Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy ince

haha I think I'll just end the search for someone that can handle the crazy arguments. Read my aff.. Debate excludes the poor. Extend the fact that this exclusion silences an entire social level.. Who votes for debates on here? People rich enough to have constant internet access. We tailor our debates to accommodate those that are rich enough to afford internet access. Our discourse of exclusion and labeling those below us outweighs any imaginary impact any affirmative can ever bring up. We must understand that accommodating ALL of those in our country is key to actually moving our society forward. We cant debate about how we will help the world when an entire group is silenced. Alternative energy is a major issue to those living in poverty. So many affirmatives argue the fact that "the technology may be more expensive, but it is key to powering our country". Then we pass the plan in an imaginary world, thus believing that plan would work in the real world. When we exclude the poor from our discussions our minds begin to believe that things are good which are really bad, and if the poor were involved on the discussion we would see that. Of course i said "I believe that debate shouldn't be about affirming some government action that I can't affect" which is why i ran a real world affirmative with real world consequences. How many people read this debate and thought "wow people living in poverty really have it tough" or "wow i never thought about the fact that they are not on this website, and only those rich enough to have internet are". I have shone a light on the face of the poor that are so commonly forgotten, and have created even a little real world change. We may now be more open to donations, social programs, surveying the thoughts of the poor when finding a solution to an issue (alternative energy will surely be one). The argument is beatable with only a few words. But the negative didn't even try. Don't let her win just because she complained. At least explain WHY it is important that we talk about alternative energy and alternative energy only, not an underlying issue that can help the alternative energy fight in the process. The only framework for evaluating the round brought up by the negative is "he didnt talk about alternative energy, therefore he loses. and his case is based on logic not reality" So lets look to who REALLY presented what is happening in reality. POOR PEOPLE ARE REALITY. I brought it up in my last speech, an individual testimony on what living in America as a poor American is like. I brought up what is happening in reality, and i have made at least a little change. Not only that, if you want to evaluate the round based on alternative energy you have to look to the aff also. By allowing poor people into the discussion we will be able to have better ideas on alternative energy, better ways to accommodate all people in the world, not just the rich like today. Therefore my plan of including the poor makes alternative energy better in the future and remains a topical aff. He doesnt not argue the fact that including the poor in to the alternative energy discussion is an incentive for alternative energy. The incentive lies in the fact that more people are involved in the discussion, thus congress will have more pressure to pursue alternative energy Dont vote for the complaints. Take the arguments made in the round. To my competitor: You can send me a challenge for the same topic if you want. I will run a completely topical affirmative with absolutely no crazy things going on. I will also go on the neg if you want with no Ks, all straight policy.