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

Overview, line by line, and voting issues: My opponent has offered a lot of things within this debate that COULD do harm, but NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan. He has said that we will have to boil a lot of water… but where is the disadvantage in that. He has yet to say how these "harms" will outweigh ANY of my advantages let alone have they been PROVEN to hurt anyone. The amount of money we presently spend in the status quo should SLIGHTLY be shifted to the energy of the future… fusion energy. --> So my opponent says that I've called his arguments irrelevant. Well… 1) The evidence does not specifically say anything about fusion energy. 2) There are no harms PROVEN with boiling this water. 3) Even if there were harms, they would NOT outweigh the advantages already PROVEN. --> I don't know the exact date of when fusion energy will be achieved, but I DO know that fusion energy will be EXTREMELY for longed if the plan is not passed. Fusion energy will be achieved, the question isn't when but how can we make it come sooner… the answer? Advocating this plan will make fusion energy (the energy of the future) come MUCH sooner. The reason that fusion energy hasn't come yet is because of people like negative who expect a new form of energy tomorrow. But in reality, it will take a consistent amount of funding until this new form of energy is reached. To all people judging this round, I ask you to be patient and pass this plan, if you do, the chance of fusion energy being here as soon as possible is increased. --> AGAIN… It is not Affirmatives job to show the environmental harms of his OWN PLAN… I guess since I haven't shown any environmental harms then there aren't any. The only harms argued in this debate are that we have to boil a lot of water. 1) That's not a bad thing. 2) The harms from fossil fuels are MUCH greater. --> The whole agendas thing must be dropped from this round. He himself has said that he doesn't know what these agendas are AND (like the other insignificant "harms") are not proven to do ANYTHING bad AND if those bad things (that don't exist) outweigh the advantages in my original case. --> As proven in my previous speech, the energy exchange is 50 megawatts put in, 5,000 megawatts received (from fusion energy). Therefore the Deuterium argument must be dropped. He says that we need to put in energy to get energy… BUT when you get 500 megawatts for every 1 megawatt you put in, it is WORTH it. Multiply that many times and soon the energy crisis is over! Even the CHANCE of this is enough reason to pass the plan. (he said), "proving that bad things can come of this. " --> He says that bad things CAN come from this but has yet to say WHAT these bad things are. (he said), "if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will"--> He never gave any evidence that fusion energy can not be found. I gave evidence that it is likely to come relatively soon, you simply have to be patient AND pass the plan in order to offer the appropriate funding. LEGISLATIVE INTENT EXTENSION: Cap on the emergency fund is all controlled by the government and is issued by the government (post-plan). The point of the emergency fund is if there is need for more funding if what is originally issued becomes not enough. --> Negative has brought up (in a small manner) the amount of money that this will cost. However, if you look to the amount of money that we spend on fossil fuel is SLIGHTLY transferred to fusion energy; it is not that much money. Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels, therefore, investing in another form of energy that will be cheaper in the end could HARDLY be "too expensive. " (he said) "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be? " --> 1) Again, it is not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" solvency will be reached. Fusion energy has not been reached yet because the incentive is not high enough yet, therefore, I urge that this alternative energy incentive is substantially increased and therefore we make the "WHEN" sooner. It has been said that two heads are better than one… therefore the more we put into the research of fusion energy, the better we are. 1)--> Instead of providing evidence that you pressed for I turned it against you. You pressed me to provide evidence that there were no harms but it was you job to provide the harms and my job to prove that they are not that bad AND/OR they don't outweigh the advantages. 2)--> My new evidence was 1) reserved, and, 2) expansions and/or responses on previous arguments VOTERS: In the end of this debate, I want judges to ask themselves, "Why not? " My opponent has said that we will have to boil a lot of water and that we might have to spend some money but has yet to show how this will "harm" society. One thing is for certain, we are in an energy crisis. Billions of dollars are being spent on fossil fuels and it is ridiculous. Imagine a world where you never have to fill your car with any form of energy… A world that you get all of your energy in each of your everyday items and only have to pay pennies for all of it. "The power of the sun in the palm of my hand" is what we are trying to achieve and the BEST way to achieve it is by passing my plan.