier assumptions about conquering the uncharted
wilderness. There is a necessary connection between exploration and exploitation.
Ballard 1 — Robert D. Ballard, President of the Institute for Exploration, holds a Ph.D. in Geology and Geophysics
from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Research Institute, 2001 (“Ocean Exploration and Coastal Ocean Observing
Systems,” Prepared Statement for a Joint Oversight Hearing before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and
Standards and the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science and the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources of the United States House of Representatives, July
12th, Available Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg73840/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg73840.pdf,
Accessed 07-15-2014, p. 58)
Many people perceive Resources
and Science as separate categories, yet in my field, at least—ocean
exploration—they are very closely related. It is appropriate to hold this as a joint hearing, as we begin to
refine our policy for ocean exploration so we move forward into the new millennium with a blueprint for the future.
For years now, we have referred to space as the last frontier and in the words of
Star Trek, felt we must “go where no one has gone before”. I strongly believe America must
maintain its lead in space exploration but it is by no means the ‘‘last frontier’’.
Ironically, we now have better maps of the far side of the moon that has never
faced Earth than we do of Earth itself. We have better maps of Mars and Venus
than of Earth.
Most people do not know that Neil Armstrong TOOK that “giant leap for
mankind” on the surface of the moon BEFORE earthbound explorers using tiny
deep diving submersibles entered the largest mountain range on our own home
planet. We had to wait until 1973 for that, four year after Armstrong’s ‘‘giant leap’’.
Today we have explored only a fraction of the world’s oceans, which cover more than 71%
of the Earth. This is particularly true in the Southern Hemisphere, where the oceans occupy 81% of the planet’s surface
area.
Going back in time, you will find that, during the 18th and 19th centuries, England commonly had more survey ships in
the Southern Hemisphere of Earth than America had in the 20th century.
Why explore? Because exploration has always preceded exploitation of the
natural resources of our planet. Before we discovered the vast oil, gas, and coal
deposits of the west, before there was Yellowstone National Park, before there
was an Anaconda Copper Mine, there was a Lewis and Clark Expedition. The
vast majority of our planet has never had a Lewis and Clark Expedition pass
through its uncharted wilderness.
What better Nation to lead the world in a new wave of exploration than our
nation, a nation founded and explored by pioneers?
But future explorers of Earth need to develop the technology necessary to explore the vast and remote regions that lie
beneath the sea. We need a new class of exploratory vehicles known as AUVs: autonomous undersea vehicles that can
accelerate our rate of exploration.
And while
this exploration is underway, we need to begin developing how we can
better farm the sea. Our use of the sea is still primitive. Just as the farmers and
ranchers came to America to plant their crops and tend their herds, significantly
increasing the productivity of the Great Plains and eventually feeding the world,
we need to stop being hunters and gatherers of the sea and become their
shepherds. To do that, we need to develop the technology future farmers and ranchers of the sea will need.
Besides exploring, exploiting, farming, and herding the sea, we also need to
protect its natural beauty and cultural history for the enjoyment of countless generations to come.
Just as we have set aside wildernesses and national parks and preserves on land, we need to do the same in the sea.
Frontier assumptions are programmed into the concept of “ocean exploration.” The
baggage can’t be avoided.
Malahoff 1 — Alexander Malahoff, Professor of Oceanography, Director of the Hawaii Undersea Research
Laboratory, and Director of the Marine Bioproducts Engineering Center at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, 2001
(“Ocean Exploration and Coastal Ocean Observing Systems,” Prepared Statement for a Joint Oversight Hearing before the
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards and the Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on
Science and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans of the Committee on Resources of the
United States House of Representatives, July 12th, Available Online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG107hhrg73840/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg73840.pdf, Accessed 07-15-2014, p. 92-93)
The United States of America is surrounded by the oceans. Our country has the world’s largest exclusive economic zone.
We have the largest Navy, the largest research fleet, and yet, the smallest merchant marine. The oceans are an essential
resource to us in our fisheries, oil resources and coastal resources. Yet, this vast environment of the oceans is also our
frontline defense against any adversary. Today, the oceans are much more to us than the traditional area of interest that I
have just described. The oceans are the source of our weather and climate. The oceans are the habitats for a spectacular
spectrum of life ranging in size and complexity from microorganisms to whales. The oceans are the homes for coral reefs,
soft corals, and other complex sessile organisms inhabiting the ocean floor. Submarine volcanoes and mid-ocean ridges
form the habitats for exotic life assemblages around hydrothermal vents and homes for microorganisms known as
extremophiles. These environments on the ocean floor or lying just below the sea-surface represent sites where life began
and then grew into the complex diverse system we know of today. This is a complex interlocking system of life, ranging
from the ocean floor and the water above, to the atmosphere above that.
The oceans will continue providing us with food and energy and with the resources for a range of entirely new industries,
specializing in marine bioproducts, pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals derived from exotic micro-organisms, such as
extremophiles living around hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor. We are a great and resourceful nation and our future
rests upon our competitive advantage in the world based upon our out-of-the-box thinking.
In order to have a meaningful knowledge of this complex system and its potential role in the future well being of the
United States and its people, a meaningful plan that has a global perspective of this earth system needed to be put in
place. The plan would include a full survey and assessment of the ocean life systems, the effect of ocean chemistry and
climate on these systems, and the vast array of habitats on the ocean floor, all viewed from an integrated perspective.
The plan designed to achieve our meaningful knowledge of the oceans came to us
in the form of the report issued under the direction of the President entitled, “Discovering the
Earth’s Final Frontier: A U.S. Strategy for Ocean Exploration”. The
recommendations stemming from the report focus around ocean exploration—exploration
[end page 92] with clearly identified goals, objectives and potential benefits. This is an
exciting interdisciplinary, inter-cultural, inter-agency program. It lays the groundwork for
understanding the whole diverse ocean system and our intimate relationship to this system. In this program, we will look
at this system from human habitation on the coasts and islands of the oceans to the hydrothermal vents on the ocean
floor. In
order to accomplish this, we must systematically map the complete
environment. We must establish multi-sensor observatories that will read all environmental data from the coastline
to the deep ocean floor. This includes the biology, geology, physical oceanography, and
water chemistry of the oceans. We must understand the role, history and impact of humans upon the ocean
from pollution to historic wrecks and structures on the ocean floor. We must make this information readily available to
educators and environmental, political, industrial and research leaders, so that effective plans for new aquaculture, new
ocean industries, and new ocean conservation initiatives can be laid.
These challenges in our Ocean Exploration Program open up wide, avenues for
advancement to all sectors of our society with interest and investment in the
oceans. First of all, it invigorates the vision of a new presence for the American
society in the oceans. Secondly, the program offers an opportunity for a different
presence in the oceans for America. With new tools, systems, observatories, vehicles, and sensors
applied to these programs, new industries will flourish and a new ocean systems industrial niche will develop. Our
paucity in the international maritime transportation industry will be balanced by
our leadership in the ocean exploration industry. The exciting aspect of the Ocean Exploration
Initiative will be the challenge of partnerships that would envelope the diverse interests described.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has taken an effective lead by creating
the Office of Ocean Exploration. This has been a bold move towards this new interdisciplinary, intercultural and inter-agency arena. This is a fresh start and a catalyst that will enable our nation to take a lead in the
wholistic understanding of our oceans. This is a critical step for our nation to take and everyone should be behind it.
It is and exciting step because it challenges us to think along a broad intellectual
front, yet focus on frontier problems. These could be the survival of coral reefs, or the range in the
diversity of microorganisms, or the challenge of open ocean pelagic fishery aquaculture, or the extraction of new
pharmaceuticals from organisms living in the hydrothermal vents, or the impact of human presence on our coastlines.
This broad thinking will lead to a revival of global expeditions with airplanes, ships,
submersibles, satellites, robotic miniaturized underwater vehicles, autonomous observatories, and in situ robotic
laboratories. This U.S.-led Ocean Exploration Program will also attract international partners with a dazzling array of
ocean observational systems spanning the globe.
Ladies and gentlemen, America
must take the bold, necessary step to regain the U.S.
lead on all fronts of maritime technology. The challenge of this new Ocean
Exploration is monumental. In our own Hawaiian Island chain, stretching the length of over 1,200 miles, a
home for most of America’s tropical coral mass, very little is known about the nature and life of the ocean floor north of
the inhabited windward islands. The Hawaiian Islands are strategically located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, a
physical and cultural presence of the United States in the middle of the world’s largest ocean.
Frontierism is an underlying assumption of ocean exploration even when not explicitly
acknowledged.
Rozwadowski 12 — Helen M. Rozwadowski, Associate Professor of History and Maritime Studies at the
University of Connecticut-Avery Point, 2012 (“Arthur C. Clarke and the Limitations of the Ocean as a Frontier,”
Environmental History, Volume 17, Issue 3, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Oxford Journals, p. 12-13)
The frontier analogy was particularly important for Clarke, who was among the first writers
to elaborate on it to make sense of human interaction with both oceans and space. Clarke’s vision of the frontier derived
from that made popular by the historian Frederick Jackson Turner who theorized that the western frontier had forged a
distinct, democratic American culture and provided an outlet for the restless energy of its people. Turner first articulated
his argument about the influence of the frontier in American history in 1893, at the very moment that the U.S. Census
Bureau declared the western frontier to be “closed.” To politicians and others, the obvious problem emerged of finding
new outlets for expansion; solutions included overseas territories, Alaska, polar regions, and even the frontier of new
knowledge, especially discoveries in the natural sciences.
By the mid-1950s, the ocean, too, had acquired the status of frontier, as observers
including Clarke expected the sea soon to provide food to feed a growing
population as well as mineral and other critical resources including fresh water. In
November 1953, the American Association for the Advancement of Science included at its annual meeting a special
session on “The Sea Frontier,” which included topics ranging from the geology of ocean basins to the productivity [end
page 12] and biological resources of the sea, to the potential for extracting resources such as fresh water or minerals.35 A
1954 advertisement in Life magazine placed by the American Petroleum Institute declared, “In the open waters of the
Gulf of Mexico, against every hazard of wind, wave, and sudden storm, sea-going oilmen are opening up a new
American frontier.”36 Even
when the word frontier was not invoked, its associations
were. “This wet world, as many is belatedly beginning to realize, may hold the key to his survival on this planet—not
only in terms of attack and defense but in terms of minerals, chemicals and food . . . . Beneath the sea, man is still a
tentative intruder, just learning how to farm and mine its depths.” This characterization of the ocean appeared in a 1962
Life magazine article describing a novel 300-foot instrument-vehicle for ocean exploration, the Floating Instrument
Platform, or FLIP, designed by and built for researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.37 While FLIP was mainly
intended as a stable platform for performing delicate acoustic measurements, work with explicit military applications, the
enthusiasm surrounding such new technological means for probing the sea frequently used the frontier analogy.
Futurists believed that, like the western frontier, the sea would be the site of
dramatic innovation in transportation, communication, and other technologies. As
with all his work, Clarke’s ocean-focused writing rested on his knowledge of contemporary science and technology. As he
did for space (famously predicting earth-orbiting satellites for telecommunication), he envisaged uses that people would
soon make of the sea and its resources. Stories from Tales from the White Hart, dating from the days when Clarke first
met Wilson, included two works that evoked anticipated new uses of the ocean. “The Man Who Ploughed the Sea”
revolved around a plan to extract minerals from seawater, and “Cold War” revealed a scheme by California to destroy
Florida’s appeal to tourists by landing icebergs on Miami Beach. Both proposals, although presented by Clarke in the
context of Harry Purvis’s tall tales, were believed by experts to be firmly within reach or nearly so by the late 1950s and
early 1960s.38 The communication with dolphins depicted in Dolphin Island reflected the work of physician and
neurophysiologist John C. Lilly.39 Farming the sea, as outlined in The Deep Range, likewise seemed an obvious and
achievable goal to scientists and engineers.40
Even if the aff’s personal exploration avoids our critique, the tie to the topic remains
dangerous because it takes on frontier baggage associated with collective, societal
exploration.
Spudis 10 — Paul D. Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute, 2010 (“Have We Forgotten
What Exploration Means?,” Air & Space Magazine, January 25th, Available Online at http://www.airspacemag.com/dailyplanet/have-we-forgotten-what-exploration-means-154597769/, Accessed 07-15-2014)
As long as we are navel-gazing during this policy hiatus, I want to examine a topic that many think is self-evident: what
activities do we mean by the word “exploration?” NASA describes itself as a space exploration agency; we had the Vision
for Space Exploration. The department within the agency developing the new Orion spacecraft and Ares launch vehicle is
the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate. So clearly, the term is tightly woven into the fabric of the space program.
But exactly what does exploration encompass?
Exploration can have very personal meanings, such as your own exploration of a
new town, or a new and unknown field of knowledge. Here, I speak of the
collective, societal exploration exemplified by our national space program. This
exploration began in 1957, when the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union initiated a decade-long “space race” of
geopolitical dimensions with the United States. That race culminated with our first trips to the Moon. Once its primary
geopolitical rationale had been served, Moon exploration was terminated. Since then, the “space program” has been
astonishingly unfocused – drifting from a quest to develop a reusable spacecraft to building orbiting space stations – and
despite numerous studies affirming needed direction, unfulfilled plans to send humans back to the Moon and eventually
on to Mars.
When the race to the Moon began 50 years ago, space was considered just
another field of exploration, similar to Earth-bound exploration of the oceans,
Antarctica, and even more abstract fields such as medical research and
technology development. Moreover, many used the term “frontier” when speaking
about space, touching a very familiar chord in our national psyche by drawing
an analogy with the westward movement in American history. What better
way to motivate a nation shaped by the development of the western frontier than
by enticing it with the prospect of a new (and boundless) frontier to explore?
After all, we are descended from immigrants and explorers. Over time however,
few recognized that there had been a shift in the definition and understanding
of just what exploration represented.
Starting around the turn of the last century, while still retaining its geopolitical
context, exploration became closely associated with science. Although first detectable in the
19th Century exploration of America and Africa, the tendency to use science as the rationale for geopolitical exploration
reached its acme during the heroic age of polar exploration. Amundsen, Nansen, Cook, Peary, Scott and Shackleton all
had personal motivations to spend years of their lives in the polar regions, but all of them cloaked their ego-driven
After all, the quest for new knowledge sounds
much nobler than self-gratification, global power projection or land grabbing.
imperatives in the mantle of “scientific research.”
Science has been part of the space program from the beginning and has served as both an activity and a rationale. The
more scientists got, the more they wanted. They realized that their access to space depended upon the appropriation of
enormous amounts of public money and hence, supported the non-scientific aspects of the space program (although not
Because science occurs on the cutting edge of human
knowledge, its conflation with exploration is understandable. But originally,
exploration was a much broader and richer term. Which brings us back to the
analogy with the westward movement in American history and the changed
meaning of the word “exploration.” A true frontier has explorers and scientists,
but it also has miners, transportation builders, settlers and entrepreneurs. Many
are perfectly satisfied to limit space access to only the former.
without some resentment).
They Say: “Permute – Do The CP/Alt”
1. This severs the term “exploration.” Our concept PIC is mutually exclusive because it
critiques the affirmative’s tie to the topic.
2. Reject severance permutations — they evade clash and let the affirmative off the
hook for important choices about language and framing. Requiring a stable advocacy
protects neg ground and creates more productive debates. They gained a strategic
benefit by using the language of “exploration” — our critique is the reciprocal
strategic cost.
3. Net-Benefit still outweighs — even if they win the permutation, our net-benefit
functions as a critique of the 1AC. We don’t need to win the concept PIC to win the
debate.
They Say: “Permute – Do Both”
1. Can’t “do both” — the concept PIC is less than the aff, so the perm is just the aff.
2. This still links to the net-benefit because it includes the term “exploration.” It
doesn’t shield the link: “exploration” has frontierist baggage that justifies capitalist
imperialism.
3. No net-benefit — there’s no reason to tie the content of the 1AC to the word
“exploration.” Err neg — don’t risk endorsing problematic language when the
counterplan alone is sufficient to solve.
They Say: “Concept PICs Bad”
1. Aff burden — the affirmative should be responsible for defending their word
choices and speech act. This is the only non-arbitrary standard. Allowing the aff to
“interpret” what they “meant” prevents effective pre-round preparation and strategy
development, unfairly skewing the debate in their favor. There’s no infinite regression
because they have editorial control over their 1AC.
2. Specificity key — evidence should determine whether language choices matter, not
debate theory. We’ve read specific evidence that the term “exploration” should be
rejected in the context of oceans. Evidence prevents a race to the bottom. Case-bycase judgment is better than universal condemnation.
3. Topic concept PICs uniquely justified — even if some concept PICs are bad, this
concept PIC is good because it contests a word in the topic. Non-traditional methods
of affirmation necessitate non-traditional methods of negation: “do the aff but don’t
tie it to the topic” is core neg ground.
4. Language shapes reality — it’s impossible to separate language from “real world”
policy.
Chernus 6 — Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies and Co-Director of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program
at the University of Colorado-Boulder, 2006 (Monsters to Destroy: The Neoconservative War on Terror and Sin, Published by
Paradigm Publishers, ISBN 1594512752, p. 7-8)
But their ideals and values do make sense within their own ideological stories. And the logic of those stories (however
perverse) holds a key to understanding why America grows less secure every day. The words they [end page 7] use
have real effects. Words initiate, interpret, frame, legitimate, debate, evaluate,
explain, justify and rationalize public policies. Words, just as much as policies,
can cause death and suffering. The words may not accurately portray the speakers’ or writers’ motives
and ideals. Indeed, the words are often laced with large doses of fiction. They treat real people as if they were characters
in a fictional story—monsters who must be destroyed. But the
people who suffer and die are
absolutely real. That’s why the words and the ideology they express must be
studied.
[This argument depends on the 1AC.] 5. Aff Args Justify — they’ve introduced the
claim that discourse and representations matter. (They’ve also noted that they
disagree with problematic language in their evidence.) They can’t have it both ways; if
language matters, it should be a legitimate basis for competition.
They Say: “Rejecting Language Bad – General”
1. Not responsive — our concept PIC is debating, not censorship. The reason that
speech codes are bad is because they prevent important discussions, but the
counterplan facilitates an important discussion about “exploration” and frontierism.
2. Links more to the aff — the term “exploration” shuts down debate by inscribing
American values and mythologies into the discussion of the oceans. If we win our
critique, this inscription is a justification for violent imperialism.
3. Prefer specific evidence — context matters. Even if their censorship thesis is
generally true, challenging the language of “exploration” is particularly important.
They Say: “Rejecting Language Bad – Butler”
1. Not Responsive — Butler’s argument is that speech codes are bad, not that we
shouldn’t debate about language in an academic forum. Our concept PIC is debating,
not censorship.
2. Harm Justifies — Butler concedes that speech codes are sometimes justified when
there is a clear harm.
Fleche 99 — Anne Fleche, Lecturer in Literature at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999 (“Book Review:
Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative,” Theatre Journal, Volume 51, Issue 3, October, Available Online to
Subscribing Institutions via Project MUSE)
Rather than offer prescriptions, Butler uses her own writing to illustrate the power
of resignification. In her rhetorical readings of Supreme Court decisions, for example, the justices' words become
surprisingly rich and suggestive. She is herself an expert resignifier. Resignifying words, Butler
acknowledges, does not take away their hurt. She does think that sometimes
people should be prosecuted for injurious speech and that universities might
need to regulate speech—but should do so only when they have "a story to tell"
about its harmful effects. She is not opposed to all speech regulation. But Excitable
Speech asks whether regulation makes it easier or harder to reappropriate speech, and why we fear to take the exciting
risk of language, where a threat might also be a promise.
3. Links more to the aff — the term “exploration” shuts down debate by inscribing
American values and mythologies into the discussion of the oceans. If we win our
critique, this inscription is a justification for violent imperialism.
4. Prefer specific evidence — context matters. Even if their censorship thesis is
generally true, challenging the language of “exploration” is particularly important.
Affirmative — Helpful Cards
Exploration doesn’t entail “end” — it includes “theorizing.”
Kim 2 — Sang Ho Kim, Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Oklahoma, 2002 (“Embodiment, Technology and
Communication: A Phenomenological Exploration of Communication in the Technological Milieu,” Ph.D. Dissertation at
the University of Oklahoma, Available Online at
https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/457/3045835.PDF?sequence=1, Accessed 07-07-2014, p. 12)
Central to this study is the exploration of how we are to live with and in the
technological society without becoming another component in its machinery.
However, theorizing about communication will never be more than an
exploration, in the sense that exploration does not entail end. The purpose of
this paper, therefore, is not to provide a solution but rather to question the
meaning of communication and its technology in this technological milieu,
because, as Heidegger (1977) suggests, questioning builds a way (p. 4).
Exploration includes “theorizing” — it doesn’t entail “end.”
Chang 7 — Briankle G. Chang, Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Massachusetts Amherst,
2007 (“Deconstructing Communication,” Theorizing Communication: Readings Across Traditions, Edited by Robert T. Craig
and Heidi L. Muller, Published by SAGE, ISBN 1412952379, p. 255)
Seen in this light, we, as communicating subjects, can no longer be regarded as free agents who choose (or choose not) to
communicate. For the exoteric autonomy of the subjects in communication, of my visitors and me, and of everyone else,
too, is in effect a conditioned freedom bestowed on us by a prior contract. Agency, as the freedom to exchange, therefore
means the university responsibility to honor a contract delivered to us by we-know-not-what and from we-know-notwhere. It is by obeying this imperative that we, as communicators, can be free to communicate as well as not to
communicate.
Communication cannot not take place. This is the paradoxical freedom of communication, the unbearable freedom that
one cannot not communicate, even if one chooses not to do so. One cannot not communicate; “communication cannot be
avoided even when the void of communication, its negativity, is communicated.8 This is the agony of communication, the
ordeal of the autonomos of the communicating subjects, caused by what I called earlier the “postal paradox of
communication.” This agony, this ordeal, accompanies communication at every turn. As a result, we, the communicating
subjects, are both autonomous and other-dependent—free to receive as well as to reject the other and yet bound to play
this double role by the contractual force of an an-archic imperative. By the same token, communication theorists, to the
extent that their metareflective statements say something—intelligible or not—about communication, are destined to
reenact the same double play, exhibiting, in their very enunciations, the kind of duplicity that cannot not take place
whenever one meets and says something to the other. That being the case, theorizing, particularly theorizing about
communication, will
never be more than an exploration. I choose the word exploration
purposefully. Exploration does not entail end; it does not guarantee any final
discovery any more than it predicts the attainability of some ultimate truth. Always
liminal, that is, always transitional, communication theories, like any conversation worth its name, will never be able to
have the last word on the subject matter they choose to address; their ostensive ending—whether it is caused by the
addresser’s avoidance of being communicative, by the addressee’s stupid noncomprehension, or by the message’s own
vacuousness—is but a promise that another ending will come.
Exploration is open-ended.
Pace 72 — C. Robert Pace, Professor of Education at the University of California-Los Angeles, 1972 (“Thoughts on
Evaluation in Higher Education,” Thoughts on Evaluation in Higher Education, Published by the American College Testing
Program, Available Online at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED066132.pdf, Accessed 07-07-2014, p. 2)
The second necessary element in a new model is one which relates to the
appropriate style of inquiry. An apt term for this is "exploration." Traditionally,
the style of inquiry has been characterized by the words "control" and "focus."
Exploration is a freer style—one which encourages hunches, is uncommitted,
and seeks discovery. If the program one hopes to evaluate is continually changing in methods, materials,
personnel, and subjects, this does not mean that it cannot be evaluated. On the contrary, one may discover that programs
that are being modified continually are more effective than programs that remain relatively static. The
spirit of the
evaluator should be adventurous. If only that which could be controlled or focused were evaluated, then
a great many important educational and social developments would never be evaluated—at least not by "evaluators"; and
that would be a pity. To
suggest that the style of the controlled experiment needs to be
replaced by an exploratory style does not mean that one's approach should be
any less careful or rigorous. Exploration involves searching, probing, and
testing alternatives and interactions. It can be tough-minded and theory-based.
But the word exploration also connotes a freedom to look around, to seek new
measures and methods, and to value ingenuity and curiosity.
Exploration is just a starting point.
Burgess 10 — Amy Burgess, Researcher in the Department of Educational Research and the Literacy Research
Centre at the University of Lancaster, holds a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Lancaster University, 2010 (“Doing time: an
exploration of timescapes in literacy learning and research,” Language and Education, Volume 24, Issue 5, September,
Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Taylor & Francis Online, p. 354)
The word ‘exploration’ in the title is intended to signal that I am not attempting to
present a fully formed theory of literacy learning and time, but rather to suggest a starting
point and possibilities for future research by beginning to move Adam's theoretical work into the
practical domain of classroom research. I offer discussion of two data extracts, a short text written by a student and an
extract from field notes. A key feature of ethnographic research is that it aims to weave together different types of data in
order to understand a particular phenomenon (Lillis 2008). For this reason an ethnographer would not normally isolate
data extracts as I do here. However, I have chosen to do so because it enables me to focus on discussing the concept of
timescapes and demonstrating its relevance to ethnographic studies of literacy. Findings and insights generated by the
study are reported elsewhere (Burgess 2008, forthcoming).
Exploration is never-ending.
Blanchot 2k — Maurice Blanchot, French poststructuralist philosopher and literary critic, 2000 (“The Task of
Criticism Today,” Oxford Literary Review, Volume 22, Issue 1, July, Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via
Edinburgh University Press, p. 22-23)
This, if you will, is one ultimate consequence (and a strange manifestation) of the movement of self-effacement which is
one of the senses of the presence of criticism: by dint of its disappearance before the work, criticism recovers itself in the
work as one of the work's essential moments. Here, we find ourselves rediscovering a process that the present time has
seen develop in many different ways. [end page 22] Criticism is no longer a form of external judgement which confers
value on the literary work and, after the event, pronounces on its value. It has become inseparable from the inner
workings of the text, it belongs to the movement by which the work comes to itself, searches for itself, and experiences its
own possibility. However (to prevent any misunderstanding), this is no longer criticism in the limited sense given to the
term by Valery when he describes it as part of the intellect, or a response to the kind of creative work which is deemed
valid only when produced in the clear light of reflective thought. 'Criticism', in the sense intended here, might be said to
be closer (though the comparison is misleading) to critique in the Kantian sense: in the same way that critical reason in
Kant is a questioning of the conditions of possibility of scientific experimentation, so criticism, or critique in the sense I am
using it here, is inseparable from an exploration of the possibility of literary experience; exploration here is
however not
purely theoretical, it is the way in which literary experience is
constituted, and constituted in the act of challenging and testing out its own
possibility in the process of creation itself. The word exploration is a word
which should not be taken in its intellectual meaning, but rather as action
within and towards the space of creation. It is Holderlin, once again, who speaks of the priests of
Dionysus 4in holy Night roam[ing] from one place to the next'. 2 To embark upon the quest for
creative criticism is to follow the same wandering movement, the same labour of
exploration that opens up the darkness and is the advancing force of mediation,
but which is also liable to be the endless rebeginning that ruins all dialectics,
achieving only failure and finding in failure neither its measure nor its resting
place.