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

I negate: Resolved- The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States. I. Topicalities -From dictionary.com A. Significant- Fairly large in amount or quantity So far in this round, my opponent has not shown adequate increase in anything. He mentions nothing about how much "Biopower" there is as of now but simply that we need to increase. Increase is a maybe but significant increase is no where. B. Increase- to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality Again, all that my opponent contends is that the power of the individual should be increased. But no where does he say from what to what. How much Biopower is there now and how much CAN you increase it from school. His Inherency and his plan are significantly flawed. C. Energy- any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation The final topicality is that this "Biopower" is not "energy." I'm not going to be able to put this Biopower into my car and drive to school. Biopower is NOT energy. D. For these reasons, my opponent is non-topical… The rest of my arguments will serve as arguments if you accept him as topical… II. Sovereignty Disadvantage A. The human has the greatest "energy" with sovereignty. There is no increase of Biopower when you destroy sovereignty. The ONLY time that you have the best amount of "individual power" is when there is a government. If you tell these individuals that they are capable of anything, then eventually they will attempt to take over the government. B. (Link) With increase in Biopower comes inevitable decrease in sovereignty As in status quo, the government does some stupid stuff that the regular people do not know. If they have more Biopower, they will be under the impression that they can have a greater voice in politics. If every individual really does have more power (and a significant amount more), then sovereignty as we know it will decrease until it doesn't exist anymore. This will lead to the following impacts/harms. C. Harm 1- Economic stability would decrease drastically. With the individual having more power, the money crisis will get worse. People will begin hording money and will begin to actually look for the greater job. In both of these instances, the economy will decrease and perhaps even crash… With no more government to protect us, the economy will be destroyed. D. Harm 2- An imbalance from individual to individual would create a deadlier sovereignty. One harm that can not be denied by Affirmative is the fact that with increase in "power of the individual" will come more vigilantism. People will AT LEAST think that they can do whatever they want so therefore they will begin to take the law into their own hands whether there is a government or not. This harm is unavoidable. E. Harm 3- Sovereignty would inevitably fall with the increase of human power/energy. With EVERYONE having greater power, they will attempt to take over the government. EVEN if the government FEARS this power, it will lead to similar impacts. These disadvantages must be taken into account when viewing this round. III. Societal Disadvantage A. Increase in Biopower would be unstable and variant. With attempting to "significantly" increasing Biopower, some will adapt extremely well while some won't get any better whatsoever. This will lead to people being increasingly powerful over others. B. (Link) Not everyone would establish the same power/energy. Since not everyone will get the same power, it will lead to the following harms… C. Harm 1- Increase in individual reign from corrupt people. Whether it's federal or local, there WILL be people powering over others. It will go from a well run society to a wild jungle. The more powerful will always win and this will eventually lead to corrupt leaders and unnecessary deaths and harms. D. Harm 2- Vigilantism would become the new law. After this Biopower is in place, after a while, people doing whatever they want will become the new law around the United States. You want to put the power into the hands of the individual, you risk all harms so far stated in this debate round. E. Inherency harms would increase with the adoption of the affirmative plan. My opponent talks about all of these harms in his inherency. But none of them are solved. My opponent simply says that they are solved but never shows HOW… "A" stands because it is STILL a bunch of individuals fighting between each other. "B" is made worse… "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust."….? SO… if we substantially increase Biopower, doesn't that help the holocaust? The holocaust was one of the greatest harms to ever see this earth and you're simply supporting it. "C" stands, but is a harm… IF ANYTHING is justified, then can't you do whatever you want? Good as we know it will seize to exist. The final paragraph you have simply shows HOW we try to protect our people… but you don't have to follow them… If you don't want to wear your seat belt, don't… but you'll just have to live with the consequences, the whole basis of our government. IV. Counter Plan A. Proposition- Increase of the voice of the individual in this sovereign nation. In the United States, our problem is not that people do not have enough energy/power, but simply that they don't have enough voice… If we give them more voice, we can achieve all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. We can do this by giving them more of a weight in presidential elections and bills being passed in congress. Funding will be from normal means. B. Significantly increasing energy incentives is not necessary (mutually exclusive) I AM mutually exclusive because I don't worry about the energy of people (that is already high enough)… All we have to do is increase their "say" in our government. Thus, the adoption of the plan resolution is unnecessary. C. Advantage 1- No harms from disadvantage or inherency. With the increase in the voice of the people, I do stop the holocaust from happening and I do stop all disadvantages which range from vigilantism and sovereign overpowering (from both sides of the individual and the government.) Thus, the counter-plan is the best plan. D. Advantage 2- Increase in CONTROLLED voice of the people. If we adopt the affirmative plan, we give people more power, but with my counter-plan, they get more voice while being controlled. This is what affirmative is trying to accomplish (I think) but the counter-plan is the best way to do it. Direct refutation Inherency- The inherency is weak in the aspect of WHY isn't Biopower high enough? Individuals DO have the power to do what they want, but they HAVE to live under the law. My counter plan will solve all of the disadvantages… The resolution being past has too many impacts to pass because inherency is just fine. Harms- I covered all the harms arguments in III.E… Simply Cross-Apply it here as they show how the harms continue to exist EVEN with the adoption of the plan. Plan- This is another weak part of his case. All he does to increase Biopower is offer a new class. He says I'll initiate the "World History Policy" but does not explain what it is. His advantages to his Plan have NO content and can NEVER outweigh the disadvantages… Even if the DA's only have a CHANCE to happen, they still outweigh the advantages to his case… Solvency- No harms are solved through the affirmative plan. I showed this before and I challenge my opponent to be more specific to how solvency will happen. There are so many problems, either you DO increase Biopower and you get LOADS of disadvantages OR you FAIL to even be CAPABLE of significantly increasing any "energy" whatsoever… A simple ONE class will NOT increase any energy no matter what. I reserve the right to add to any of my arguments as this is my first policy round, thanks!