The United States federal government should substantally increase alternative energy incentives

I have only three arguments. How did my opponent stretch it to six?! Anyways, clearly my opponent does not share the view of financial responsibility and is now demanding examples to the consequence of excessive deficit spending. Bearing in mind that it is my opponent's burden of proof to demonstrate necessity FOR diverting resources away from existing projects to IFR development, I shall point to the financial crisis of 2007 to 2009. Fueled by government incentives, excessive spending on real estate and home purchase distorted truthful reflection of economic value in and beyond real estate-related products and services. The very incentives encouraging a positive and promising ideal of their time, home ownership, became the catalysts bringing the global economic system to its knee. The government can simply curb dumping of nuclear waste at undesirable location and drive up the cost of nuclear energy to promote alternative energy. Why is it impossible? Take away the oil and coal incentives! In respond to the subsequent increase in cost of energy production, the private sector will automatically seek alternative energy developments and implementations. In my second argument, I choose to focus on the general theme demanded by the stated topic. While my opponent is narrowing down to one specific project and hoping to generalize, it is important to remember that the topic requests for substantial increase of [all] alternative energy incentives. More importantly, however, he narrowly concerns himself in the particularly benefits and promises of a single project while ignoring the responsibility and framework of the federal government system. While I completely agree that IFR sounds like a good investment and I will certainly fork my piggy bank over for, the readers should focus on the economic implication of such lavish spending on something which most people are still not so sure about or do not understand. The critical issue is not whether IFR is good; the critical issue is whether the government should be the one investing in it. Arguably, there are many "good things" the government can do depending on the standards of the time. However, actions beyond the constitutional framework and widespread public support can easily render influence of the government to the will and desire of special interest and radical groups. Rather than focusing on how good IFR is and making projections in the very uncertain future, my opponent must focus on the responsibility of the federal government and demonstrate why it is the federal government's responsibility to bear the risk of project failure and consequence of breaching free market protocols. Despite the Supreme Court shielding the Congress from legal consequence of excessive and irresponsible spending, the federal government continues to bear the moral and social responsibility of spending on projects of higher priorities shared by the greater population. Finally, my opponent and I spend a great deal of time comparing the pros and cons of the free market mechanism. Refraining myself from pasting my entire introductory economics textbook here, I will simply point to the Chinese market transition from nationalized enterprises to free market competitors. China has practiced resource appropriation since the inception of the communist party until the transformation movement toward capitalism in recent decades, and the difference in economic prosperity has been rather self-evident. My opponent can argue and promote the benefits of policy-based appropriation all he wants, but the federal government must not act until the majority citizens of this country share my opponent's belief. Furthermore, my opponent has also brought up examples focusing on the social area of public interest. The internet, for example, originated as a project for national defense. Our overwhelming proportion of senior citizens also requires government focus on the healthcare front. Both issues rank consistently higher than alternative energy concern in polls and surveys. The question is not whether the IFR project itself is good or bad. The main focus is whether the federal government should divert its limited resource toward something while its people are calling for help in other more immediate and dire concern. To summarize, it is clear that my opponent has focused primarily on the good of the IFR project alone when the debate topic specifically asks for government intervention and resource diversion. His sales pitch may find its audience among venture capitalists or investment bankers who share his vision for future demand and profitability. However, the federal government must adhere itself to the will of its constituents in principle and in practice. From the more recent BP oil spill, we see well-established government protocols for responding to an energy-related environmental issue without interference to the research and development initiatives of off-shore drilling. If the IFR technology is as promising as he claims, then there is no reason why no private participant has stepped up to monopolize all the future profit of this amazing technology. Until the IFR proponents have gathered popular support from the general public, their attempt to solicit government incentive while circumventing market scrutiny shall always be viewed and evaluated with caution and skepticism.