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

I would first like to say that the plan text was supposed 2 be fully fund but if my opponent doesn't want to allow a change I will be fine with that. On T: 1. W/M- We increase by 1500% so we make it A LOT GREATER. 2. C/I- Sub. Is large in size American Heritage Dictionary 2008 3. W/M C/I- we increase by 1500% enough to meet both definitions 4. Standards- B/L- We give the best bright line because we clearly increase AE incentive by 1500% Education- Because he has lit there is enough for an in-depth debate and he admits there is education here 5. Lit checks abuse 6. No voter- abuse is like being pregnant you are or you aren't. a. we are clearly in the framework of the debate and his definition is make it larger well we make it 15 times large so we clearly show how this is fair to him. b. he teaches me nothing just that if he does policy he needs to make better T frontlines. His evidence from aaas.org is horrible because one it assumes the best the first part of the article says that it will increase 4.4 to 72.1% so they have messed up numbers to start and second their card is for this year only. The plan is 8 years long. http://www.aps.org... The United States made a major commitment to the construction of the (ITER). Today, Congress has pulled the plug. In so doing, it critically damages American credibility as a reliable scientific partner throughout the world and compromises the nation's standing as a host of future international scientific facilities. Inherency: First we must fund ITER till its completition and the only way to do that is to give them the 1.6 billion needed over 8 years and his "status quo" only gives 214 million. There's a problem. On what he was saying about it being sketchy, I had 2 cut down some evidence to make it all fit so that why it didn't flow. On to warming: He talks about the Wilkerson card what the card talks about is the fact that right now there are no major efforts to stop GW, and fusion is the only way to stop it if we do something because it gives the most power for the least fuel. He talks about how doing the plan is the only way to solve on top of what is being to stop it. Onto the hydro econ: The card talks about we must use ITER because it allows for further development into the use of hydrogen, but to achieve this we must do the plan. Also ITER is needed because our energy demands are rising now and the status quo calls for more drilling look towards the House of Representatives, today the Republicans called for a vote to drill. That hastens our CERTAIN DEATH, so you have one choice here die or live in a world with cleaner air, peaceful middle east, no terrorists, etc. IT'S TRY OR DIE FOR THE AFF. TRY OR DIE FOR THE AFF. I repeat this again and again but since he skipped this I must stress it because you must look to this first. He never addressed my leadership advantage which talks about how if we don't do the plan we will live in a world where the US isn't the top one. On the K: 1.Perm do the plan with the mind set. 2.Perm do the plan and see what happens 3.Perm the only way to solve for their impacts is by the plan 4.Nietzsche is a contradiction he says live life and see what happens but he conformed to ideas and values so he didn't let life be he tried to force himself on people. 5.Also if he wanted to see what happened he never would've published his work. 6.He also got sick in his life and he went to the doctor (in the 1800's) he never saw what happened 7.Link turn- plan causes the mind set of do nothing 8.Case solve the K 9.On their impact, we have a systemic impact which means we know it's happening and the effects are being felt NOW. WE MUST STOP GLOBAL WARMING THERE IS NO TAKING A CHANCE HERE, THERE IS ONLY CERTAIN DEATH WE KNOW WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN WE HAVE UNDER 15 YEARS LEFT. THE K IS THE WORST IDEA FOR ALL LIFE. A SYSTEMIC IMPACT MEANS ITS HAPPENING NOW!!! A. THE ALTERNATIVE IS UTOPIAN; AT BEST, THE NEG CAN SOLVE FOR A FEW PEOPLE LOCALLY. THIS PUTS THEM IN A DOUBLE BIND- EITHER THEY DO NOT CHANGE ENOUGH MINDSETS TO SOLVE FOR THEIR IMPACTS, OR THEY ARE THEORITICALLY ABUSIVE. UTOPIAN ALTERNATIVES BAD— 1.RECIPROCITY— IF THE AFF HAS TO DEFEND REAL WORLD SOLVENCY, THE NEG HAS TO, TOO. 2.MOST REAL WORLD—NOBODY EVER MAKES A DECISION BASED ON A PERFECT OUTCOME. 3.SKEWS THE AFF—UTOPIAN ALTS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AFF TO WIN. 4.VOTER FOR FAIRNESS Framework: A.THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WEIGHT THEIR IMPACTS TO THE KRITIK. B.EVALUATING AFFIRMATIVE ROLE-PLAYING IS KEY TO EDUCATION—IT UNIQUELY LETS US LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING. C.RECIPROCITY—THE 1AC SPENDS 8 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DEBATE TO SET UP THE FRAMEWORK. IF THEY WANT TO RUN THEIR KRITIK, THEY CAN COME UP WITH A KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVE CASE. DON'T PUNISH US AND DISREGARD OUR ENTIRE SPEECH JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PLAY BY THE RULES. D.ALWAYS LOOK TOWARDS FRAMEWORK BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER THE DEBATE A.Extend our GW adv. If we don't solve then there is no chance. Also he gave no answer to our systemic impact so you must accept this as true. B.Also extend our oil dependence adv. which talks about how a failure to do the plan gives more and more money to terrorist groups, which is also a systemic impact too. It's happening now too. C.Extend our Air pollution adv. which talks about how a failure to act in dangers billions. His only solution is to go by the status quo and live positively until the day, which we know is coming, we die of climate change, species dying, and lack of livable land. I'd like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate and anything I say that is offensive I mean nothing by it, it is how policy works. Also, please accept my amended plan. I am a proud policy debate from VESTAVIA HILLS HIGH, and this is not my aff.