The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

Chicken Dung=Alternative Energy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,950 times Debate No: 7089
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




RESOLUTION: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

Observation 1: Significance and Harms
A.Arsenic pollutes water
Virginia Tech, Shreiber 2005 (Virginia Tech-Madeline Shreiber, Associate professor of Geo science, "Geoscientists Follow Arsenic From Chicken Feed To Streambeds", Science Daily, October 12, 2005)

In research funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Madeline Schreiber, associate professor of geosciences at Virginia Tech, carried out field and laboratory studies to discover the fate of arsenic fed to poultry. She and her graduate students found that bacteria in the litter and in shallow subsurface soil transform organic arsenic to inorganic arsenic. Organic arsenic is not highly toxic to humans, but inorganic arsenic, with its organic component removed, is toxic.
We found that organic arsenic is highly soluble in water and is rapidly biotransformed to inorganic arsenic," Schreiber said. Despite laboratory findings that show a strong adsorption of inorganic arsenic to minerals in the soils and aquifer sediments, a surprising finding from water samples from streams receiving runoff is that low concentrations of arsenic are transported to streambeds instead of being retained by the aquifers, Schreiber said. "We think that the arsenic is adsorbed onto nanoscale particles that pass though our filters and through the soil column," said Schreiber. "This suggests that particle transport is an important mechanism in arsenic cycling in these watersheds."
Schreiber emphasized, "All of the arsenic concentrations we are finding at our field site are below the drinking water standards, even below the new standards of 10 parts per billion, which will come into effect in February 2006."

B. Arsenic in its inorganic form is harmful to humans
Hileman 2007 (American Chemical Society, Bette Hileman Senior Editor of C&EN Massachusetts Institute of Technology, "Arsenic in Chicken Production", Chemical and Engineering News, April 9, 2007)
In its original organic form, roxarsone is relatively benign. It is less toxic than the inorganic forms of arsenic-arsenite [As(III)] and arsenate [As(V)]. However, some of the 2.2 million lb of roxarsone mixed in the nation's chicken feed each year converts into inorganic arsenic within the bird, and the rest is transformed into inorganic forms after the bird excretes it.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic can cause bladder, lung, skin, kidney, and colon cancer, as well as deleterious immunological, neurological, and endocrine effects. Low-level exposures can lead to partial paralysis and diabetes. "None of this was known in the 1950s when arsenicals were first approved for use in poultry," says Ellen K. Silbergeld, a toxicologist at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Observation 2: Inherency
A.Arsenic limits waste management alternatives
Nachman, Graham, Price, Silbergeld 2005(Keeve E. Nachman,1 Jay P. Graham,2 Lance B. Price,2 and Ellen K. Silbergeld2 1Department of Health Policy and Management, and 2Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, "Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Animal Waste Management Solutions", May 12, 2005

As a result of these changes in poultry production, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) produce far more waste than can be managed by land disposal within the regions where it is produced. As a result, alternative waste management practices are currently being implemented, including incineration and pelletization of waste. However, organic arsenicals used in poultry feed are converted to inorganic arsenicals in poultry waste, limiting the feasibility of waste management alternatives. The presence of inorganic arsenic in incinerator ash and pelletized waste sold as fertilizer creates opportunities for population exposures that did not previously exist. The removal of arsenic from animal feed is a critical step toward safe poultry waste management.

B. Arsenic in feed is currently being used
Lilliston 2006 (Ben Lilliston, Author, Bachelor of Philosophy, Communications Director of Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, "Consumers beware: Dangerous Levels of Arsenic Found in Non-Organic Chicken", April 5, 2006)

Minneapolis � Brand name chicken products sold in American supermarkets and
fast food restaurants are widely contaminated with arsenic, according to
independent test results released today by the Institute for Agriculture and
Trade Policy (IATP
Arsenic in chicken meat appears closely linked to the decades-old practice
of intentionally and routinely putting arsenic into chicken feed. At least
70 percent of U.S. broiler chickens have been fed arsenic, according to

C. Burning would be dangerous
Vandiver 2004 (John Vandiver, Reporter, "Arsenic: Chicken Feed Effects Questioned" January 4, 2004)
Chicken litter could potentially serve as an alternative energy source, something Silbergeld says could be dangerous."If the levels of arsenic in waste are significant, burning it would be the worst thing to do," she said.

Plank 1: Ban Arsenic in Chicken Feed
Plank 2: Cover 50% of building costs in tax breaks for companies for 5 years who invest in chicken dung
Plank 3: Use pyrolysis to convert. (More efficient and cleaner.)
Plank 4: We reserve the right to clarify our intent

Observation 3: Solvency and Advantages

A.Banning Arsenic will decrease health threats
Nachman, Graham, Price and Silbergeld 2005 (Keeve E. department of health policy and management Jay P. Lance B. and Ellen K. department of environmental health sciences at Johns Hopkins University, "Arsenic: A Roadblock to Potential Waste Management Solutions" May 12) ttp://

Clearly, actions are urgently needed to deal with the increasing burden of poultry wastes from CAFOs. Existing regulations for animal waste disposal are ill-equipped to address the variety of health threats presented by poultry waste; current policies are focused on nutrient content and, as a result, do not take into account the presence of pharmaceuticals, pathogens, and heavy metals in waste. Animal waste is currently not classified as hazardous waste by the U.S. EPA. If animal waste were classified as hazardous waste, it would be prohibited from land disposal based solely on its concentrations of leachable arsenic (Rutherford et al. 2003; U.S. EPA 2004). Given the problems associated with the hazardous constituents of poultry wastes, land disposal is not a viable option. Many of these problems have been addressed in the European Union, where arsenicals were withdrawn from the poultry production process in 1998. Economic analyses have demonstrated that removal of growth-promoting antimicrobials, such as arsenic, has come at no net cost for the poultry industry [World Health Organization (WHO) 2003]. The removal of arsenic from animal feed is a critical step toward safe poultry waste management. In addition, this step will enhance food safety by reducing concentrations of arsenic in poultry products, a potentially significant source of total arsenic exposure for Americans.

B.Chicken Dung as fuel will reduce CO2 emissions
Kumar 2008, ( Sameer Kumar Author, Master of Science, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, "Dutch to power 90,000 homes with Chicken Poop", Sept. 8, 2008)
The Netherlands is going to produce power from chicken waste and that too in a scale that would be sufficient to power over 90,000 homes! That pretty much sums up the magnitude of this huge investment the country is making in green energy. Chicken waste has been a problem that has been plaguing many of the North European countries for a long time, and the new project will help the Netherlands turn one-third of the nation's chick


Thanks and good luck!



I: Energy-"Any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation."

A. Standards-

1) Affirmative must increase ENERGY (incentives) that is a source of usable power.

2) Affirmative must guarantee that energy incentives are increased.

B. Violations-

1) Affirmative's plan action removes a non-energy substance.

2) Affirmative has one weak evidence card that says this COULD equal energy but gives NO definite yes or no answer.

C. Voters-

1) Ground
-Affirmative could literally have any plan that COULD have to do with energy SOMETIME (like vegetable oil in restaurants). This makes ground for negative too wide.

2) Fairness
-The resolution specifies an increase in energy (incentives) but affirmative looks to something that has nothing to do with energy. This takes away from framers intent and makes a burden of research unrealistic to the resolution


II: Substantial- "Of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc"

A. Standard- Affirmative must increase energy incentives in a great amount.

B. Violation- There is no "substantial" change in ANY energy incentives

C. Voters-

1) Ground
-Affirmative could increase a random energy incentive with no significant change giving too much ground to Affirmative and virtually none for Negative to argue disadvantages, etc.

2) Fairness
-In order for an equal opportunity to be given to both sides, you must ensure that we change status quo in by a great amount to see the realistic benefits and/or costs.


III: Increase- "A quantity that is added"

A. Standards:

1) The Affirmative plan must take something and make it greater.

2) The Affirmative plan must increase energy incentives

3) The incentives must permanently be increased.

B. Violations:

1) The Affirmative plan takes something and eliminates it.

2) The Affirmative plan eliminates something that has nothing to do with energy. This not only fails to increase, but actually DECREASES an object. There is no proof that any sort of incentive is increase only that it could be.

3) The Affirmative plan doesn't increase energy incentives, he makes the incentives safer. Flow through the ‘C' card on inherency where all it talks about is how it could be an energy incentive but it needs to be safe. Decreasing the harm possibility does not increase an incentive and FOR SURE does not do it substantially.

4) The Affirmative plan only gives a 5 year tax break.

C. Voters

1) Framers Intent
-The resolution asks for incentives in energy to be increased. The intent of the Affirmative plan is to gain an advantage in health risks and has nothing to do with energy incentives.

2) Ground and Fairness
-In order for debate to be equal and fair, the Affirmative must increase something. He only decreases. Changing this makes the ground for the debate unlimited.

All of my definitions are from


A. Standard: The Affirmative plan must:

1) Specify where the money is coming from
2) Specify how much it will cost

B. Violation:

1) The Affirmative plan "Cover(s) 50% of building costs in tax breaks for companies for 5 years who invest in chicken dung", but yet fails to show where this money will come from. I can say that I will give you a million dollars but it would be useless and would achieve nothing if I didn't say how or if I didn't proactively do it. The Affirmative plan does neither.
2) In order to give any chance for negative, for purpose of economic and/or funding disadvantages, there must be proof of how much money will be spent. Affirmative doesn't even give as much as an estimate let alone how much money will be spent or at least how much COULD be spent.

C. Voters:

1) Fairness
-There must be as much necessary information as possible given about the affirmative case in order for us to know the advantages as well as the disadvantages. It is unfair for the Affirmative to only give what is good about the plan.
2) Ground
-The Affirmative could literally say they spend the perfect amount of money for the perfect advantage, but this makes it unrealistic and impossible to argue in a pragmatic and fair-grounded form.


A. Plan-text: The Unites States Federal Government will mandate

1) A minimum of arsenic to be placed in chicken to be above current levels.
2) Increase a curable disease, that is not contagious, and withhold the cure.
3) Make birth-control a requirement.
4) Nuke less advantaged countries.
5) Once the population of the United States is below 150,000,000, mandates 1, 2, and 3 will be lifted.
6) Once the world population is below 2 Billion, mandate 4 will be lifted.
7) All decisions of who dies and how will be determined by a committee established by Congress.
8) I reserve the right to clarify.
9) This plan will be funded by normal means and will be paid back through monetary increase from advantageous effects.
10) Kill everyone through means of injection, of anyone over the age of 75 (let them have one last party at their 75th birthday)
11) Kill everyone through means of injection, of anyone mentally retarded determined by 2 of 3 credited officials.
12) Kill everyone who has ever committed a crime worthy of more than 2 weeks in jail.

B. Non-Topical
-This policy action has nothing to do with alternative energy.

C. Mutually Exclusive
-You can not eliminate arsenic and increase it at the same time.

D. Net-Beneficial

1) Solves Hunger (from:
-"The food prices are going up, and everyone thinks it's to do with not enough food, but it's really (that there are) too many people. It's a little embarrassing for everybody, nobody knows how to handle it"

-"Most famous, the 18th century demographer Thomas Malthus said mass starvation was inevitable because population increases geometrically while food production grows arithmetically."

2) We need to stop this worsening truth (same source)
-"Every year, world population grows by 75 million people"

3) Solves Cannibalism (same source)
-"They eat everything in sight and multiply 50-fold -- until they have consumed everything, when they turn in desperation on one another, munch off their siblings' heads and then fall out of the sky dead."

4) Solves Global Warming (same source)
-"They say with a frown that this global swarming is driving global warming. How can you be prepared to cut back on your car emissions and your plane emissions but not on your baby emissions? Can you really celebrate the pitter-patter of tiny carbon-footprints?"

5) This death is a must.
-"The AIDS epidemic, rather than being a scourge, is a welcome development in the inevitable reduction of human population"

6) With less supply and demand, gas prices will be decreased, and more money and resources will be available to the remaining members of our world. Passing this plan will benefit the economy, and the quality of life for the remaining members of this world, and thus should be the option pursued.

-Why have 6 billion terrible lives when you can have 2 billion good ones? This policy action will end this ridiculous ‘everyone can be happy' idea that we have been living under for so many years. Note, that I gain an EXTREME greater amount of advantage then my opponent and will do so for years to come. Every advantage gained by my opponent is gained by me, but he fails to decrease supply and demand, fails to solve the inevitable cannibalism, and ultimately fails to solve hunger.

-To be noted: Voting negative means accepting ANY ONE of the 3 topicalities, the kritik, OR the counterplan. Negation means to not accept the affirmative, NOT to accept the negative stance.

Good Luck!
Debate Round No. 1


peace-maker forfeited this round.


My opponent drops everything in his last speech. I don't know how she expects to win this :P

Flow through my Topicalities.
Flow through my Kritik
---And add on top of that an alternative (I guess I need one of those): ALTERNATIVE: Give all potential spending of the affirmative plan. AND have all funding issues specified and ready when asked for. I asked for them and she gave me nothing.

But most of all, flow through my Counter-Plan (mostly because it would be awesome to win a debate where I call for a death increase!) Don't assume that death is a disadvantage, rather, look to the end result. The U.S. is in a bad condition, the ONLY people effected poorly by the counterplan are the people that die. However, the REMAINING U.S. get substantial advantages. Look to the U.S. during status quo, then look to them with passing of the counter-plan, it is a way better place.

*Note to judges: If you don't accept one or two of my arguments, don't vote me down. In policy debate, all you have to do to win is to win one argument. ONE topicality (out of my 3), ONE kritik, ONE counterplan (plus there are other arguments that I haven't done). Since she drops them all, then you should accept them anyway but just wanted to point that out.

Just for fun, I am going to continue running more off-case.


*Note- Pass one or the other counter-plan. Thus there are 4 scenarios to vote for:

1) Affirmative case
2) Death counter-plan
3) Chicken holocaust counter-plan
4) Keep status quo

A. Plan-text: The United States Federal Government will mandate

1) Gather 90% of male chickens and cut off their heads.
2) Feed as many people as possible with the chickens.
3) Establish a holiday called 'Awesome-Giving' for mandate 2.
4) Put all of the heads in several aircrafts and drop them on China.
5) Establish a holiday called 'Awesomer-Giving' for mandate 4.
6) Take the feathers and make thousands of pillows out of them.
7) Establish a holiday, from the thousands of pillows, called 'Awesomest-Giving' where everyone joins in on the biggest pillow fights ever. And laugh when you didn't 'give' anything.

B. Non-Topical
-This policy action has nothing to do with energy incentives.

C. Mutually Exclusive
-I keep the arsenic in the chicken.
-Can't kill most of the chickens and still get affirmative solvency.

D. Net-Beneficial

1) China

2) Higher I.Q.
-Chicken's are some of the dumbest animals on the planet. If we kill them, our average I.Q. will go through the roof.

3) More room
-Chicken's take up way too much room. We are killing the uneccessary chickens.

4) Higher quality of living
-With 3 more holiday's, people will be much more happy. An article thought up in my head said in 2009, that, "There are not enough holidays in the calander year."

5) Sleep Deprivation decrease
-Another article thought up in my head said in 2009, that, "Sleep Deprivation is the biggest threat to humanity since the cold-war."

6) Pillow Fight
-Come on! Who doesn't want to have a national pillow fight!


A. Uniqueness: Tax break put in directly from the plan-text.

B. Link: Only dumb people would invest in poop.

C. Link: Tax Break to dumb people.

D. Link: The economy strives on dumb people paying maximum taxes. They don't know better.

E: Harm: Giving this tax break will lead to less taxes being payed when dumb people realize that they shouldn't be paying this much. Thus, increase national debt, and a worsened economic crisis.

F. Harm: Dead Babies... Can you have that on your conscience?

In the end, all 7 of my off-case are voters and thus far, all 7 have yet to be argued. Thus, you must vote CON!

Thanks. and LOL!
Debate Round No. 2


peace-maker forfeited this round.


She has yet to attack any of my arguments. There is literally no other way to vote but CON... Even if you don't accept my arguments.

Thanks... I had a good laugh making these speeches!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Kachow 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07