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

I would like to start my arguments for this round by going over the ethics of policy debate, for those judges who have not participated in it. My opponent has 1- Ignored several presses for evidence, saying he didn't need to show evidence because he turned my arguments around, which is not true. 2- Stated and restated information as fact but failed to show any proof ie. arguments about environmental effects and chance of getting fusion. 3- Attempted to add to his plan although this is not allowed, referring to his argument about the emergency budget cap. Although some judges may not understand the value of the strict rules and ethics of policy debate on an internet debate site, I urge you to remember that my opponent started this debate as a policy debate, but yet has ignored the rules and ethics of policy debate. My next arguments will flow from PRO's previous arguments. My opponent states that "NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan" so I would like to remind the judges of several things, the low chance of success, the dangers with hazardous materials associated with deuterium, the environmental factor, and the possibility that the money will be used for other means because my opponent has not brought up any enforcement (ethically) during this debate. PRO says my arguments are not relevant to fusion energy but he has ignored the link between deuterium and fusion, the evidence is related to deuterium, deuterium is related to his case, linking my arguments to his case, PRO also states that the benefits outweigh the risk but has never once brought up evidence that we can be sure the benefits will even come, he has only stated it, but never backed his arguments. Until it is proven we must assume that the status quo -ie. not being able to obtain energy from fusion- will continue to be true. The third argument my opponent presents is a prime example of him ignoring my press for evidence, and showing that he cannot prove that we will ever get energy from fusion, he states that it will, but if you read back over this debate you will not see a single fact showing that we will get energy from fusion. My opponents next argument only refers to the process of obtaining fusion energy but ignores the amount of energy needed to harvest deuterium, although I have shown evidence that the amount of energy needed is very high. I believe that any open minded judge will be able to find the examples of bad things from this plan by looking over my arguments again. Again, we must assume that the status quo of not having fusion energy will remain, unless proven otherwise, and we have not seen any proof. This paragraph is what I refer to in point 3 of unethical debating at top, and I would like to reiterate that you may not add to your plan after you have stated it, making this argument void. The correlation my opponent attempts to make about money saved vs money used is flawed, the "Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels" as my opponent states comes from the pockets of citizens, the money spent in an attempt to obtain fusion energy would come from the government, yes the taxpayers give the government this money but think of this comparison if the plan doesn't work, which is likely, the people will still pay for fossil fuel, but will also pay more taxes to make up for the money our government would waste. This proves the same points I make in the paragraph before last. In this paragraph my opponent admits to denying my presses for evidence, and states that I do not provide any harms although I have clearly provided harms. I would like the judges consider a few things when they vote; 1- Will we really get fusion energy? My opponent offered no proof that we will. 2- Will fusion energy be all that it is said to be if we do get it? I have shown many environmental and economic effects in my previous arguments. 3- What will be the economic impact of this plan if it fails? I have shown that there are many opportunities for this plan to fail. 4- If this plan were to somehow work perfectly and all my last 3 points were void, how soon could it happen? My opponent has stated that it could be a century or more before we get fusion energy. If you the judge decide that I have failed to prove my opponent wrong, I would like you to reconsider the ethics of this debate, and decide if my opponent has won this debate ethically, and how much of an effect this will have on your decision.