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

Straight down the flow. Inherency: A) So I would like to point out my evidence that states the one-fifth of HIV/AIDS people because of needles comes from drug use. This means virtually none of the HIV/AIDS comes from people using needles for purposes OTHER than drug use. This might be fine and dandy if the opponent could solve for drug use, but as he stated he can't. Also, his evidence he provided stated that the NEP would not effect drug users. So on two accounts, one evidential and two opponent assertion, I have shown that it will be impossible for my opponent to solve any significant amount of HIV/AIDS that he mentions in his harms. Because he cannot solve this, this point must flow Con. B) My opponent still has not provided a sound funding plan, or for that matter, any sort of funding plan at all. My opponent says this is ok because he is just taking it, "One step at a time. " My opponent's job is to show a problem, and present a plan to prevent/solve it. There is no such thing as a one step plan that has any chance of working. A plan has multiple steps, and is detailed so that it is known what is done when the final moment comes down to whatever particular step. My opponent fails to do this. So what happens when this ban is removed? How will the funding come? My opponent does not provide a plan, so we cannot accept his case; and this point also flows to me. Harms A) My opponent believes that he should win simply because he is doing something. This is simply illogical, as his action cold very well be destructive. Just because the opponent is Aff, does not mean that he automatically will improve the status quo. I have shown that, in this case, my opponent will not be able to improve the status quo, and may actually hurt it. Don't allow the opponent hurt the world's people on the assumption his plan will work because he is Aff Solvency A) So my opponent is now adding (by which I mean he did not originally include this very important piece of information) this new step to his plan. This is obviously unfair, but it doesn't matter as they don't do enough anyway. Drug use exists despite current laws and there is no reason to believe (especially as my opponent has shown no evidence saying) that these drug programs will solve drug use. As I've shown, my opponent only has the CAPABILITY of POSSIBLY affecting 1/5 of the situation he is trying to solve for, and unless my opponent can solve drug use, this means that even that 1/5th won't be solved. So, in essence, my opponent's plan will do nothing. Voters: So you should vote Neg for multiple reasons. First, because my opponent can not even solve the mere ONE harm he presented. Secondly, because I have shown that he does not even have a plan of action, which includes the critical part of funding. Thirdly, because my opponent's solvency has been shown by his own evidence to be completely ineffective, and lastly, because of the whole lack of preparations in the opponent's case. If my opponent really wanted to win this debate, he would have been able to present a case that met the common requirements needed to solve problems like this in the hypothetical manner that debate has. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Con/Neg.