Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US.

TOPICALITY- A. The reason he is un-topical is because he does not increase incentives. If you look at his plan in the 1AC, there is absolutely NO mentioning of paying these scientists. It simply says, 'A. Government will create a group of scientists to specifically study fusion energy' and 'E. The agenda of the scientists will be to create a useable form of fusion energy for the people of the United States and the world.' Those are the only two places at which the scientists are mentioned. At this point, it is abusive to change his plan to include incentives. All I had to go off in the 1NC was the 1AC, so it is abusive for him to change his plan and make my T moot. Please pull arguments from the 1NC, as he still did not show where he is increasing incentives. B. Voters- 1. Ground- My opponent's argument makes no sense. Yes, I can debate solvency, but a huge debating point in this round is incentives, something that I cannot argue if he does not provide it. Now he is picking and choosing what arguments I can bring up, which creates unfair ground. 2. Education- Aff says that the point of this debate is not education. I beg to differ. The reasons we would be doing this is because of two reasons: A: Education (which I am) B: For fun. No matter what, at least one person is looking for education. At that point, my argument still stands because I want education from this round, and aff has no right to take that away. SOLVENCY: 1. My opponent states that fusion power will be ready soon. Think about how much time that will take: 1st, make sure you can get energy out of it; 2nd, make sure it's safe; 3rd, build fusion plants; 4th, switch everything oil to everything fusion. Now take wind power: it can avoid 1 and 2, and 3 takes a lot shorter, since it is private. 2. He goes on to say that it will be ready by 2016- 2035. 2035?! That's not short at all. We need to control gas prices NOW before the U.S. is sent into depression, and we need to control greenhouse gases before millions of speices are lost. Also, look at his first source. It is a contradiction. It says gas will run out between 2015 and 2025. Then it says fusion energy will be ready by 2035. So, what about the 10 years in the middle? We just don't have energy? That will definitely cause the global economy to crumble. 3. Okay, so he admits that it is an abusive source, because the author is unfamiliar with ITER. He is abusive, AND you can throw that card out. 4. Already answered this... 5. I did not say that he had to put EVERYTHING into the card. It would be fine if the rest of the article agrees with what you put in. But that's where the abusiveness comes in: if the article later goes on to say something completely in favor of the other side, it is abusive. If the only way he can get articles to agree with him means taking little words out of the article, he has a major solvency deficit and is making it unfair for our side. 6?. Okay, let's look at my sources. Revered scientists and journalists saying fusion energy will cost to much. Now look at his. He has a source saying that gas costs a lot and that the sun has a lot of energy. My argument is much stronger because it is based on first hand observation about fusion energy. He also does not explain why or how fusion energy is cheaper than wind. COUNTERPLAN- 1. He says it is not mutually exclusive. I ask: Where do you get your fuel? A gas station. Every car we buy has gas. What will happen if we have two forms of useable energy? Will we be picking between a wind car and a fusion car? Will you only be able to go to wind or fusion fuel stations? No, that doesn't make any sense. The USFG can only pick one, like the way it is now with gas. 2. AWEA, '07 "During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy. Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total." He says that wind energy is already here, but this card disproves that. I don't even need to be arguing this. Go out and fill up your car on wind. Oh, you can't? That's because there currently is no official form of energy with wind. Common sense here. 3. Extend all my dropped solvency arguments. He concedes that wind power will work. I urge you to vote Neg (I'm running out of time, sorry for any confusion and mistakes).