The USFG should fully fund the ITER program until its completion. (Policy Debate Aff)

OK, we can start off with the plan. The plan initially stated that the Affirmative was to merely fund the ITER program. The Affirmative has since stated that the plan text was to "fully" fund the program. Since I do not believe that the Affirmative's interest was to cause a Topicality violation I will, of course, respect a change in plan text. However, the change in plan text is still fairly vague and at first glance readers may think that this change avoids violation of the Topicality argument as per my first Negative. However, this is not the case. The Affirmative has not defined "fully" in any way and I am forced to believe that "fully" may simply mean whatever may be required to make the plan solve. But let's not forget about Topicality: 1. W/M-The Affirmative claims that they meet my definition of "increase". However, this is simply not the case. The Affirmative claims to increase by 1500 percent but they do not specify. From what I have read, the negative's first piece of Solvency evidence indicates that over $200 million (200-300 million USD) will be needed to successfully implement the plan. What I gather from this is that to "fully" implement this plan $200 million will be required. The Affirmative makes a mistake by using evidence that it critical of the FY 2008 budget but does not look to the FY 2009. I have proven this with my aaas.org evidence but it has since been refuted as being "horrible". However, in the interest of protecting the education of this debate, I will provide the following source. http://www.ostp.gov... This is a very reputable source that speaks on the FY 2009 budget. Note that it states that there will be $214 million allocated to the ITER Fusion Project, a 1,855% increase from last year!!! So to answer "we meet"--the status quo certainly meets, and to a greater extent might I add. "2. C/I- Sub. Is large in size American Heritage Dictionary 2008 3. W/M C/I- we increase by 1500% enough to meet both definitions" -At this point I have proven that the counter-interpretation of "substantial" is already present in the status quo. Points 2&3 should go negative because the Affirmative is not really increasing anything. In fact, a 1500% increase to the 2008 budget would be a decrease in the status quo. Is that what the Affirmative wants? 4. Standards- -Bright Line-"We give the best bright line because we clearly increase AE incentive by 1500%" Is this clear to anyone? -Education- Fair enough. I did admit to education coming from this round. However, the fact that I am running Topicality should be an indicator as to the wasted time that could have been spent on more detailed aspects of the plan. 5. "Lit checks abuse" Just because I can find something on the internet on a case doesn't make the case topical. Actually, you could run a case about Paris Hilton...and I could find "lit" on it. Certainly you will concede this point. 6. Voters- The Affirmative makes their biggest mistake on misconstruing the topicality as being solely based upon abuse. a.Jurisdiction- At this point, I have proven that the Aff is still not topical and my jurisdiction voter still stands because the Aff does not increase. b. Education- "he teaches me nothing just that if he does policy he needs to make better T frontlines." Are you willing to concede that there is need for me to be educated about something in this debate? Inherency: The Affirmative concedes the fact that the status quo provides $214 million dollars in the next budget. They claim that we need to fund ITER to its completion. However the Affirmative makes a mistake in providing no evidence that the ITER program will not continue in the years to come. What we have seen is a strong increase in funding over the past few years(EOP evidence)and since 2001. The USFG clearly has an interest in ITER and actually calls it an Advanced Energy Initiative. Wow...that seems eerily similar to the resolution of this debate round. Increase AE initiatives...Wow...maybe the USFG is doing more than we thought. Also, if you are cutting down the evidence, I would appreciate the source. Global Warming: The Affirmative talks about the "Wilkerson card" and how it explains it all but they give no warrants...I don't see that anywhere in the card. Maybe the Affirmative could provide some context to strengthen this debate. Otherwise, my initial arguments stand. Hydro-econ+Adv's: Yes...I read it the first time. What I'm saying on this piece, as with the rest of the Aff is that these arguments flow Negative because they strengthen the case for the status quo. In fact, they show why we shouldn't implement the Aff's plan. If anything...they decrease funding and make things worse. It doesn't matter if I went line-by-line on the advantages or not. Next, the Affirmative makes their biggest mistake of the round by trying to make this into a "TRY OR DIE" scenario for the Aff's plan. This is an oddly perfect time to start on the K. I find it peculiar that the Aff would so blatantly bite into the Kritik. Oh well... 1. Perm-"do the plan with the mind set" ehh...what? You mean the mind set of affirming life? You can't do that...that would mean not doing the plan at all. This makes no sense. 2. Perm-"do the plan and see what happens" Scaredy cat! That's not a perm. In fact, that's the opposite of what this Kritik calls for. To truly affirm life, we roll the dice pre-plan. We don't try to change things and then duck for cover. 3. Perm is not the only way to solve for the impacts. Aff gives no reasoning behind this and does not make any sense. The Kritik solves for its impacts by not attempting to master the inherent conditions of life. 4. I don't know where you are getting this interpretation of Nietzsche. This almost upsets me. If there is anything to learn from Friedrich Nietzsche, it was to create your own values and ideas. He certainly did not "force himself on people". He is known for not entertaining the idea of followers. 5. "Also if he wanted to see what happened he never would've published his work." This holds no ground because Nietzsche's work does not link to the Kritik. His work demonstrates an Affirmation of life by accepting destiny and chance. 6. He got sick? Oh I get it...this is supposed to be a "how would he know" argument. Well, have we solved inherent and unknown aspects of the earth such as global warming since Nietzsche's death. Don't think so. 7. Link turn? The K in no way advocates do nothing. Rolling the dice is a big step in affirming life. I don't see how this is a link turn at all. 8. Case solves the K? Wow...this case rids the world of all the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of the world? I'm going to doubt that...seeing as it is not possible as per my Saurette '96 evidence. 9. This point bites our impact evidence directly...Systemic impact and all. We admit to "feeling" the impacts now. That doesn't change the fact that inherent conditions of life such as poverty, malnourishment, and global warming can't suddenly be solved. Is Aff still perming? A. Utopian? I will disregard this set of args due to lack of space on my behalf and a lack of logic on the Affirmative's. Clearly, I have shown that the only utopians in this round are the Aff. FRAMEWORK: A. Fair enough. B. Role-playing-read further C. Reciprocity-points B&C are mistakes on the Affirmative's behalf because this pounds in their need for order in a world of disorder which I have proven to be impossible in my Kritik. Yes, that is the basis of my Kritik as per the Saurette '96. D. "ALWAYS LOOK TOWARDS FRAMEWORK"...as another link to the K. The under view of advantages has been previously touched in this speech. At this point in the debate, I have proven the plan to be non-topical. If anything, the proposed plan is worse than the status quo. The Kritik still stands and should not have been permed. Framework links to the K. Thanks!