LOGICAL POLICY, RES.- The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US

Alright, topicalities! 1. Significant. a. I meet on various levels. For starters this is offered nationwide or 100% of the nation. Secondly the program is offered to every school. Third the incentive comes as double the funding from which is used to implement the program. This means schools are encouraged to have a program of greater significance. b. My standards are education, and fairness for obvious reasons. c. My voters in this round will not only be A priori on this issue but I'm also advocating for leveling the playing field. If you as judges feel that my issue does present a significant case then my opponent must be voted against. Otherwise this turns into a one sided issue that only my opponent can win on, this defeats the purpose of debate. Cross apply fairness standards on this, also I will be using a character suck standards. 2. Increase. a. I meet, my plan calls for an increase. Cross apply argument from Significant a. b. Cross apply standards from Significant. c. Cross apply voters from Significant, they will be the same. 3. Energy. a. I agree with my opponent definition and meet it. The definition says any source of usable power followed by 3 notable examples. Humans are a source of usable power, they can be used to accomplish a goal. Apply definition of biopower. b. Cross apply standards from significant adding ground. My opponent presents a fair definition but then attempts to skew the debate stealing the ground I have in order to win. c. Cross apply voters from Significant. Add ground as substandard as leveling the playing field. Keep in mind if my opponent loses any of these three topicalities are automatically win this debate as he is skewing it on the pre-fiat level. II. Sovereignty disad: A. Turn, sovereignty can still exist on a global level and avoid this disadvantage. Providing people understand that they are all part of the whole and not subsets sovereignty is fine. My case solves for this by educating the youth, that way when they are the leaders of the world they avoid small scale sovereignty. B. Cross apply argument from A. This link does not stand in the least as the inevitable outcome of this is not a vanishing of sovereignty it is simply sovereignty as a whole. C. Turn global economy still exists, and would become stronger. Needless expenditures for our "protection" would vanish, thus economy would become stronger. D. Turn, there is more of an imbalance right now, people are divided into classes groups subsets races regions countries cities suburbs right now. The outcome of a decrease in biopower is the destruction of this imbalance. Thus instead of their being more vigilantism there would be less. E. Cross apply A. This is the same argument. The world government is a government of all the people, its your government, taking it over is self destructive. III. Societal Disadvantage A. I fail to see this what-so-ever, my opponent is attempting to state that increasing a persons self worth as an individual will lead to multiple harms. Cross apply my Sovereignty D argument where I state that this will not happen, the dividers between people will lessen. This turns my opponents entire impact, it is now an advantage for me. B. No uniqueness. Not everyone has the same power or same energy now, even if we were going to see this link why would it cause the harms. Are we already seeing these harms in the status quo? C. Turn, people who understand the fact that they have their own power independent of that given to them by their governments they also see that others have this same power. This in turn leads them to question for themselves what policies are best and why. Corruptness would not only be questioned more under this system but would actually be followed less. People who feel they can actually do something will respond accordingly. Under the current system a persons well being is being dangled over their heads metaphorically for unquestioning submission. Our current system promotes and allows corruption to thrive. D. Turn, Biopower is the subjugation of a people through the pretense of being essential to their very survival. A decrease in biopower destroys the pretense of being essential to survival. This disallows for any sort of act being made that would go against individual rights. For instance things like the patriot act and our invasion of Iraq would be critically evaluated and found not to be essential for our survival. Furthermore under a world population system entire populations could not be targeted as the false perpetrators of any crime as there is only 1 population. E. Covered this in the above 9 arguments. War cannot be fought without population to fight it against. Events such as the holocaust cannot happen without populations to subject to them. Wars and events such as the holocaust cannot be started under the false pretense of it being essential to survival without biopower. IV Counterplan. A. First off this is not mutually exclusive at all. It can and will happen at the same time as the plan. It is a direct essential step of the plan that a persons voice will be increased. Furthermore if we were just going to go with my opponents counterplan nothing would happen. What exactly does his counterplan advocate? An increase in voice, yet he has no way to do this. Increase a persons weight in the presidential election? What how does this happen? Increase a persons weight in bills being passed in congress? I ask my opponent to describe how this system would work. B. Perm, both his counter plan and the plan can happen at the same time. In fact they will happen at the same time. My plan calls for a decrease in biopower which inevitably leads to an increase in the voice of the individual. At the same time through my plan the inevitable results are a decrease in select populations as seen by the individual. This eventually leads to the government feeling the same way as those individuals will one day be the government. This education in turn leads to the entire world being seen as one population and not various subsets or demographs. C. My opponent states, "With the increase in the voice of the people, I do stop the holocaust from happening" this is partially true, this is part of my case. My case inevitably increases the voice of the people. He goes on to argue that my case has disadvantages which I have already covered. Furthermore my plan, in its entirety, avoids events such as the holocaust to a greater degree than my opponents simple counterplan. If there are not populations to subject to biopower then events such as the holocaust can never start. D. This is blatantly untrue, if you increase the persons voice you don't also the persons subjugation. And no, my case is not to increase the power over the individual. In fact my case is advocating against biopower: takes its control by regulating public health, heredity and risks. Through these things it makes the population dependent upon the sovereign. I am trying to destroy this dependency and replace it with a self reliance coupled by an understanding of the world as one population. As for the last 4 points I have already covered these above. My opponent states that his case outweighs mine by far. Even if you believe everything he said is true then my case prevents genocide and war while his simply prevents anarchy. As of now the Pro is solving for the greater impacts.