The USFG should fully fund drug treatment and HIV prevention, including syringe exchange programs.

I'll go straight down the flow. Inherency A) It wasn't my opponent's evidence that stated 1/5 of HIV/AIDS comes from drug use via needles, it was my own evidence that I brought into the argument that said this. It came from a reliable source (Center for Drug Control) and is therefore accurate and relevant information. Needles only cause 1/5 of HIV/AIDS, to it would make sense that these needle programs would target drug users. But my opponents very own evidence stated that scientific research showed that it does not affect drug users. If these needle programs cannot help these drug users, then in what way is HIV/AIDS actually being stopped? The fallacy here, is that this NEP won't work, because it doesn't target the needed group. B) I asked my opponent to simply show some evidence explaining how the government will get the funding to support this case, and all that he provided was evidence saying the government CAN'T afford this case. Later, he goes on to say it will come from organization and local/federal places. But there is no mention of any specifics. If we are to really enact such a policy, it is necessary to have a firm, stable location of funding. My opponent's funding is conditional at best, and is not at all that firm source of funding we need to enact this plan. Unless my opponent can provide actual ways of getting funding, then this must flow to me. Harms A) Whoa, now. Just because I do not offer a counter-plan or disagree with your Harms, does not mean you should get the ballot. The voters should not vote for you because your plan will actually hurt the status quo. If it does manage to find funding, the plan still won't work, as I showed in Inherency A, so it will just end up being a waste of money. Right now there is a fire. All that Aff is doing is throwing fuel onto that fire, and there is no reason you should assumedly vote for him. As another note, I would like to point out it is the Aff's job to solve his/her Harms. My opponent only messes with needle control, and cannot solve the 4/5 not affected by needles who have AIDS. Because he cannot solve this, it must flow to me. Solvency A) Now my opponent is saying drug users WILL take the needles? My opponent is directly contradicting himself from earlier. Also, my opponent does not say how he will stop people from using drugs, how this education will miraculously solve for the addiction, or how he will get his funding (once again.) My opponent has basically said nothing against this argument, and I hope he will really make it logical in my eyes in the final round. B) Now my opponent is going to not only fund a NEP, but fund rehibilitation programs as well? There are multiple problems with this. An even BIGGER funding program, how will these people be encouraged to actually join these centers, and other such related conditional problems. Also, my opponent is not sticking with the resolution in this part, making him Untopical. In CX this is a large fallacy and just adds on the the plethora of reason this will simply not work, or be effective. C) The problem is, it is the Aff's job to solve ALL of his Harms. If you couldn't solve for one, you shouldn't have put it in your case. It's relevant because you DON'T solve it, making Harms flow to me, and it will continue to unless you show NEPs can solve all HIV/AIDS in the world. VOTERS Because my opponent contradicts himself about his own plan, because he can't solve his harms, because his plan steps won't solve for the correct group, because he has absolutely no source of funding, I find it imperative that you vote for the negative side. Thank you. P.S.: As kind as it is that you repost my arguments, I ask that you not do it, as it is distracting, and you also might find a waste of space. Thank you, again.