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

Alright. .. It's going to be Plan, T, Inherency, Global Warming, Hydro-econ+Adv's, K, Impact Analysis. To begin once again with the plan. My opponent has agreed with my interpretation of his plan and that "fully" may simply mean whatever may be required to make the plan solve. Because of this, when voting in this round, readers should look to the scenario in which the harms are best solved for. My analysis has shown that this is obviously the status quo which provides more money than the Affirmative's plan calls for. Topicality: When I read the final Affirmative speech I was somewhat baffled by the way they tried to make a case for the Negative not providing an interpretation for the word "increase". This is incorrect. The first Negative speech provided an interpretation for the word "increase" as "to make greater, as in number. " This has obviously been overlooked and is in no way "unfair" to the Aff. W/M: The Affirmative did not refute my argument about the violation of the interpretation. If there is no increase to the status quo, then the case is not topical. I have provided evidence from the Executive Office of the President that notes a 1855% increase from the date of the Affirmatives evidence. This means that the Affirmative cannot meet unless they increase by an amount greater than 1855%. However, doing this would be ridiculously wasteful given the fact that the status quo solves as we speak. C/I: Unfortunately, I have proven that my opponent's plan is not enough to be an increase at all much less a substantial increase. The counter-interpretation obviously flows negative in this case. B/L: My opponents reasoning for Bright Line is that since I gave no definition of increase. .. I should lose. Well, if the reader has payed even the slightest attention to this debate, he/she will no where to flow this argument. Education: I don't believe that I conceded this argument at all. I clearly stated that debating Topicality on this subject has led to a clear loss of education given the fact that we have spent less time on the issues. However, the Aff plan is clearly not topical given the fact that it does not make an increase; it makes a decrease. Just because this case seems to have a topical subject does not mean it is fit for debate on this resolution. Lit Checks Abuse: The Affirmative dropped my argument about this. Look to my last speech as to the reasons why just having information on a subject does not make it topical. Come on. .. we have the internet. Voters: The Affirmative has dropped the voters of A. Jurisdiction and B. Education. My opponent simply states that I conceded them. However, this is not the case. Readers do not have the jurisdiction to vote for an untopical case given the framework set forth by the Affirmative with the first words of their first speech. Also, vote on the grounds of Education. Show the Affirmative that they need to run a topical case to increase the education as well as the merit of a debate round. Inherency: Once again, my opponent has made a fatal mistake in dropping my argument about the Affirmative needing to show that the ITER program will not be extended for the next 8 years. It has been funded for the last eight, why not eight more? I have given evidence from a report from the Advanced Energy Initiative showing that there has been a great increase in interest and money given to ITER in recent years and it shows no signs of stopping. Inherency is won by the Negative because I have proven that there is no inherent barrier to the passage of this plan. It is already being done, and to a greater extent than is called for by the Affirmative. Global Warming: My arguments on this were mostly geared towards showing that ITER is not all that is necessarily needed. Readers may look back to my previous speeches for my analysis of these ridiculous cards. ALSO, the global warming argument holds no weight in the on-case debate in this round because of the fact that the status quo is solving for it. Hydro-econ+Adv's: The Affirmative states that I did not give any specific reason that these should flow Negative. Hmm. .. I don't believe that is correct. If readers will recall my previous speeches, I gave an in-depth analysis of the reasons why it would not make sense for me to debate the advantages because the advantages stand as reasons to vote for the status quo that the Negative protects. That is certainly a good reason for them to flow negative. I have turned the evidence of the advantages to the Negative's use. The Kritik: -I laughed when I read this. "Do the plan but act like we don't want to"? ". .. we act like we roll the dice"? This is terrible. A permutation of the Kritik would necessitate an ACTUAL rolling of the dice not just a pretend one. Just "acting" like we want to roll the dice but not actually doing it completely avoids the positive, life-affirming outcome of the Kritik. -The other perms were dropped but I don't believe that the first perm solves the best. -On Nietzsche being a hypocrite: The Affirmative does not answer my argument here about the basis of Nietzsche's ideas. This is where my opponent loses this argument. The Affirmative makes the assumption that people make books just to force ideas onto people. Even if this were true, it holds no weight in the debate of this Kritik. Nietzsche's personal actions have nothing to do with the ideas presented by the Kritik. By the way, I'm sure he didn't go to the doctor on his own will. He was suffering from mental trauma at the very late stages of his life. Yes, I am trying to enforce ideas of life-affirming value. .. that doesn't contradict the Kritik at all. -Just because Global Warming hasn't always been at the height of global alarm does not prove it to be anything more or less than an inherent condition of life that is caused by nature. Just because Nietzsche didn't write about it specifically does not mean that we should disregard his ideas in this respect. -The Affirmative says extend their link turn. However, this is not a link turn at all. Doing the permed plan does not avoid the link because it is not actually doing the dice roll. The Affirmative admits to only wanting to "act" like they are doing the dice roll but not really do it. Is this some kind of trick? Who is my opponent trying to fool? -Umm. .. PIC? I don't believe that the K becomes a PIC if we are doing something. The Affirmative has twisted my words from saying "doing something" to meaning "create a policy". This should not stand as a valid argument in this round. The Negative certainly does not advocate dying. -Utopia: "Onto his utopia I will be fine with him bringing it up later but he forgot to put a no voter which is huge in this round. " Well, as I have stated earlier. .. don't vote for this because the argument is absurd. The only utopians in this round are clearly the Affirmative. -Framework: The Affirmative states that I have accepted their framework for this round. This is not correct. My last speech clearly states that this framework for the debate is ridiculous and links back to the Kritik. My opponent dropped my initial arguments about the Saurette in 96'. IMPACT ANALYSIS: At this point in the debate, we have the on-case issues as well as the Kritik. If the reader votes Negative, the status quo will solve for the harms presented in the 1AC as the Affirmative claims. The reader is also given a chance to vote on the merits of the Kritik. It is a positive, life-affirming way to vote Negative knowing that you have not given in to the jibber-jabber of the Affirmative. This is not to mention global warming. A negative ballot still avoids global warming. Voting Affirmative gives ITER less money than the status quo and possibly makes things worse. The Affirmatives plan isn't topical, it has no inherent barrier, it negates life, and it makes the status quo worse. Does anyone really want to vote for that?