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

This debate looked fun...so I thought I might take a stab at it. First, lets take a look at the resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its AE incentives in the US. Fair enough, seems that all the Affirmative would need to do is show a need for Alternative Energy incentives. Next, we have the plan: The USFG will fund ITER till its completion in 2016. Hmmm, interesting. I will take that as meaning that all the USFG has to do is fund ITER and it is increasing AE incentives. Alright, on to Observation 1: Inherency. "...Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7 million, instead of the proposed $160 million..." Wait a second...congress is currently funding ITER?I could have sworn that the plan was "fund ITER till its completion in 2016." This is not only a key plan flaw but a perfect point for me to jump on the offensive, first with topicality. A. Interpretation: Increase- To increase is to make greater in quantity. 1."to make greater, as in number" http://dictionary.reference.com... B. Violation: The resolution clearly calls for an increase in the USFG's AE incentives. However, the plan only calls for the USFG to merely fund ITER. The problem here is that the USFG funds ITER as we speak as per the Affirmatives FIRST piece of evidence. For it to be an increase...there must be some type of increase. C. Standards: 1. Bright line-The Affirmative needs to be held responsible for presenting a plan that is clearly topical and clearly increases AE incentives. At this point...the only thing that it is increasing is the length of my speech due to a clear Topicality violation. 2. Education-I like to think that debates on Debate.org have some educational meaning. Sure, it's mainly for fun, but this is clearly a topic that is used for school and this will surely serve as a learning experience to either A. never run this case again, or B. actually increase the funding. D. Voters: 1. Jurisdiction-Come on guys...there is no reason to vote Aff. The laid out the framework for the debate with the resolution and plan at very beginning of the debate. If they cannot debate within that framework, they should not win. 2. Education-Teach Aff not to run this case. OK, now that Topicality is out there, let's move on. Observation 1 obviously presents a problem from the plan's standpoint. However, let's look at it from an Inherency standpoint. Oh yeah...there isn't an inherent barrier to the passage of this plan- the plan is being implemented by congress as we speak (Once again, the plan is merely to fund ITER). Using only one piece of evidence for this claim is weak. And uh...oh yeah guys, let's take a peek at the 2009 budget...just for fun. "The budget would provide $214.5 million for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) for in-kind components, personnel and funding. According to DOE, "ITER will, for the first time, demonstrate the technical and scientific feasibility of a sustained, magnetically confined fusion burning plasma." The U.S. is one of seven nations participating in this partnership." http://www.aaas.org... Enough said. Let's move on to Observation 2: Solvency. Funding is needed. Alright. "More than $200 million is being sought for the ITER project. Additional funds for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under a continuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose other restrictions." Well, just take a look at the source I have just previously provided. ITER is receiving well over $200 million. The evidence provided by the Affirmative guarantee's the solvency for the status quo. That, I believe, is called a solvency turn. Next, the DOE evidence is a little sketchy. I don't want to come right out and accuse anyone of doctoring evidence, but it clearly has some grammatical errors. And at this point, I would like to make it known that nowhere in the Affirmative's evidence do they make it known that specifically USFG funding is imperative and by simply saying that funding in general is imperative leaves ground for anyone to solve not just the DOE. Moving on, "Fusion is the only way to stop Global Warming." Oh, well in that case, I guess I can stop: -using compact fluorescent light bulbs -inflating my tires -changing my air filter in my car -filling my dishwasher all the way -using recycled paper -adjusting my thermostat -checking my water heater -planting trees -buying organic foods -using cloth bags at Wal*Mart -changing my AC filter -taking shorter showers -buying local food products -using my hybrid car and pull my Escalade out of the garage and drive it around whenever I feel like because the smell of burning gas makes me feel good. Goodness, the evidence doesn't even give a reason as to why it is the only way to stop it. Give some warrants! Next, "It will only take 8 years to have the reactor up and running producing power for the world" ...I'm counting. "The ITER will allow the U.S. to transition to a hydrogen-based economy" I'm glad to hear that. Good to know we will be fine without the implementation of the plan...I'm going to have to say the exact same thing for the remaining 5 Solvency cards. At this point in the debate, I have proven that there is absolutely no reason for this plan because it is clearly already in place. Therefore, any solvency evidence in favor of the Aff should flow Negative as well. Wow, I didn't expect that to be all. I had really hoped to write more, but seeing as any advantages stemming from this plan can only work in my favor, it would make no sense to do a line-by-line of the rest of the Affirmative case. Therefore, I will present the following Kritik as an indicator of my boredom with this debate. I will make note that I am aware that this Kritik interferes with the framework of the debate that I have previously engaged in. However, it should not be seen as a reason to vote me down. It serves solely as purpose for the entertainment of this debate round and perhaps a voting issue if everyone likes it. So I would suggest and perhaps hope that anyone judging this round would look to whichever set of Negative arguments that they like the most and vote accordingly. Because of speech-length restrictions, I will present tags and sources and will read specific evidence if needed. I'm sure the Affirmative will have no problem with this...haha. A. The Affirmative presents themselves as masters of the universe. They think that they will be able to rid the world of all pain and suffering by renouncing uncertain and chaotic aspects of life like global warming. This negates life. -Saurette '96 B. The Aff's political statements are merely justification for harsh reaction. They think that they can invoke change while nothing actually happens. -Nietzsche 1887 (GS 56) C. The Aff is always able to make up a threat to our existence. Insecurities of the world are all around us: Global warming, disease, poverty. The way that the Affirmative attempts to control these inherent conditions of life is a method that negates life by destroying the human ability to affirm and create. -Nietzsche 1886 (BG&E) D. The alternative is to affirm chance as well as destiny by letting us see what happens. Forget the impacts and don't worry about trying to solve for inherent conditions of life. This is the only way to live life in a positive way. Roll the dice. -Deleuze '83 Well, I know the Kritik doesn't have as much substance as it could have, but it's a fun argument. Sorry for any typos...I may not have caught everything. That's all the room I have for now, but I will eagerly await olivertheexpando's reply in the next round. Very interesting topic, thanks for the debate!