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

-First off I would like to apologize/inform… I have seen a LOT of these forfeit "bugs" and what my opponent talks about is COMPLETELY legitimate. I have narrowed the forfeit time to actually not hit zero but instead post a forfeit in the range of 30-45 minutes. I literally posted a few minutes after that and before he even realized that there WAS a forfeit, I had already posted. So essentially, please accept this as a 3 round debate… TOPICALITY- INCENTIVES A. There is a good reason to why I claim the right to clarification, for reasons JUST like this. The payment of the scientists is ASSUMED through the idea of it being a government run program. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that the amount of money paid to each of the scientists/workers is determined through committee based on qualifications through education and experience. I apologize for not pointing out everything extremely in depth. B. Voters 1. Ground- The reason that the incentive topicality in this round is such a futile argument is because I do not have to create the incentive (through the plan)… the incentive ALREADY exists for every person in America (scientist and all)… All Americans are currently spending AMPLE money on the energy that is needed to function from day to day (particularly gasoline)… By the government giving people money to create one of the greatest forms of (possible) energy, incentive is created whether you like it or not. FURTHER MORE, when these scientists are going to be ASSUMED full time employees (something else that I am clarifying that I figured assumption for)… therefore they have the incentive of their job AND the TRILLION dollar industry product that they are trying to create. In other words, incentives are NOTHING of concern and this topicality MUST be dropped from the round. 2. Education- I understand that my opponent didn't have much time to read and argue like he wanted to BUT I DID claim education to come "post- solvency"… But if he doesn't see that as sufficient, I must point out this major contradiction argument made by Negative. He gives you a voter of not getting education, but A) NO education is gained by voting down the resolution and B) Plenty of education is gained by creating a NEW FORM OF ENERGY… The scientist will reach solvency and gain education and then will pass that knowledge onto us (as I talked about in the last (full) speech)… Judges, essentially he asks you to vote down my plan because you gain no education but if education is SO important, you MUST vote my plan UP because education is only POSSIBLY gained on the Affirmative side. SOLVENCY 1) My opponent's argument simply says that we shouldn't look into fusion energy because we can't get it NOW… This seems to be the typical human/American answer. Well, I am here to tell you that great things take time (and it turns out that not that much time is needed because of ITER)… We are simply helping them (In the United States as specified by the resolution/plan). And as far as the 1/2/3/4 thing goes… 1- (evidence from previous rounds): -"Like all stars, the sun is a huge fusion reactor, pumping out 100 million times as much energy in a single second as the entire population of Earth uses in a year!"… 2- Advantages 3, 4, 5, AND 6 PROVE that fusion energy is safe… 3- First fusion plant finished by (appx.) 2016 (which will be sooner if the Aff. Plan is passed… 4- Again, it will take time to transfer everything to fusion power but once it is done ALL of the transferring is done. This will be nice because we won't have to transfer to ALL wind power then to ALL hydrogen THEN TO ALL fusion energy power. By passing the Affirmative plan, you cut the amount of "transfers" required. So essentially, I have ALL 4 WAY better that negative does. 2) I'm sorry but this argument is ridiculous so I'm going to make several arguments against it… A) The 2035 estimate (person) didn't seem to be familiar with ITER… -The only reason I put it on there is to get several estimates… The truth of the matter is that this estimate is just from some blog. B) The 2016 estimate is from the official ITER website… -I mean seriously, 2016 is only 8 years away and if you take into account the transfer time, we could all legitimately be using fusion energy around a decade from now. NO MORE ENERGY PROBLEMS FOREVER IN A DECADE. Now, this also has to take into affect that this estimate is WITHOUT America's help, if the plan is passed, the time will inevitably be shorter. C) Other energy forms are for the transfer/creation time… -I will argue this under the counter plan but essentially, we need to use other energy forms (gasoline, solar, wind) for the time BEFORE fusion. When fusion energy is created, all other forms of energy will be unnecessary. 3. Ok, throw that card out. He says how it is abusive but the only thing that the source did was explain fusion energy (which is common knowledge (the basics that is), AND explained in other cards) and it explained that we don't have enough fusion energy which is obvious because we DON'T HAVE ANY (common knowledge)… 4. Argued before… (same as he did) 5. Well, he only found one card to be abusive and I have found one of my cards to be lacking knowledge (b/c I was trying to get more info as he requested). The card has been dropped but what you'll find is that my important evidence does not have any abusiveness at all. He claims that my abusive cards make a huge solvency hole, but NONE of the them were in solvency… One was simply a harm saying that we need more fusion energy but (once again) that is OBVIOUS. 6. To be honest, he claims that his scientists have first hand "knowledge" but just because you're a scientist doesn't mean that you know about fusion… I offer knowledge from scientists that actually work on fusion energy (ITER)… COUNTERPLAN- 1. --> There is no reason to not pass both plans. This debate is not about who's plan is better but if we can create alternative energy. If there is more than one way, by all means access it but don't say that because one is better than the other we should ditch it. However, the way it is, fusion energy is WAY better than wind energy. Wind energy will only get us to fusion energy because it's (wind) unreliable and extremely weak. Essentially, don't put all your eggs in one basket, so I wouldn't mind putting a few in the basket of wind energy but in the end of this round you MUST put some eggs in fusion energy and therefore must vote Affirmative. 2. --> Ok, so wind energy has potential, but NOT the potential to be the sole energy form for the world forever. Fusion energy has that capability. Judges, I urge you to adopt both plans because they make the perfect combo. Until (appx.) 2020, wind energy (and others) can help us get to the creation of fusion energy which will complete our energy needs until the end of time. And since there has been NO timeline placed upon me by the resolution OR my opponent, you must pass the Affirmative plan. All other forms of energy can go along with status quo (or increase) until fusion is done… then, no more worry! 3. Great, wind energy works, and you know what, so does fusion energy. Look at the sun, the only thing that we are really doing is learning how to harvest it (there IS a way). What makes his form any better than mine? Which of these two create the most energy…? The answer, BOTH OF THEM… I have already said that the more energy the merrier so pass both plans and get both energies. ALSO on this argument, he doesn't show which arguments were dropped AND why that's bad… essential. Besides that… there is NO substantial reason to vote down the affirmative plan. So please vote PRO (affirmative)! Thanks for this great debate!