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

Once again I'd just like to ask that you disregard the forfeit, as it is a common glitch on debate.org. Please examine only rounds 1,3, and 4. Forget everything else, we're going for the counterplan! Let's just take some time and answer what my opponent said about the counterplan, line-by-line. 1. "This debate is not about who's plan is better but if we can create alternative energy. If there is more than one way, by all means access it but don't say that because one is better than the other we should ditch it." I beg to differ. Just think of mad havoc that will erupt if we have multiple kinds of energy. We will have to go to special fuel stations for our specific kind of energy. "Wind or fusion" will become as common of a question as "paper or plastic". Eventually, one kind of energy AHEM**wind**AHEM will become cheaper. Then look at what we have: All those people who bought the other kind of energy will have no place to fill up (because the fuel companies are going out of business), they won't have anywhere to buy fuel, etc. I can't even explain how ridiculous this would be. We would even have to have separate power lines, separate power plants, and as I have stated several times, separate fuel stations. This is completely mutually exclusive. Either that or we'd make a HUGE mistake. "Wind energy will only get us to fusion energy because it's (wind) unreliable and extremely weak." Okay, NOW we're making our arguments? This is completely abusive to bring in new arguments in the 2AR. If that's acceptable, I could bring in a whole new topicality this round and I'd win automatically because, hey, he didn't respond to it. Plus, this isn't even backed up. There are no cards or even reasoning. Using this strategy I could say 'fusion energy sucks' and they'd have equal weight. 2. "Ok, so wind energy has potential, but NOT the potential to be the sole energy form for the world forever. Fusion energy has that capability." Okay, so we have a theme here. Looks like Johnicle is going to the 'Let's bring up 2AR arguments with no back-up' party. Cross-apply the number 1 argument above me. Same deal. 3. "What makes his form any better than mine?" Alas, Aff sets me up to win this debate. I've argued why the counterplan is mutually exclusive. Now it is up to me to show that wind power is better than fusion. Why is it better? You guess it, the economics. Nowhere in Aff's R2 nor his R4 does he say why fusion power is cheaper. Cross-apply my card and argument from ROUND ONE that said that fusion energy will cost too much. Here it is again: Fusion energy will cost too much. This is Peplow in March '06. (http://fire.pppl.gov......) "But the projected costs of building and maintaining a plant, let alone getting it to work, are simply too high for fusion ever to become a viable power source, according to William Parkins, formerly chief scientist with the California-based technology company Rockwell International and author of an article in this week's Science… Parkins wrote that the energetic neutrons produced in the fusion reaction will gradually degrade the walls of the reactor itself. All design studies have indicated that the vessel will need periodic replacement, which would drive up costs. The large size of the reactor makes it virtually impossible to stop air leaking into the reaction chamber, causing further expensive problems… ITER currently commands a budget of around US$5.5 billion, making it one of the more expensive scientific projects ever conceived. "It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power," wrote Parkins." I also stated this in R1: Wind energy costs 5 cents per Kilowatt/hour and costs are decreasing. AWEA FAQ, no date cited. (http://www.awea.org......) "The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced." "BECAUSE farmers are doing this, not the government, it will help farmers get back on their feet, create more jobs, and create competition." This is why I win the round. I showed mutual exclusivity, and nowhere in this WHOLE debate does Aff debate the price. I carried this under my cross-appliance of solvency in R3, and it still stands now. Wind power is cheaper, it will create more jobs, and it will lead to lower prices through competition. Therefore, wind power is better, as Aff does not bring any arguments about wind power into this debate. So, at this point, I see no other way to vote but Neg. I showed how my counterplan is mutually exclusive and a better plan. There's really no question here. Thank you to the voters for judging and thanks to Johnicle for an EDUCATIONAL debate. haha.