Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energ[CONT]

ASPEC->T->Solvency->Oil dependence->CPs->K Yay for 8 off and solvency in the 1nc. haha Honestly, I can foresee much confusion in the round because the negative debater is making arguments that he really doesn't understand.. I'll try my best to keep it clear but there's a lot I have to cover with limited words. ASPEC- He says that I don't specify which branch of the government I am using, so I lose because of it. It can be reasonably inferred that congress is passing my plan. 1) Cross-ex checks.. He could have merely asked. 2) No ground loss, he makes arguments against my case. 3) It is real world, the plan is passed through congress. How much more real world can you get? 4) The plan text is not key.. I don't have to put every single little part of the logistics of passing the plan in the plan text, we would have plan texts that are read for the entire 1AC. You could have asked in CX to get the obvious answer. Not a voter. Effects T- haha you don't understand effects T. Now if I were to say "remove DEA restrictions" and do nothing else that is a direct incentive, I would be effects topical. Effects T is only when the incentive I provide only comes to be after multiple steps post plan passage. Just because I have more than 1 thing that my plan does, does not mean that the incentive is only given a few steps after the plans passage. The plan is perfectly topical, I wrote my own plan text, just because I don't have the stock camp file does not mean I am untopical. Abuse? Really? I am giving specific steps that my plan will take. Look at all the CP ground you gained because of this. With a specific plan text, you just need to find a tiny flaw and you will win. Don't complain because this is actually a good idea that would be passed in the real world with support. And if you really are going to complain because the monetary incentive is at the end of my plan text, just pretend its at the beginning. Like seriously, it doesnt matter where I place the monetary incentive in the plan text, its all passed at the same time. Not real world- This is perfectly real world. They created the restrictions, they can take them away. Even if its not real world you don't impact it. Who cares? It should be real world, if its not real world our system is flawed. Then your impact to it not being real world is non-existent, being that you are trying to uphold a flawed system. Arguments prove no ground loss. Extra-T- You try and make a similar argument but dont pay any attention to the direct monetary incentive I give the third part of my plan text. This is directly a financial incentive and is not extra T. You have to look at the plan text in a vaccum to see if it remains topical, and you can clearly see it is. I meet your brightline. I am topical. Just because I do other things on top of making it topical does not make me untopical. If you go for the abuse story, you're not going to win T and just lose solvency because you will have to concede 100 percent solvency. Arguments prove no ground loss. Solvency- Farmers want hemp The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel "It's high time for hemp, say farmers who are enlisting state legislatures in an effort to legalize cultivation of the potentially profitable non-hallucinogenic cousin of marijuana. Montana and Virginia have formally called for an end to a federal ban on "industrial" hemp, and the Minnesota Senate this week passed a bill, backed by Gov. Jesse Ventura, aimed at permitting experimental hemp production. The Hawaii House this week voted to have the state grow a 10-acre test crop." High profits will drive farmers to hemp Clifford 2008 "In Canada, industrial hemp has become the most profitable crop farmers grow, paying $200 to $300 per acre. Just across the border, in North Dakota, farmers realized $10 to $40 profits per acre growing corn in 2007. " His card is irrelevant. Hemps use as a biofuel in the US will be a huge success because of the crops profitability. Farmers want the switch to hemp now. The importation costs makes US farmers have an advantage over foreign farmers. No infrastructure- There are the ethanol refineries now, they didnt have them in 1997 when his card was written but they do now, 12 years later. ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2007) "There are about 140 corn ethanol refineries nationwide, which produce more than 5 billion gallons a year" Corn biofuels won't exist because hemp is 100 times more effective than corn "An acre of full grown hemp plants can sustainably provide from four to 50 or even 100 times the cellulose found in cornstalks, kenaf, or sugar cane--the planet's next highest annual cellulose plants" He says biomass takes land- I agree. Thats why we use hemp that is 100 times more effective than corn and use less land. I solve back the "the mail" card with the more effective biofuel Oil dependence- The US is dependent on oil Debusmann 2008 "the United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil...America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." That dependence has increased sharply over the past three decades" This threatens the economy in 2 ways 1) Peak oil 2) Mean oil distributors that want to kill us by taking away our oil Bearden 00- I'd find the card but I'm sure you know the deal. It talks about how when the US economy collapses, the whole worlds economy collapses. On the CPs 1st one- Doesnt solve oil dependence. This may solve the food problem but with the aff you solve the food problem with solving our oil dependence and you dont get that with the CP. Look to the aff 2nd one- Corn biofuels will be non existant because they are not effective. At that point, biofuels are not raising food prices at all. The land that we are giving the incentive for is not being farmed on now because its soil is depleted. The tax refunds are key to incentivizing the farmers move to the soil bank to farm hemp and the cp fails because of it. Prefer the aff because it solves back both advantages better. 3rd one- You can't use the soil bank for growing crops other than hemp. Corn wont grow on it, but hemp will. Hemp will replenish the land of essential nutrients. This solves back both advantages better, prefer the aff. On the monkeysphere- The neg links into the K with his 3 counterplans. He is trying to "save lives" too. The evidence talks about how it is physically impossible to love more than a certain number of people.. If you reject my plan, you don't reject the mindset because it is impossible to do so. For these reasons I win the K Extend my framework that says Ks are bad for debate and you shouldnt even evaluate it. Extend the standards. This is a reverse voting issue and you should drop the neg on it independently. He is trying to run a K in this debate round, drop him now so he wont do it again in the future. He concedes that policy debate is better and he is trying to contribute to a new type of debate that isnt as good as the current type. For this you need to drop the team to stop it from happening in the future. Cross-x.