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

GENERIC ARGUMENTS: 1) Global warming doesn't exist. -From: http://www.americanpolicy.org... -"There is no global warming. Period. You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us." There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming. Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius." --> In the 1970's, scientists were worried about global freezing. The earth is in a change… that is all. If we have any affect on the climate it is VERY slight and does NOT kill 150,000 people. In other words, he solves for NO inherency harms in solvency. 2) The theory of global warming doesn't cause harm even if it exists. During the David Letterman show, David had one of the highest workers for global warming. He claimed that over the past century, the earth has grown (in average) of 1 degree. Then my opponent claims that there has been an estimate of 150,000 people that are killed by global warming. This argument is ridiculous. There is no link and no justification as to HOW this happens. Furthermore, in solvency, there is no proof that this harm will be solved so this argument must be thrown out of this round immediately. Therefore, Affirmative has no inherency or solvency. TOPICALITIES: All from dictionary.com A. Energy -"any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation." This is more for clarification of how this turns into energy. I reserve the right to expand on this topicality or just drop it altogether. B. Substantial "of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc" My opponents plan states that there will be a 7% tax break for farmers that grow this bean. But the standard of if this will be substantial is not met. If my opponent can not link to a substantial increase, then there must be a negative vote. PLAN STANDARD: A. Mandate standard: The affirmative must prove that farmers are willing to cooperate with alternative energy OR that these 7% tax breaks is enough to make it so that they earn enough money to support a family. ALL farmers like to stick to familiarity and aren't interested in risking their farm and family for something that won't support them very much. Therefore, STANDARD 1: Affirmative must prove that the 7% tax break is enough to persuade farmers to switch to growing jathropa beans. STANDARD 2: Affirmative must show that with or without the tax break, that there is enough money in this new field. STANDARD 3: Affirmative must show that with the 7% tax break, that there will be a substantial increase of energy. B. Logistics: The affirmative plan can not be changed. Logistics offers nothing that will be done to make jatropha beans popular in any way. STANDARD: Affirmative must show that the 7% tax break will create enough alternative energy that is worth investing in. SOLVENCY STANDARD: DISADVANTAGE 1: Funding Disadvantage A. Link: If the farmers grow a substantial amount, then farmers will decrease substantially in the form of normal crops. B. Link: Substantial decrease in money income. http://news.moneycentral.msn.com... -"Net income for the first quarter of 2008 was $1.724 million" -This was just from one corporation. Therefore if this tax break is so great, then everyone will switch to growing these beans then crops and money will be substantially decreased. C. Harm 1: More people will starve D. Harm 2: Substantial increase in food prices (they are already high enough) E. Harm 3: Loss in money for exporting goods. I reserve the right to add more arguments in the next speech (consider it my 2nd constructive) since I didn't have enough time to argue some of what I wanted to… Thanks and good luck!