This is the case neg against the drones aff from the Malsin-Miller lab.
The offcase positions are the Neolib K, T-Curtail, and a states CP with a court stripping net benefit. There’s a concession in the block to be made on T-curtail, because they probably do meet your interpretation when evaluating the plan text in a vacuum. The concession, throws the 1ar off, and makes them think that they have no access to their advantages.
2nr can be the neolib K and case, since their internal links are super sketchy, so you just have to win a marginal risk of the K- All of their case args are about drones being possibly beneficial, but none of them make the reverse causal arg that without drones, our agriculture, biodiversity, and our economy will collapse. This is definitely something you should spend some time on exploiting.
The 2nr can also be the states cp with the court stripping net benefit. The net benefit indicates that when the Courts make a controversial decision, there will be Congressional backlash, which undercuts judicial legitimacy, which spills over to democratic legitimacy. The states CP definitely solves the drones advantage, but probably doesn’t solve the judiciary advantage, but tbh that advantage is LAUGHABLE. That advantage can be mitigated right away in 1AC CX.
I have attached a 1ac below- Starred cards may not be read in the 1AC but just are additional impact to the food security scenario.
Lack of clear guidelines undermine the drone industry
Whitehouse ’13 Writer for USA Today, 2/23/15, Kaja, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/02/23/crackdown-drones-technology-faa-nyc-councilman/23696377/
NEW YORK — The federal government isn't the only entity seeking to rein in drones as their popularity grows.
Since 2012, 15 states have enacted laws restricting drones in some way, according to data from theNational Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), which tracks state laws.
And if New York City Council Member Dan Garodnick gets his way, drones will be bannedin the Big Apple, except for police with a warrant, as soon as this year.
"There are a lot of very important uses for drones that exist, but until we have the ability to enforce the rules, we are not at a point to grant permission," Garodnick told USA TODAY.
Across the country, state and local governments are grappling witha confusing array of questions about how to deal with drones, which hold great potential to help society as well as untested privacy and security risks.
Drone advocates say the rising plethora of restrictions threaten to leave the U.S. behind at a time when the drone industry is growing. Drone spending is on track to hit $91 billion worldwide in the next 10 years, according to aerospace and defense industry research group Teal Group.
"This is an incredibly important industry," said John Frankel, founding partner of ff Venture Capital, which is an investor in drone operator Skycatch. "It will create an enormous number of jobs in the U.S. and abroad. It will open up enormous efficiencies for existing businesses and industries."
If the U.S. gets too restrictive on drones, Frankel added, "Australia, Europe and Asia will become massive markets, and we will be a backwater."
Currently, the biggest driver of new drone lawsby states has been privacy, especially unlawful government surveillance. So far, 14 of the 15 states have passed laws to curb government agencies from using drones to monitor its citizens, such as in traffic or at a public rally.
Seven of the 15 states also sought to rein in how private citizenscan use drones, according to NCSL's data. In Louisiana, for, example, it's illegal to use a drone to monitor a person or property without consent. Offenders face a fine of up to $500 and six months in jail.
States overcompensate for lack of federal regulation
Goodale ’13 Writer for The Christian Science Monitor, 2/6/13, Gloria Goodale, “States consider drone bans: Overreaction or crucial for privacy rights? (+video)”, http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2013/0206/States-consider-drone-bans-Overreaction-or-crucial-for-privacy-rights-video
LOS ANGELES — As scrutiny over US drone policy abroad grows, local and stateofficials are considering measures to ban their use at home.
Charlottesville, Va., passed the first anti-drone law in the nation Monday, and lawmakers in at least nine states from Massachusetts to California are considering some form of legislation restricting the use of drones.
The perception isthat “the drone program has grownwith so little oversight from Congress or lawmakers" that states have to "make up the slack,” saysMichael Boyle, a political scientist at La Salle University in Philadelphiawho has studied the use of drones. The state and local efforts arise from “the prospect of an increasingly intrusivenanny state – and it will lead to invasions of privacy by governments, but also by organizations such as universities, some of whom have already been given permits for drones.”
The local and statepush to legislate is being driven more by fear than reason, says Matt Waite, founder of the Drone Journalism Lab at the College of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln.