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

I will concede inherently, thank you for clearing that up. SOLVENCY- I'm not entirely certain if your first paragraph was a rebuttal to my money argument or a generic argument so I'll treat it as both. The PRO says "The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased." but this is not a solvency argument, this is a topicality argument, and as you know I have already conceded topicality, solvency does not focus on the ability to meet the resolution, rather to accomplish what the resolution wants to accomplish ie. help the environment, so we must ask ourselves, will the plan really solve the problem, and will it be worth it, in my upcoming arguments I will prove that the plan will not solve. The PRO's plan states that a group of scientists will be created and that the government will give money to a group of scientists, but the group the money is going to already exists so it is not the same group that the government goes too, therefore the PRO still has not proved that the group will have no hidden agendas yet. My opponent says that "I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained", but if he cannot prove this, will he really solve? The answer is no, the fact that we have been trying for 50 years and have not got fusion energy shows that it likely wont happen so unless he can prove it will, we must assume he will solve nothing. The Federation of American Scientists states that "because of the low abundance of deuterium, an enormous amount of water would have to be boiled to obtain useful amounts of deuterium" http://www.fas.org... Unless my opponent shows evidence that the benefits which may or may not occur outweigh the risks which would undoubtedly occur my evidence, being the only evidence on the issue shows that there could be serious environmental issues from the harvesting of deuterium. SIGNIFICANCE AND HARMS From- Philadelphia Daily News - A nuclear power plant worker was charged yesterday with spiking a lunchroom cooler with radioactive water that eight men drank before the contamination was discovered. The eight who drank the contaminated water last month at the Point Lepreau plant have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer, officials said. http://www.philly.com... The water was from a plant that created deuterium from heavy water, and used it for nuclear fission, it clearly shows that harvesting deuterium does in fact pollute water, think of what would happen if this water were released somehow, no one would know until it was too late. From -AECL-http://www.aecl.ca... "the Girdler process involves large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, raising environmental concerns." This process refers to the production of deuterium, and the process it speaks of is the most economical, and arguably the only corporately viable process for producing deuterium from heavy water. I have clearly shown some of the negatives of deuterium production, and still press for evidence that there is no pollution, although the PRO is correct in saying that it is the CONs job to show disadvantages, once someone claims something such as "No Air Pollution" it is their job to bring evidence proving their point. The rest of my opponents arguments are his generic topicality argument which he attempts to use on other issues, so him claiming that he meets the resolution does not mean that the harms outweigh the risks.