The United States Federal Government should Significantly Reform its Policy Towards Russia

Thank you for responding. My opponent simply talked about my funding, Ethanol subsidies. He acted as if I'm cutting all of it. No, I'm cutting 1/7, since the total amount of ethanol subsidies is 7 billion, and I'm taking 1 billion. But of course, that's still bad according to my opponent. Con provided some points on how Ethanol is supposedly "good". First, I'd like to point out that none of these points had evidence. I cited a source, he did not. He can't just make claims about Ethanol because he says so. Yet, I will not leave it there. Let's go through my source and see how it responds to all of his points already. Jobs and the Economy 1. My opponent stated that ethanol plants are expensive to build. I'll get to that later. 2. There are other types of energy available. Nuclear, for one. We don't have to completely rely on Ethanol. 3. Those responses aren't enough, of course. I'll show you from the same source, (. http://oilprice.com...), that ethanol is bad for our economy. QUOTE "the costs of U. S. ethanol policy exceeded its benefits by more than $3 billion per year. Letting ethanol subsidies and tariffs expire as scheduled would have been a fine holiday gift for the U. S. economy. " END QUOTE Yup. That means we're losing 3 billion per year because of ethanol. Clearly it is not good for our economy altogether. 4. Note again that I have a source for this quote, but my opponent provided none. Energy interdependence My evidence clearly addresses this as well. QUOTE " The trade effects of ethanol policy would be bad enough if they only involved the closing of U. S. markets to imports, but in reality, matters are even worse. When the effects of tax credits are added to those of import tariffs, they are, together, enough not just to block imports, but to turn the United States into a net exporter of ethanol. Ethanol exports are officially expected to run a record 315 million gallons this year, more than double the 2009 figure. True exports might be half again that if ethanol blended with exported gasoline is included. Exactly how do subsidized ethanol exports promote U. S. energy independence? Go figure. " END QUOTE Our independence is hurt by ethanol, not helped. 2. My opponent provided, again, no evidence so clearly he has failed to prove this point as well. Lastly, environment 1. Yet again, my evidence addresses this. QUOTE " One problem is that corn-based ethanol, the kind produced in the United States, saves little if any carbon and produces little if any net gain in energy compared with petroleum. Measuring the exact carbon and energy efficiency of corn ethanol is not easy. Different assumptions regarding technologies, fuels consumed in farming and distilling, energy value of byproducts like cattle feed, land use impacts, and so on, give answers ranging from small net carbon and energy gains to small net losses. But even the most optimistic studies give corn ethanol only a tiny advantage over petroleum, nowhere near large enough to justify the scale of current subsidies. " END QUOTE 2. This is getting repetitive, but again my opponent has provided no evidence to back up his claim. "I ask that you vote CON because ethanol subsidies are more important than Russia's well being. " Con is ignoring my third advantage: National Security for the US. This plan doesn't JUST benefit Russia. It benefits the US as well. Ethanol is obviously terrible, so cutting a little bit of it is an advantage. Note that I"m not cutting all 7 billion, but just a little bit is enough to create an advantage. In conclusion, I've shown how this plan is completely net beneficial for the US and Russia. It creates no debt, increases our national security, and saves thousands of lives. Con conceded that although US orphans are important, they are not an issue in this case at all. Message to Con: Please do not bring up any new points, since this is the last round of the debate and I have no opportunity to respond to whatever you say. Because of this and the fact that you conceded round 2, you may only respond to the Ethanol point. Back to you: Please watch the next speech closely. If Con brings up new points please note that. Also, I would encourage you to read over this speech after reading my opponent's. It will give you light as to whether he actually properly responded to my points or not. I have brought up credible evidence responding to his points which were not backed up by a source. Also, please set aside personal bias when voting. If you for some reason believe that my plan is not a good idea, step back for a second. First, think over what I've said and try to visualize what makes you think it's a bad idea. But I encourage you to vote on the actual arguments, not on your opinion. The top two options are based on your opinion, but the rest are on our debate. If you feel that I have adequately refuted my opponent's points (which I believe I have), then I encourage you to vote for me. If you somehow feel that Con proved the point better, by all means vote Con! Don't feel like I'm demanding you vote one way! Thank you very much for taking time out of your day to read this debate.