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

I'll go paragraph by paragraph: INHERENCY: Inherency was dropped by negative. SOLVENCY: My first argument was really a generic argument (for clarification). You claim that I do not get solvency (which is his big argument from last speech.) Therefore I would like to use my reserved right to add evidence to prove that solvency will be reached (still on first paragraph). -From: http://www.firstscience.com... -"Nuclear power is deeply unpopular while renewable energy sources – wind, solar and tidal – yield relatively little energy for their high cost. But nuclear fusion could render carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels obsolete by 2100." -This quote proves two things, 1) If congress keeps cutting costs, then we will lengthen the amount of time it takes to achieve fusion power… 2) By fossil fuels running out and getting more expensive… therefore we must increase the incentives of fusion power, which is the energy of the future. -(Same Source) -"Energy production from nuclear fusion has proven an insurmountable challenge so far. Yet scientists are now saying that plans for larger and more sophisticated reactors around the world could finally make this possible in 50 years time. Is this more than just wishful thinking?" -This proves that we can't be cutting the funding for fusion power ESPECIALLY NOW. If we substantially increase the energy incentives by increasing funding, these "larger and more sophisticated reactors" will be created if the plan is passed. The ITER is the head of fusion development, but the US must do its part and if Congress cuts this spending (that should be overturned and increased by passing this plan), then fusion power will only be prolonged. The question is not IF solvency will be reached, but when. The sooner this funding can go through the sooner the energy crisis can be over (because fusion power will end the crisis). This is proven by the estimates made by Chris Warrick (the UK Atomic Energy Authority) "You need 50 megawatts of power to heat it and you should get around 5,000 megawatts out." (Next paragraph)--> The whole argument about "hidden agendas" is ridiculous. The CHANCE of hidden agendas does not make adequate grounds to vote down the plan. Furthermore, you have to see that the ONLY agenda that these scientists need to stick to is the agenda of finding usable fusion energy… that's it. The fact that there is a group of people being made to create fusion energy seems to be enough to see that they are going to have the agenda of creating fusion energy. ALSO, my opponent has not offered what these other agendas could be AND how they will harm anyone. This argument carries no weight whatsoever. Solvency was proven to be met two paragraphs ago… Simply cross-apply it here. (www.fas.org argument)--> This argument does not link to ANYTHING that has to do with fusion energy. If you go to the specific website of where he got this quote, it mentions fusion energy a whopping ZERO times. Furthermore, it never says HOW MUCH water would need to be boiled AND there is no link to how this would harm society. This argument continues to carry no weight… --> First of all, the evidence mentioned has already been proven insufficient to proving anything… Furthermore, my opponent has yet to show how boiling water (still unsure about how much) can harm ANYTHING… BUT STILL, the 1 harm of boiling water can't even begin to weigh while compared to the MULTIPLE advantages listed in solvency AND the ones solved from inherency harms. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS: --> This argument isn't topical to my plan whatsoever. This evidence deals with nuclear power plants BUT my plan calls for fusion energy which is as safe as can be (which is proven in my solvency advantages)… The evidence only speaks about nuclear power which does not talk about fusion energy specifically… please drop this from the round. --> This paragraph clears up that my opponent does not understand what I am trying to do with my plan. FISSION power has many harms but FUSION power has yet to be linked to anything. My opponent talks about nuclear waste that is proven to not be caused by fusion energy (in my solvency). Then he talks about water pollution caused by fission energy but fission and fusion are completely different types of energy. There are no links and there are therefore NO disadvantages. (www.aecl.com) --> Again the water pollution is not linked to fusion energy. The water pollution he talks about only deals with fission energy which has nothing to do with my energy plan. In the end… even if ALL of these harms are passed (which they do not link so they don't), fusion energy should STILL be invested in. It IS the energy of the future with little to no negative effects. Boiling water does not kill millions of people. The harm is not significant but the advantages are. The costs of fossil fuels ARE expensive and ARE running low AND are causing significant pollution to our earth. Therefore, the plan should be passed immediately. Thank you!