The USFG should fully fund the ITER program until its completion. (Policy Debate Aff)

Don't let him bring up what he defines it as because that's unfair to the aff. On the W/M first off he says he meets his definition but you don't have to also we increase it by infinite amounts because the evidence I gave talks about how all the funding was cut, but if that's not good enough I would like to say his evidence only talks about how its that much for a year not eight. So we increase that by 1.4 billion clearly an increase. The C/I is about a substantial increase which is more than he asks for so he should be happy. B/L- We give the best B/L because he gives no definition of what "increase" is so you must go by my B/L which I give a better one because I specify. Education- he concedes this so you must see that we are topical because if there is education coming from a debate that means that there is lit on the topic and that it's within the resolution and we are 100% topical. Lit checks abuse because he has lit then we are with in the resolution. Topicality is not a voter- he says that we assume T is about abuse but that's what T is it is a way to show that the aff is abusive which we are not and he concedes this. Inherency His evidence is for this year only our plan is talking about the entirety of the plan. Not one year. Extend both of my other inh. cards I read that talk about how all the funding was cut. On warming He attacks my Wilkerson card but he neglects all of the other cards that talk about how warming will kill every one and we only have 11 years to solve or we die. Wilkerson card: Many people believe that Global Warming is a major threat to the environment we live in. The problem with global warming is the fact that there isn't a definite solution to the problem; I have the solution to the problem, ITER. ITER is a fusion reactor that makes loads of energy with little waste and upkeep. It is the best and only way for people to solve global warming. Many people have ideas about fusion but it is the safest form of energy around because the researchers listen to people and find ways to prevent what they think will happen. For the sake of space I can't put the whole card and I had to cut it down. He says that he doesn't need to address my other adv's but he must in order to get them to "flow negative" since he gives no reason specifically why they go to him they are still adv's for the case. Also extend all my adv's because they are reasons why we solve better than the status quo. K On the first perm it is that we do the plan but we act like we don't want to, we act like we want to roll the dice. On the next perms, I am going to drop them because my first perm solves the case and K best. On what he said about him being a hypocrite, if he didn't want to force himself onto the people then he wouldn't have written the books. The only reason he wrote the book was to show people his ideas and make them think the same way. The neg is an example of this because he is trying to force his ideas into this round. Cross apply what I said to the next argument. Global warming's effect have come into light in the last 10 years and it wasn't even known of when he was alive but Nietzsche decided he didn't want to roll the dice with his life so he went to the doctor when he was sick so you can't follow any of his authors. Extend across my link turn because if the plan is done then people won't have to "interfere" with everything. Cross apply what I just said about link turn and apply it to the case solves the K He says that we don't advocate doing nothing well then fine we can do the plan and the K becomes a PIC. He also admits to us having a systemic impact, he admits we will die so there is no reason no to do the plan and we must get rid of the K because HE ADVICATES DYING. Onto his utopia I will be fine with him bringing it up later but he forgot to put a no voter which is huge in this round. He accepts our framework in this round so you must accept our impacts in the round and evaluate them against his. Also you must see that this round comes down to impacts and that we have the larger ones and that with a systemic impact, that he admits to us having, you must look to this first in the round. The plan is the only way to solve because the status quo only gets us 1/8th of the way to solving while we solve 100% of the case and the K so there is no reason to vote for the neg. You must vote aff. The chance of global warming causing extinction is 100% because it's happening now, I know I keep repeating myself but this point is huge and we must solve. If there is a 1% chance of anything happening because of global warming that's a reason to vote aff, or if there is a 1% chance of us solving then you must vote aff. Thank you to my opponent who made this debate challenging and if he does policy I wish him all the luck this year, and once again I thank him. I hate myself right now because I didn't look at where I was posting and I cut it down to two thousand characters not what it was. So I redid what I was doing