Military+Development+-+DCH+&+Lav

__**Work Groups--Initial**__
 * Space Weapons BAD--Lav
 * Blaize
 * Dai'Quan
 * Gaochy
 * Hannah
 * Jake
 * John
 * Lillie
 * Lisa
 * Purva
 * Shikha
 * William
 * Space Weapons GOOD--DCH
 * Alex: China threat/advantage
 * Ben: Big aff book
 * Imanol: Clutch artices/utility
 * Maci: Missile threat/defenses
 * Micheala: SBMD solvency
 * Semaj: Space forces/other weapons good
 * Sophie: Space hegemony/Dolman

__**Tagging & Underlining Exercise**__

How DCH would tag the cards Kyl 07: Space threat high now--China and other countries threaten key satellites, EMPs Debrois 03: Weaponization destroys economy, spurs an arms race, crush commercial and exploratory space Lambakis 01: Weaponization decreases war: 1) geopolitics spurs conflict, not weapons 2) enhances U.S. deterrence Kueter 05: Treaties fail: 1) won't eliminate threats; 2) leave us defenseless Krepon 04: Weaponization crushes economy and causes nuclear war--fosters hair triggers, first strikes, and accidental wars while poisoning great power relations Dolman 10: Space weaponization inevitable, moving first key to leadership--China will if we don't, locks in U.S. power, decreases resentment by solving intervention motive Tannenwald 04: Space sanctuary key to leadership--decreases resentment, bolsters perception of benign hegemon

Note: there are many *right* ways to tag cards--context of use and personal style both matter a *lot*

__**Links: Organizations**__ Air University: http://www.au.af.mil/au/cadre/aspj/ [both] Center for Defense Information: http://cdi.org/program/index.cfm?programid=68 & http://cdi.org/program/index.cfm?ProgramID=6 [neg] Center for Security Policy: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.xml Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/wpnsinspace/index.html Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Space-Policy & http://www.heritage.org/Issues/Missile-Defense [aff] Marshall Institute: http://www.marshall.org/category.php?id=8 [aff-hacks] INESAP: http://inesap.org/bulletins [neg] Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis: http://www.ifpa.org/publications/publications.php [aff] National Institute for Public Policy: http://nipp.org/Publication/Downloads/downloads.html [aff] Stimson Center: http://www.stimson.org/programs/space-security/ [neg] Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/ [neg]

__**Lab-Specific Rules**__
 * Students are NOT allowed to "cut cards" from: www.spacedebate.org. Yes, you may use it for cites.
 * Students are NOT allowed to email authors without Lav's permission.

__**Tagging Tips**__
 * Be concise: 6 to 12 words is ideal for most (non-1AC/K) cards
 * Eliminate unnecessary words
 * Frontload "debate function" of the card
 * Use prior content to eliminate words
 * Figure out what words you want to appear on the judge's flow, and use that as the basis for the tag
 * Use powerful, memorable words
 * Use wording/phrases from the evidence
 * Example: Johnson '03 evidence from the exercise
 * First draft: "space weapons cause space debris, prevents further exploration, crushes space commerce"--captures card meaning, but is inefficient
 * Second draft "weaponization kills space commerce, space debris makes exploration impossible"--more efficient, misses important claim in the card
 * Third draft: "weaponization crushes space use--debris"--much more efficient, but overly so because it misses an important impact in the card
 * Fourth draft: "weaponization crushes space use--debris & arms racing"--captures full card meaning, appropriate for a 2NC/2AC block
 * Another version: "weaponization devastates environment--debris blocks rays"--makes a good, strong argument