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

To topicalities! 1. Significant. Group all of his arguments together. As of now… I don't see any logical thinking of HOW these classes will ever be successful in increasing (let alone significantly) ANY Biopower whatsoever. He assumes that by offering these classes that people will all of the sudden have more "Biopower." We have P.E. classes in this world… so does that mean that everyone is in shape? We have history classes, so everyone understands all of history and remembers it? He has not yet offered what will even be in these classes yet, so how do I know if it will significantly increase anything… And as far as the abusiveness goes… if you don't want topicalities to go through the round… BE TOPICAL… 2. Increase. Group these arguments as well… He simply says his plan calls for an increase, but that doesn't mean that he'll get it… I hand in an assignment, but that doesn't mean that I'll get a good grade… In other words, you don't always get what you try to get. What are in these "classes"? The rest of this debate is about the disadvantages IF there is a significant increase but don't let my opponent assume this increase. Adding classes doesn't mean that everyone will be increased. You can attempt significant (as you say by giving it to the entire nation) but that doesn't mean the entire nation will get the increase whatsoever. Your plan actually calls for the DECREASE of biopower which goes right against the resolution itself. 3. Energy 1. You say you meet the power, BUT not the three standards. Is this human power fossil fuel? Electricity? Or solar radiation? I don't exactly think that I'm going to be getting in my human and driving to school… How do individuals get more "energy" and how can they now use it from a CLASS? Biopower is just POWER, not energy. You define it as, "This energy has been defined as Biopower or the power of life"… but this has nothing to do with energy and meets none of the standards in my definition… This topicality stands. II. Sovereignty Disadvantage. A. Unturn… On this argument I find a contradiction. He talks about how we can educate his youth… WRONG… He can ATTEMPT to educate the youth but no matter how hard you try, you will come up short. Also he talks about the world leaders being educated. But that is not who your attempting to educate, you are attempting to educate EVERYONE which leads to many harms if everyone has this so called energy/power. B. The sovereignty we know today is in danger if everyone has a significant increase in Biopower. His definition of Biopower is very vague but if you give enough people enough power, anything bad becomes possible. The decrease in sovereignty is inevitable. The crash of sovereignty is imminent. C. He says the economy would become stronger… but how. As we all know, economies strive because of money flowing around. If people become smarter with their energy, they will seize to spend money and the economy as we know it would crash. He simply does not have enough logical analysis to overturn the possibility of the economy crashing… Even the CHANCE of this happening is a greater harm than not passing the plan… unturn. D. There is imbalance now… but where in his solvency does he solve the imbalance. When we put education into place, some learn… some don't. This increases the imbalance. This imbalance IS a serious harm as vigilantism would be inevitable and this harm alone is enough to vote this plan down… unturn. E. Cross-apply what I said… sovereignty WILL decrease by the adoption of his plan. With people getting significantly increased power, how can the government hold us back anymore? It's like picking a fight with someone 10 times your size. III. Society Disadvantage. A. WRONG… you fail to see the inevitable imbalance that is to come with biopower education. Not everyone will learn this "biopower" and thus this "advantage" becomes a serious impact. With increase in self worth, they will feel they can do anything, which will only lead to disappointment OR harmful success. And again… HOW are these classes going to teach (and be successful) in teaching "biopower"? B. SO, by initiating this plan, how do we solve these (inherency) harms? You say in the status quo, these harms already exist. Okay, and in your inherency harms, you talk about Biopower CAUSING these harms (such as the Holocaust). You solve NOTHING. NO solvency, thus, adopting the plan is useless. C. Unturn… First of all, this is NOT a system; it's an extra class which comes with the extra burden of more teachers and more money. You act like this class is a new law that states that people have to be ethical… this simply can not happen. If you go into this new class and tell people that they can do what they want to do… They'll either ignore it (which would do nothing for everyone), or they'll believe it and ACTUALLY do WHATEVER comes to mind. Which inevitably leads to much harm. This new Biopower increase is still non-topical… this is NOT energy, it's a self-image increase ATTEMPT. D. Unturn… This is really the first time that I'm really starting to understand what is being attempted. This attempt efforts are futile. They will not work, people already have close relations to the law and anything that goes against the individual… It can't be increased, people don't like to be told how to run their life. Solvency does not exist and if the plan does what it wants to, these harms will happen. If he really wants people to be the individual and worry SO much about our government, then they will do whatever they can to get what they want. And with so many opinions clashing, what will happen then. E. With the whole holocaust thing, it would have happened either way you look at it. Again, cross-apply when he said, "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust"… Furthermore, the status quo harms still stand even with the adoption of the plan… The only way to eliminate all the harms is with my counter plan. IV. Counter plan A. How does this system work? It works by having a popular vote with all the elections and bills. No more will politicians tell us how they run but they instead will tell us how they work (so popular vote can be more accurate). If my counter plan is passed, it means that people will have a voice in the way our country is run and it will be CONTROLLED. B. What the heck… now he's calling for the DECREASE in Biopower. What energy is being increased in his plan? Either way, my plan works best on its own. The voice of the people becomes useless when they have too much power. Power simply leads to politics instead of leading to the individual. Our government should be run by individuals with each of them having the same power. My plan increases no energy/power whatsoever. C. Your plan TRIES to increase the voice of the people by offering a class. The difference between our plans is that mine actually takes immediate action to actually increase the voice of the people. With this class happening, only certain people will have this increase which will lead right back to status quo of politicians which does no good to anybody. D. Our world can't be one population by offering a class. Your plan will not solve any harms while mine takes action and WILL. Don't increase the "energy", instead, spread it out. Spreading out this power is only done with my counter plan. The only way we want to TRULY solve these harms without having to spend money on unnecessary classes is with my counter plan… vote accordingly. Please flow through all specific points made against his original case. Thank You!