Sept-Oct in Debateland

• These are the September-October resolutions. You probably know them already if you’re in the game.

  
  

  • Public Forum: Resolved: The United States federal government should enact a moratorium on hyperscale data center construction.
  • Lincoln-Douglas: Resolved: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative.

  
  

  The contrast is interesting. I can’t check out the news these days without seeing articles about the building of data centers. These things are enormous and extremely controversial. As our tech gods dive ever deeper into AI, well- or ill-advisedly, more processing power is needed. We may think we’re in a world of ever increasing miniaturization, given the power of our personal devices, but the data those devices need, and will most likely grow to need more of, require monster, or as NSDA would have it, hyperscale, data centers. 

  
  

  This is a wonderfully hot topic. On one side, our executive branch wants to go so far as to give over federal park land to the operation. And of course on that same side is (so-called) tech progress, US competitiveness, etc., etc. On the other side, my use of the word monster to describe these things is only mildly hyperbolic. And on that side is the demonization of AI and its apostles, the protection of the environment, etc., etc. So many irons in the fire... I would imagine that, during the months of debate, nary a day will go by without a new item in the news, and new discussion thereby from all sorts of people on every side of the issue. A PF team will have plenty to work with, and the strongest PF teams will work with all of it. In other words, a strong topic, with enormous relevancy in our present-day life, with an almost daily impact. Kudos to those who came up with it, and those who voted for it.

  
  

  Meanwhile, I can’t check out the news these days and ever see articles about the colonization of outer space. As we’re driving along in our golf cart between holes the subject has yet to arise in the forty years we’ve been banging away at those little white balls. My poker game has yet to wonder about the morality of space colonization in between hands. In dinner conversations, with friends or family, nary a peep. 

  
  

  My guess is that someone was deep-thinking about Elon Musk and Mars and decided that this was the underlying question that needed to be pondered. Or maybe that particular someone has spent just a little too much time with their Paramount subscription following all the various Star Trek series. I'm wildly guessing what they really want to do is discuss spending money on space versus spending money for some sort of social change on earth. I mean, that’s what it boils down to, if you argue it on a straightforward level,  keeping in mind that what we're talking about here is morality. Clash? Good luck with that. I mean, the Rez doesn’t suggest that it’s space for the sake of knowledge; it’s talking specifically about the morality of colonization. So, fasten your seatbelts, judges, because sooner or later you’re going to be hearing about the negative aspects of colonialism. Man versus the Martians? Whatever. It won’t be any fun, whatever it is.

  
  

  I guess that the LDers will quickly enough find a way to debate the topic; they always do. And with any luck, it will be somewhat reasonable. But meaningful? There is no world in which if we don't invest in space exploration we will instead invest in feeding the needy. Any novice policy debater worth their salt can explain that one to you. If colonialism discussion was the goal, has anyone noticed, for example, our President’s actions in Venezuela or Greenland? Plus colonial abuse of indigents does require indigents, and so far the Alpha Centaurions have been keeping a fairly low profile. So they probably really do want to argue resource allocation. Or maybe I’m missing the point entirely. It wouldn’t be the first time. By the way, the alternative to this in the voting was a resolution that "keeping wild animals in zoos is immoral." I can't say that I like it—that word "immoral" applied to animals is a philosophical landmine, not to mention the great work that major zoos around the world to to protect and revitalize endangered species, among other good works—but at least it is fairly relevant: Free the elephants and all that. Versus a rather unlikely "moral imperative." Immanuel Kant is rolling in his grave.

  
  

  Sigh.

  
  

  Of course, I won’t have anything to do with any of it, thank God. I’ll be in the tab room. Or on the golf course. Or at the poker table. Or enjoying a nice dinner. Discussing everything but the morality of colonizing Tatooine.