the government should encourage more people to use motorcycles

First on case: No net benefits, The AFF is claiming no net benefits of increasing the use of motorcycles and is therefor only a mindless ideal, to win the debate rounds the PRO (AFF) needs to say why this is good.. First Off case argument: MOTORCYCLES ARE DANGEROUS - PLAN LEADS TO INCREASED DEATH cdc.gov A recent CDC study found that: "Between 2001 and 2008, more than 34,000 motorcyclists were killed and an estimated 1,222,000 persons were treated in a U.S. emergency department (ED) for a non-fatal motorcycle-related injury. "The highest death and injury rates were among 20-24 year-olds, followed by 25-29 year-olds. "More than half of all nonfatal injuries treated in EDs were to the leg/foot (30%) or head/neck (22%). "Motorcyclist death rates increased 55% from 2001 to 2008 (1.12 per 100,000 persons in 2001 to 1.74 per 100,000 persons in 2008). "The number of nonfatal motorcyclist injuries that were treated in EDs also increased, from nearly 120,000 injuries in 2001 to about 175,000 in 2008. With more people in the United States riding motorcycles today than ever before, motorcyclist deaths and injuries are an important public health concern. Second Off case Argument: GOVERNMENT HAS BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN ENCOURAGING MORE MOTORCYCLES A. Obama will spend political capital on gun control but no guarantee he will succeed Julie Pace, Huffington Post, 12.19.12 [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...-force_n_2331238.html] Gun control measures have faced fierce resistance in Congress for years but that may be changing now because of last week's violence. Since then, Obama has signaled for the first time in his presidency that he's willing to spend political capital on the issue and some prominent gun-rights advocates on Capitol Hill " Democrats and Republicans alike " have expressed willingness to consider new measures. Still, given the long history of opposition to tighter gun laws, there is no certainty the legislation Obama backed Wednesday or the proposals he will send to Congress next month will become law. B. Infrastructure spending is unpopular -- the public is skeptical of "crumbling infrastructure" claims because they don"t see it Ken Orski, February 5, 2012 [Editor, Publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, 2.5.12] [Innovation NewsBriefs is a transportation newsletter that has been published for 20years. Orski was formerly Associate Administrator for the Federal Urban Mass Transit Administration, http://www.newgeography.com...] Along with Lane, I think the American public is skeptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare, transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between. The oft-cited "D" that the American Society of Civil Engineers has given America"s infrastructure (along with an estimate of $2.2 trillion needed to fix it) is taken with a grain of salt, says Lane, since the engineers" lobby has a vested interest in increasing infrastructure spending, which means more work for engineers. Suffering from the same credibility problem are the legions of road and transit builders, rail and road equipment manufacturers, construction firms, planners and consultants that try to make a case for more money. C. The president has limited political capital to spend on issues like infrastructure Jeb Golinkin, The Week, 12.21.12 [http://theweek.com...] The fiscal cliff. The jobless recovery. Comprehensive immigration reform. Climate change. Implementing ObamaCare. Cutting healthcare spending. Rebuilding our infrastructure. Addressing student debt. Fixing the tax code. Gun control. There is no shortage of domestic issues that this president might address. But to govern is to choose, and this president has limited political capital. He will have to choose carefully. D. Gun violence is a significant cause of death in the u.s. and is directly related to firearm availability Violence Policy Center 2012 [http://www.vpc.org...] Firearms are the second leading cause of traumatic death related to a consumer product in the United States and are the second most frequent cause of death overall for Americans ages 15 to 24. Since 1960, more than 1.3 million Americans have died in firearm suicides, homicides, and unintentional injuries. Public health research has shown that firearms violence is directly related to firearms availability and density. What separates America from other Western, industrialized nations is not our overall rate of violence, but our rates of lethal violence--which can be directly traced to gun availability. In 2009 alone, more than 31,000 Americans died by gunfire: 18,735 in firearm suicides, 11,493 in firearm homicides, 554 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. More than twice that number is treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.