LOGICAL POLICY, RES.- The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US

1. Significant: This has absolutely no impact on my case what-so-ever, my opponent keeps assuming I am trying to increase biopower when instead I am decreasing it. I am significantly increasing the power of the individual, or individual energy. Furthermore my opponent drops all my standards and voters, thus not only does my opponent agree with my two standards but he agrees with the counter voter and counter standards on it. Thus considering the fact that my opponent is still attacking the wrong point he has conceded this topicality and thereby loses the round. 2. Substantial: Once again my opponent drops all standards and voters and offers none himself, thus there is absolutely no reason to vote for him on this issue. Furthermore my opponent goes on to say that classes are not a good means to increase. I ask him then if classes do not have a substantial difference on our nations youth what does? Schooling is a proven way to educate the youth, this is the plan, it calls for a mass education on individual energy and the decline of biopower. 3. Energy: Once again no standards or voters, this topicality has no basis what-so-ever. My opponent also drops my standards thereby agreeing that my counter-interp increases the education and fairness of this round. Furthermore my opponent says that my energy does not meet the three standards which he set forward being, fossil fuel, electricity or solar radiation. I urge the voters to scroll back up and look at this definition as it clearly states that those were 3 examples and not the only types of energy. I completely agree that those are three good examples of energy, but those are not the only examples. The human being is one of the greatest sources of energy that we have or have ever had. II. DA A. My opponent attempts to unturn this but does not justify why at all. Instead he simply states that I will not be able to educate everyone and I have no way of educating the leaders. Negative, I do have a way of educating leaders as the children who are being educated in school will one day be those leaders. And yes, I agree, not everyone will be educated or even care to be educated, this does not change the fact that a large portion of people will be and that I still have a comparative advantage over the status quo. As long as my case offers and advantage over status quo it is the better option. B. No its not, already covered this with world sovereignty. Also if this was completely true then we would have seen more atrocities back when there were not governments, the opposite is true, we have seen worse and tragedies of a greater magnitude under governments in modern times. C. Turn, the economy still exists it just becomes more a world economy. The only difference is pork barrel-esque spending slows down as it can no longer be justified. This allows for more money to be put into the economy for real purposes, economic increase. D. The destruction of the imbalance comes from a decrease in the idea of subsets and population. I will admit that some people will not pay attention in the classes and will still attempt to categorize, that does not change the fact that many people will stop. This avoids harms such as pointless wars and the genocides. These two impacts far outweigh my opponents impact of vigilantism which he has not proven yet. E. Government does not cease to exist, government changes. III. DA A. Wrong! A decrease in biopower comes with the decrease in the population subset system, this decreases the imbalance far more than anything else. Even if some children do not receive the education they will not be viewed as lesser by those who do, on the contrary they will be viewed as part of the world population. This is an overall disadvantage and turns my opponents entire case. B. NO UNIQUENESS. This disadvantage does not apply what-so-ever, even if my opponent is completely right then that just means the world will be exactly how it is now. World before passage of plan = x world after passage of plan = x. Same thing, no disadvantage. Furthermore I'm solving for genocide and wars, which is a serious advantage over anything my opponent has. C. My opponent cannot even come close to attempting to prove that a system implemented K-12 would be ignored by everyone. If this was true then our entire modern schooling system is completely failing. My opponent fails to show how implementing a system that stresses whole population and individual energy will have any backlash. D. Reread: "Biopower is the subjugation of a people through the pretense of being essential to their very survival. A decrease in biopower destroys the pretense of being essential to survival. This disallows for any sort of act being made that would go against individual rights. For instance things like the patriot act and our invasion of Iraq would be critically evaluated and found not to be essential for our survival. Furthermore under a world population system entire populations could not be targeted as the false perpetrators of any crime as there is only 1 population." E. So my opponent states this, "Again, cross-apply when he said, "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust"" I agree, however my opponent seems to think that I am increasing biopower. I am decreasing biopower, and decreasing the idea of populations. Meanwhile I am increasing the energy of the individual and the concept of one world population. Which means I am avoiding events such as.... the Holocaust. This is the largest impact in this round and outweighs anything my opponent could possibly say. IV. Counterplan A. Wouldn't work. 1. If we voted on every single bill and every single election nothing would ever get done. Not only that but people wouldn't bother voting under your system. Political apathy is at an all time high. 2. Politicians in the status quo lie a great deal. How are you going to mandate that politicians tell how they work instead of run? This plan in itself with just increase corruptness. 3. Harms will not stand with the adoption of my plan. My plan also inherently urges some political reforms, which would consist around the premises of my opponents plan. B. I think my opponent is once again missing the point of my plan. I'm stressing world pop, and self energy. This detracts from a sovereign's ability to classify people into subsets while simultaneously detracting from a persons false need to do a sovereigns bidding to survive. In turn we have a decrease in corruption and a disability to justify wars and genocide. THIS IS THE GREATEST IMPACT IN ROUND AND MY PLAN SOLVES FOR IT. C. Political apathy still exists, as your plan in no way even begins to solve for this you cannot claim and advantage. Instead my plan starts to target the voters from the age of 5 or 6 stressing the ideas. This will in the long run decrease politically apathy. Even if like you say people will ignore 12 years of schooling this doesn't change the fact that some won't and this is a comparative advantage over status quo. D. You're right of course. You're counter plan does save some money. Actually I take that back, having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money. However even if it didn't this is what we have. Your counter plan: Saves some money. Gives an apathetical population the chance to vote on everything. My plan: Disallows events such as wars and genocide because of no populations to wage while decreasing apathy from a young age. Which means in turn those children will eventually become the politicians of the world and can implement your counterplan to voters who actually care. Thank you.