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

I'm going to begin with Biopower clarification and then continue by going straight down the flow then onto summary. Biopower: It seems that Biopower is not what I have made it to be. Let it be quoted and pulled through the round that my opponent said, "The energy of the human being, not as an individual but the energy of the human in mass. This energy has been defined as biopower or the power of life"… This was EXTREMELY abusive and on the verge of abusive. For this reason, I will be pulling through one disadvantage to advocating the plan at hand. TOPICALITIES: 1. Significant/Substantial: First of all, like I said, this is my first round of policy, but that still doesn't mean that you're topical. I dropped your standards and voters because I didn't even know that they were some sort of special argument. However, he does not significantly (or substantially) increase anything whatsoever. He ATTEMPTS to "increase" human energy, but this class he offers will not even be close to substantially increasing any human power. 2. Increase: My opponent drops the most important topicality on the flow. WHAT is he "increasing"? Nothing… He ATTEMPTS to increase "human energy" but has yet to show how his class will increase the human energy. His plan is to offer a class, but classes have no connection whatsoever to increasing energy. Which leads to what is energy… 3. Energy: My opponent seems to be pushing his standards… HOWEVER, he never picks up the standards of the definition itself. Here is the definition: "any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation"… In his first argument, he states the following, "I agree with my opponent definition and meet it"… He says that you can apply this definition to Biopower, BUT Biopower has NOTHING to do with any of that definition. When the word "or" is put into the definition, you can see that energy has to be one of those things, the human energy he talks of is nothing from the definition. Human's get energy from other sources. Humans in and of themselves are not energy. The energy for the human comes from food and the last time I checked, the only thing that he is doing in his plan is offering a class. No food increase whatsoever. II/III Disadvantages: As I've been mislead to believe Biopower as something it's not, I will only be pulling through one disadvantage (which has been argued before)… The disadvantage is the imbalance of power that will happen if you advocate the plan. If this class becomes successful, you will see that some will learn and some will not. This will lead to an imbalance in power which will make some more dominant than others. In his plan, he offers no change in our diplomatic power, thus, these dominant figures will become high in the political chain, and we will be stuck in status quo. The only thing that is different from this is that there is a class, but this increases no energy whatsoever. Furthermore, he argues in solvency that by decreasing Biopower, no more murders will happen. This is not true, my opponent HAS admitted to this imbalance, thus you will see that these murders will continue. Either people won't learn it from the get go, or people will learn it and then forget it down the road (as many adults of today don't remember physics class when they were in high school)… NO political power is taken away in the plan… and because of ALL of this, he does not get solvency and does not solve for ANY of the disadvantages offered in every round. IV. Counter Plan: My counter-plan solves for the imbalance provided by the Affirmative Plan. It will also save loads of money. It also prevents political corruption (that you claim that you solve but offer no change in politic policies). A class won't do anything, my changes will. You want to help the people decide how things are run, pass my plan and leave his plan in the "file" of good plans that wouldn't solve anything. The voice of the people is only assured on the Negative side. I apologize for not going line for line but I think by now the round just needs to be summarized. SUMMARY In the end of this debate round, there are 3 places to vote for Negative… 1) Topicalities: My opponent is not topical. He does not "increase" anything, it is not "energy" that he is trying to increase, and it would NOT be "substantially" increased. Therefore, he does not stick to the resolution provided thus he must be voted down. 2) Disadvantages: The disadvantage debate has been skewed by my opponents hard to understand clarification. But in the end of the debate, you must see the political imbalance to be INCREASED by his plan. He offers to change in government and he offers the corruption to be increased by ONLY the kids that actually learn in his class. He has never said WHAT exactly these classes contain, thus I have no idea how "energy" will be increased or how any status quo will be changed. How do these kids know that this class is "special?" If it were me, I would just get through the class to get the credit. After this, you have to see that IF something will happen, it will ONLY create an imbalance that will make the harms in status quo MUCH worse. 3) Finally, the counter plan. Judges, you must see that EVERY disadvantage is made better by my counter plan. The reason you pass my counter plan rather than the plan, you give EVERYONE a voice in our government AND you save money while doing. Not to mention the balance you give to everyone is equal. In other words, the imbalance seizes to exist. After this debate, you must vote Negative for the better advantages with no harms. My opponent is not topical and even if he was the disadvantages carry too much weight to be ignored. Thus I can only see a Negative vote. Thanks Yraelz for this debate. For my first policy debate, it was a lot of fun. I'm sure we'll debate again sometime, until then, good luck in the tournament. Thank You!