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

I will go from paragraph to paragraph... INHERENCY The true inherent barrier is stated in the plan. This plan will only accomplish what it is supposed to when passed because of the money from Congress (that was cut off) is going to be paid. Since that money was overturned, the inherent barrier was created. Thus, the only way these incentives will be substantially increased is if the plan is passed. SOLVENCY 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. AGAIN, I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained or how long, but simply that the incentives will be increased and that when they are increased, the energy will come soon. The big problem with fusion energy is that people don't know a whole lot about it. But when we get the power of the sun, anything will be possible. My opponent puts the burden of me to prove that environmental harms won't happen. But it is my job to show the advantages of the plan and it is my opponents job to show the disadvantages. My opponent offers no evidence that these harms will happen and I have seen nothing of this. The point of policy debate is to have AFF provide the advantages and NEG to provide disadvantages and compare them... THEN have the judge to decide if they should pass the plan. BESIDES ALL OF THAT, I would like to cross-apply my Advantage 5 from my case that states the few environmental harms. Even if there are some, it will not outweigh the numerous waste products there are now from current energy forms. the environment harms come from the factory (if there are any, but NEG still has to provide evidence that there is ANY), but then the harms would STOP right there. Let's just say that before this plan was passed that it would be 100 years before fusion energy could be achieved. WITH increasing energy incentives, THEN it can be made possible to get the energy in 20 years. In other words, increasing the energy INCENTIVES does not mean that this energy will be ready for use tomorrow, but rather that we will have the POWER OF THE SUN in a shorter time. SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS 1) There is NO link to water pollution 2) There is NO quote from the evidence that has ANYTHING to do with water pollution from fusion energy and if there was it has not been quoted in the round yet. 3) NEG MUST prove (with evidence) the link between fusion energy and water pollution AND must prove that it is significantly worse than current water pollution for energy. (numbers on the bottom) 1)-->It is NEG's job to provide evidence of environmental harms. 2)-->It is NEG's job... again... to provide harms and disadvantages. 3)-->The agenda will be created by the legislative intent claimed in case. It will consist of making fusion energy WHICH increases energy INCENTIVES. 4)-->Must only increase energy INCENTIVES. With that increase comes the chance of getting the energy significantly sooner. The sooner we can get the power of the sun the better. In the end, my opponent has offered NO disadvantages with any proof WHATSOEVER. If this was allowed, he could say that "he has not proven that fusion energy won't provide EVERY harm known to man." It is NOT my job to show that fusion energy does not have every harm known to man... Rather, it is NEG's job to show the disadvantages (with evidence) and then have us compare that to the advantages (in case) to decide if the plan should be passed. Therefore, I urge a PRO vote... Thank You!