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

Flow the following off his first A, B, C, and D: His B: While my opponent attempts to debate that I have contributed to the imperfect debate world, he falls into the same trap that my argument constructed. My plan suggests to not only increase debate participation, but to change the way it is structured. The only real way to have debate as an activity benefit the real world is by following the same structure as a real world debate. No one wakes up in the morning and knows he will debate a colleague about salary, a pier about which "school of thought" is better, or a group of protesters on the way to work. These are real life examples of where debate can be applied, and in both instances the person was unprepared. Following my plan the only real way to have an educational debate is by having both teams not know the subject going into the round and/or it being changed in the course of the debate round. Because this is how a real world debate functions! My Subpoints regarding his B: A. Education is inevitable; as long as we sit here and talk for a while we'll learn something. Senses plus memory equals learning. B. Turn: The degree of education though is measured by how memorable something is. We increase education more by how what we are discussing is not like any other debate round using the magical word fiat. C. They have no offense for why the kind of education they provide is better than the kind we offer. We provide education about our ethical obligation and create discussions around it. D. Turn: The education in standard fare policymaking that they provide is the kind of education that increases the problems we mentioned in the 1NC. His C: In this sub-point my opponent continues to use a debate style that is modeled by the matthews effect as a poor way to debate. Extend Merton ‘95. We need to break away from this debate where we feel we have to debate a certain way, not every debate needs to have stock issues. His D: Seems like he is trying to make a predictability argument here. So I'll answer predictability: 1. This is just them complaining. Just because some arguments are more common doesn't make them better. We can change what is common and only having normal debates makes them less educational because they're routine. 2. Make them prove why it is actually bad to be predictable. Now take out their reasons that can be solved with them just doing a little more work. 3. Predictability decreases education. Debates about more predictable things regresses to debates about as little as possible. 4. Crushes national debate: because predictability is local and if we only allow what's common here we can't compete on a larger scale, which would shrink the educational benefit of debate. Next flow off his econ argument: Hundreds of bills have been passed through the house with incentive provisions, that hasn't cured poverty and the people qualified to debate in UDL's are still in the same class issues. Here is an example of how even if my opponent could solve for case(he dropped solvency, but this is irrelevant): assume everyone who increased Alt. Energy consumption was given 500 dollars. This money won't do much separating classes because a person making $20,000 will now have 500 dollars more (a small percentage to even make an impact), but a person making 1 million will now have 500 dollars more also. So unless you advocate a new plan that ONLY pays minorities a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money, class issues are still going to persist. Off racism: I am advocating UDL's not white dominated debate leagues, which he cites. Further, you only cite one example, my cards state that still non-UDL's are dominated by the upper class. Your one example doesn't effect much of the percentage on a whole. Off his last paragraph: How can his case solve for my problems if he is committing the acts that created the problem in the first place (i.e poor structure, etc.)? If we were following white supremacy debate structure, you dropped your whole case including advantages and solvency. You didn't extend one advantage and not a single solvency arg. The only thing you extended was an econ link which I just took out. In the end all my cards are backed with qualified sources, he just makes anaylitical arguments. Further he conceded to my solvency.