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

Off Topicality- Incentives: --> What can be a bigger incentive of creating fusion energy than millions of dollars AND a brand new government program? The agenda is simply laid out. The incentive is specifically labeled under the plan sub points A and E. We give a bunch of scientist's ample money in order to do one thing, create fusion energy. How can the incentive be any bigger? Off Voters: 1 (Ground)--> This argument is mislead because I not only have to increase incentives but I also have to get solvency out of the whole plan. This gives complete fair ground. 2. (Education)--> The point in this debate is not to create an education for the people but rather energy for the people. After that, the advantage of people becoming familiar with fusion energy will come. Education comes post initial solvency. Off solvency argument 1. He is right that fusion energy is not quite ready as of now. HOWEVER, the whole reason to be increasing incentives (substantially) is to GET it ready. 2. The amount of time for a useable amount of fusion energy is not that long (as determined in the following evidence): A. Evidence #1 (http://au.answers.yahoo.com...) -"I've frequently read that fusion energy could be developed as soon as 2035." -"The way gas is (going) right now I suspect it ill be done by 2015 or maybe 2025." Evidence #2 (http://www.iterfan.org...) -"The reactor is expected to be up and running by 2016." Evidence #3 (http://www.iter.org...) -If you go to this link, you can see the timeline of the ITER program. You'll notice that NONE of their timeline goes past 2016. In other words, with the United States creating its own fusion program, then they can help ITER and perhaps one day join them. However, the first step is to create a program. 3. My own evidence may show 2050, but the initial creator of fusion energy shows that fusion energy is not that far off. I would guess that the person that put in that estimate is unfamiliar with the ITER program. 4. After all of these timelines, you have to see that fusion energy will be ready to use VERY soon. Patience plus the adopting of the affirmative plan will solve the energy crisis as long as the earth still exists. 5. DON'T VOTE ME DOWN because the parts of the articles that I don't mention may be because I need to save everyone's time by not putting everything. If you want me to say everything, one of the blogs has a guy that talks about how great solar power is but 1) Fusion power solves the energy crisis forever and 2) More energy equals more welfare for America so it doesn't even matter and 3) After everything is said and done, fusion energy is cheaper. Against "his own source" you must note that: 1) The United States program could substantially increase the amount of time that things get done. Therefore bringing solvency all the faster. 2) There is no timetable restriction stated either in the resolution OR in any argumentation made by my opponent. The only thing that is important is that fusion energy is eventually created and solvency WILL be here eventually. Against fusion energy will cost too much: (http://mccaskill.senate.gov...) "Missouri consumers, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay $10.7 billion for gasoline this year." However, this only accounts for one state AND was taken in 2002 where gasoline was still under $2.00 per gallon. (http://fusedweb.llnl.gov...) -"Like all stars, the sun is a huge fusion reactor, pumping out 100 million times as much energy in a single second as the entire population of Earth uses in a year!" If you combine these two factors, you have to see that it won't take much "fusion energy" to take care of all problems the energy crisis is putting us through right now. No matter what, fusion energy WILL cost us less money than gasoline. COUNTERPLAN: 1) This counter plan is NOT mutually exclusive. I am in support of having as much energy as possible BUT as soon as fusion energy is in its usable form, no other energy forms will be needed. 2) He does not meet his own text… He shows no new "substantial increase" in wind energy. "The cost of Wind Energy technology has dropped dramatically in last years and, thanks to government incentives or subsidies, a Wind Energy system may be your most cost-effective power solution." You see, these subsidies that he talks about ALREADY EXIST. His counter plan changes nothing and helps no one. Wind energy is already in effective use AND the energy crisis still exists in the middle of it all. (http://www.leonardo-energy.org...) In the end- The counter plan can be passed WITH the affirmative plan. Futhermore, there is NO reason yet presented to vote down the affirmative plan. Because of this, I urge it to be passed! So please vote PRO! Thanks!