The Instigator
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Losing
19 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,888 times Debate No: 3521
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (12)

 

Johnicle

Con

Okay, I've never tried policy debate before but I've been teaching myself a few things so I'm going to give it a shot. I hope this will be a good learning experience. I think I can do alright but we'll see. But we're using the 2008-2009 policy debate topic of...

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

The reason I put logical in the beginning of the "topic of debate" is so evidence is NOT required. Basically, all you have to do is use logic and if a specific point needs evidence, than so be it... but, this debate is not meant to show that one has more evidence than the other, rather, we should or shouldn't pass the specific plan. Since policy debate begins and ends with the PRO and I can't run anything with out a Pro/Affirmative case, then I won't post any arguments in this speech. I wish my opponent luck and look forward to his first speech/case.

Thank You!
Yraelz

Pro

"Can we imagine another form of humanity, and another form of power? The bio-sovereignty described by Agamben is so fluid as to appear irresistible. Yet Agamben never suggests this order is necessary. Bio-sovereignty results from a particular and contingent history, and it requires certain conditions. Sovereign power, as Agamben describes it, finds its grounds in specific coordinates of life, which it then places in a relation of indeterminacy. What defies sovereign power is a life that cannot be reduced to those determinations: a life "that can never be separated from its form, a life in which it is never possible to isolate something such as naked life. " In his earlier Coming Community, Agamben describes this alternative life as "whatever being.""

It is because I agree with Proffesor Caldwell on the premise that there is a way to combat bio-power that I offer the below case.

INHERENCY:

A. This energy is all around us every day and there is no hope for it leaving on its own anytime soon. What energy is this that I speak of? The energy of the human being, not as an individual but the energy of the human in mass. This energy has been defined as biopower or the power of life. All around us every day we are being controlled by the sovereign but this is no longer the sovereign of old. In olden times if one stepped out of line the sovereign would simply dispatch said person but now that we live in a world defined by reason and opportunity such policies have become outdated. They have been replaced instead with policies of dependence. Biopower takes it control by regulating public health, heredity and risks. Through these things it makes the population dependent upon the sovereign.

HARMS:

A. Biopower justifies the use of war. This however is much different than the war of old that we are all so familiar with. Biopower, the power of the energy known as people, is not about defending the sovereign. It is instead justified through the idea of maintaining the life of everyone. Entire populations are put into battle under the guise of life necessity. This justifies the destruction of masses for the maintaining of the population as a whole. The modern state now runs through the principles of battle. The power of life of the population now coexists with the power to destroy entire populations.

B. Biopower created and maintained the holocaust. The holocaust was based on the premise of a superior race of superior blood. A blood which could interbreed with lower forms of blood if given the chance and create lower forms of human beings. In order to sustain the population the bad blood needed to be weeded out and destroyed. This led to the destruction of entire populations that were deemed as a threat to the survival of the population. The entire holocaust was based on the premise of maintaining the population thus its survival. Through the use of bio politics the sovereign mobilized an entire race to destroy 6 million others.

C. Biopower literally justifies anything. For your security, for your health, this is for your protection. Those are the beginnings of each message of biopower. Look to modern examples, we entered Iraq because they might have nuclear weapons which would be a threat to our very existence as a whole. How many innocent lives have we killed there? In fact look to most every war which we have entered. The same premise, the same idea.

Look to our everyday lives. We must wear a seatbelt in a car because if we don't then the population would be at risk of death. We must have insurance because had we not many people would die. Are those not our free choices to do or to have? Yet the sovereign has taken the liberty of that power under the guise of maintaining the population. With this type of logic anything can and will be justified.

PLAN:

1. The United states federal government will implement a policy offering incentives for schools to adopt the "World History Policy".

This policy will shift the focus of history classes K-12 from learning about interactions between sovereigns to learning about interactions between the individual and the power or energy of the individual. Furthermore this new history will stress the fact that everyone is part of the whole, known as the world. The "World History Policy" will also actively stress the idea that every person is different in their own way and no group of people can be correctly classified by one broad term or stereotypical group. Finally the policy will stress the fact that everyone human is of this earth before anything else.

The incentives will amount to exactly double what the program itself will cost to run. This will allow for funding for other parts of the school on top of funding for the policy itself.

2. The Affirmative team claims the rights to fiat, clarification and of course legislative intent. Wouldn't be a policy round without those.

3. All funding will be through normal means.

SOLVENCY:

A. This plan will solve for all 3 of the harms. By rejecting the idea that people can truly be classified into any broad encompassing idea we reject the very energy that makes biopower work. If people can no longer be classified into groups then mass killings can no longer be justified by saving the whole. Furthermore if people simply identify themselves as part of this earth then there is no way to justify killings in order to save the people of the earth. To do so would be to justify killing people of the earth. This plan takes away all of the political energy known as biopower and replaces it instead with the energy of the single individual and the energy of the whole. These prevent the future detestation of society.

I know stand open for my opponents rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Con

I negate: Resolved- The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States.

I. Topicalities
-From dictionary.com

A. Significant- Fairly large in amount or quantity
So far in this round, my opponent has not shown adequate increase in anything. He mentions nothing about how much "Biopower" there is as of now but simply that we need to increase. Increase is a maybe but significant increase is no where.

B. Increase- to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality
Again, all that my opponent contends is that the power of the individual should be increased. But no where does he say from what to what. How much Biopower is there now and how much CAN you increase it from school. His Inherency and his plan are significantly flawed.

C. Energy- any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation
The final topicality is that this "Biopower" is not "energy." I'm not going to be able to put this Biopower into my car and drive to school. Biopower is NOT energy.

D. For these reasons, my opponent is non-topical… The rest of my arguments will serve as arguments if you accept him as topical…

II. Sovereignty Disadvantage

A. The human has the greatest "energy" with sovereignty.
There is no increase of Biopower when you destroy sovereignty. The ONLY time that you have the best amount of "individual power" is when there is a government. If you tell these individuals that they are capable of anything, then eventually they will attempt to take over the government.

B. (Link) With increase in Biopower comes inevitable decrease in sovereignty
As in status quo, the government does some stupid stuff that the regular people do not know. If they have more Biopower, they will be under the impression that they can have a greater voice in politics. If every individual really does have more power (and a significant amount more), then sovereignty as we know it will decrease until it doesn't exist anymore. This will lead to the following impacts/harms.

C. Harm 1- Economic stability would decrease drastically.
With the individual having more power, the money crisis will get worse. People will begin hording money and will begin to actually look for the greater job. In both of these instances, the economy will decrease and perhaps even crash… With no more government to protect us, the economy will be destroyed.

D. Harm 2- An imbalance from individual to individual would create a deadlier sovereignty.
One harm that can not be denied by Affirmative is the fact that with increase in "power of the individual" will come more vigilantism. People will AT LEAST think that they can do whatever they want so therefore they will begin to take the law into their own hands whether there is a government or not. This harm is unavoidable.

E. Harm 3- Sovereignty would inevitably fall with the increase of human power/energy.
With EVERYONE having greater power, they will attempt to take over the government. EVEN if the government FEARS this power, it will lead to similar impacts. These disadvantages must be taken into account when viewing this round.

III. Societal Disadvantage

A. Increase in Biopower would be unstable and variant.
With attempting to "significantly" increasing Biopower, some will adapt extremely well while some won't get any better whatsoever. This will lead to people being increasingly powerful over others.

B. (Link) Not everyone would establish the same power/energy.
Since not everyone will get the same power, it will lead to the following harms…

C. Harm 1- Increase in individual reign from corrupt people.
Whether it's federal or local, there WILL be people powering over others. It will go from a well run society to a wild jungle. The more powerful will always win and this will eventually lead to corrupt leaders and unnecessary deaths and harms.

D. Harm 2- Vigilantism would become the new law.
After this Biopower is in place, after a while, people doing whatever they want will become the new law around the United States. You want to put the power into the hands of the individual, you risk all harms so far stated in this debate round.

E. Inherency harms would increase with the adoption of the affirmative plan.
My opponent talks about all of these harms in his inherency. But none of them are solved. My opponent simply says that they are solved but never shows HOW… "A" stands because it is STILL a bunch of individuals fighting between each other. "B" is made worse… "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust."….? SO… if we substantially increase Biopower, doesn't that help the holocaust? The holocaust was one of the greatest harms to ever see this earth and you're simply supporting it. "C" stands, but is a harm… IF ANYTHING is justified, then can't you do whatever you want? Good as we know it will seize to exist. The final paragraph you have simply shows HOW we try to protect our people… but you don't have to follow them… If you don't want to wear your seat belt, don't… but you'll just have to live with the consequences, the whole basis of our government.

IV. Counter Plan

A. Proposition- Increase of the voice of the individual in this sovereign nation.
In the United States, our problem is not that people do not have enough energy/power, but simply that they don't have enough voice… If we give them more voice, we can achieve all the advantages and none of the disadvantages. We can do this by giving them more of a weight in presidential elections and bills being passed in congress. Funding will be from normal means.

B. Significantly increasing energy incentives is not necessary (mutually exclusive)
I AM mutually exclusive because I don't worry about the energy of people (that is already high enough)… All we have to do is increase their "say" in our government. Thus, the adoption of the plan resolution is unnecessary.

C. Advantage 1- No harms from disadvantage or inherency.
With the increase in the voice of the people, I do stop the holocaust from happening and I do stop all disadvantages which range from vigilantism and sovereign overpowering (from both sides of the individual and the government.) Thus, the counter-plan is the best plan.

D. Advantage 2- Increase in CONTROLLED voice of the people.
If we adopt the affirmative plan, we give people more power, but with my counter-plan, they get more voice while being controlled. This is what affirmative is trying to accomplish (I think) but the counter-plan is the best way to do it.

Direct refutation

Inherency- The inherency is weak in the aspect of WHY isn't Biopower high enough? Individuals DO have the power to do what they want, but they HAVE to live under the law. My counter plan will solve all of the disadvantages… The resolution being past has too many impacts to pass because inherency is just fine.

Harms- I covered all the harms arguments in III.E… Simply Cross-Apply it here as they show how the harms continue to exist EVEN with the adoption of the plan.

Plan- This is another weak part of his case. All he does to increase Biopower is offer a new class. He says I'll initiate the "World History Policy" but does not explain what it is. His advantages to his Plan have NO content and can NEVER outweigh the disadvantages… Even if the DA's only have a CHANCE to happen, they still outweigh the advantages to his case…

Solvency- No harms are solved through the affirmative plan. I showed this before and I challenge my opponent to be more specific to how solvency will happen. There are so many problems, either you DO increase Biopower and you get LOADS of disadvantages OR you FAIL to even be CAPABLE of significantly increasing any "energy" whatsoever… A simple ONE class will NOT increase any energy no matter what.

I reserve the right to add to any of my arguments as this is my first policy round, thanks!
Yraelz

Pro

Alright, topicalities!

1. Significant.
a. I meet on various levels. For starters this is offered nationwide or 100% of the nation. Secondly the program is offered to every school. Third the incentive comes as double the funding from which is used to implement the program. This means schools are encouraged to have a program of greater significance.
b. My standards are education, and fairness for obvious reasons.
c. My voters in this round will not only be A priori on this issue but I'm also advocating for leveling the playing field. If you as judges feel that my issue does present a significant case then my opponent must be voted against. Otherwise this turns into a one sided issue that only my opponent can win on, this defeats the purpose of debate. Cross apply fairness standards on this, also I will be using a character suck standards.

2. Increase.
a. I meet, my plan calls for an increase. Cross apply argument from Significant a.
b. Cross apply standards from Significant.
c. Cross apply voters from Significant, they will be the same.

3. Energy.
a. I agree with my opponent definition and meet it. The definition says any source of usable power followed by 3 notable examples. Humans are a source of usable power, they can be used to accomplish a goal. Apply definition of biopower.
b. Cross apply standards from significant adding ground. My opponent presents a fair definition but then attempts to skew the debate stealing the ground I have in order to win.
c. Cross apply voters from Significant. Add ground as substandard as leveling the playing field.

Keep in mind if my opponent loses any of these three topicalities are automatically win this debate as he is skewing it on the pre-fiat level.

II. Sovereignty disad:
A. Turn, sovereignty can still exist on a global level and avoid this disadvantage. Providing people understand that they are all part of the whole and not subsets sovereignty is fine. My case solves for this by educating the youth, that way when they are the leaders of the world they avoid small scale sovereignty.

B. Cross apply argument from A. This link does not stand in the least as the inevitable outcome of this is not a vanishing of sovereignty it is simply sovereignty as a whole.

C. Turn global economy still exists, and would become stronger. Needless expenditures for our "protection" would vanish, thus economy would become stronger.

D. Turn, there is more of an imbalance right now, people are divided into classes groups subsets races regions countries cities suburbs right now. The outcome of a decrease in biopower is the destruction of this imbalance. Thus instead of their being more vigilantism there would be less.

E. Cross apply A. This is the same argument. The world government is a government of all the people, its your government, taking it over is self destructive.

III. Societal Disadvantage

A. I fail to see this what-so-ever, my opponent is attempting to state that increasing a persons self worth as an individual will lead to multiple harms. Cross apply my Sovereignty D argument where I state that this will not happen, the dividers between people will lessen. This turns my opponents entire impact, it is now an advantage for me.

B. No uniqueness. Not everyone has the same power or same energy now, even if we were going to see this link why would it cause the harms. Are we already seeing these harms in the status quo?

C. Turn, people who understand the fact that they have their own power independent of that given to them by their governments they also see that others have this same power. This in turn leads them to question for themselves what policies are best and why. Corruptness would not only be questioned more under this system but would actually be followed less. People who feel they can actually do something will respond accordingly. Under the current system a persons well being is being dangled over their heads metaphorically for unquestioning submission. Our current system promotes and allows corruption to thrive.

D. Turn, Biopower is the subjugation of a people through the pretense of being essential to their very survival. A decrease in biopower destroys the pretense of being essential to survival. This disallows for any sort of act being made that would go against individual rights. For instance things like the patriot act and our invasion of Iraq would be critically evaluated and found not to be essential for our survival. Furthermore under a world population system entire populations could not be targeted as the false perpetrators of any crime as there is only 1 population.

E. Covered this in the above 9 arguments. War cannot be fought without population to fight it against. Events such as the holocaust cannot happen without populations to subject to them. Wars and events such as the holocaust cannot be started under the false pretense of it being essential to survival without biopower.

IV Counterplan.

A. First off this is not mutually exclusive at all. It can and will happen at the same time as the plan. It is a direct essential step of the plan that a persons voice will be increased. Furthermore if we were just going to go with my opponents counterplan nothing would happen. What exactly does his counterplan advocate? An increase in voice, yet he has no way to do this. Increase a persons weight in the presidential election? What how does this happen? Increase a persons weight in bills being passed in congress? I ask my opponent to describe how this system would work.

B. Perm, both his counter plan and the plan can happen at the same time. In fact they will happen at the same time. My plan calls for a decrease in biopower which inevitably leads to an increase in the voice of the individual. At the same time through my plan the inevitable results are a decrease in select populations as seen by the individual. This eventually leads to the government feeling the same way as those individuals will one day be the government. This education in turn leads to the entire world being seen as one population and not various subsets or demographs.

C. My opponent states, "With the increase in the voice of the people, I do stop the holocaust from happening" this is partially true, this is part of my case. My case inevitably increases the voice of the people. He goes on to argue that my case has disadvantages which I have already covered. Furthermore my plan, in its entirety, avoids events such as the holocaust to a greater degree than my opponents simple counterplan. If there are not populations to subject to biopower then events such as the holocaust can never start.

D. This is blatantly untrue, if you increase the persons voice you don't also the persons subjugation. And no, my case is not to increase the power over the individual. In fact my case is advocating against biopower: takes its control by regulating public health, heredity and risks. Through these things it makes the population dependent upon the sovereign. I am trying to destroy this dependency and replace it with a self reliance coupled by an understanding of the world as one population.

As for the last 4 points I have already covered these above. My opponent states that his case outweighs mine by far. Even if you believe everything he said is true then my case prevents genocide and war while his simply prevents anarchy. As of now the Pro is solving for the greater impacts.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Con

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!
Yraelz

Pro

1. Significant: This has absolutely no impact on my case what-so-ever, my opponent keeps assuming I am trying to increase biopower when instead I am decreasing it. I am significantly increasing the power of the individual, or individual energy. Furthermore my opponent drops all my standards and voters, thus not only does my opponent agree with my two standards but he agrees with the counter voter and counter standards on it. Thus considering the fact that my opponent is still attacking the wrong point he has conceded this topicality and thereby loses the round.

2. Substantial: Once again my opponent drops all standards and voters and offers none himself, thus there is absolutely no reason to vote for him on this issue. Furthermore my opponent goes on to say that classes are not a good means to increase. I ask him then if classes do not have a substantial difference on our nations youth what does? Schooling is a proven way to educate the youth, this is the plan, it calls for a mass education on individual energy and the decline of biopower.

3. Energy: Once again no standards or voters, this topicality has no basis what-so-ever. My opponent also drops my standards thereby agreeing that my counter-interp increases the education and fairness of this round. Furthermore my opponent says that my energy does not meet the three standards which he set forward being, fossil fuel, electricity or solar radiation. I urge the voters to scroll back up and look at this definition as it clearly states that those were 3 examples and not the only types of energy. I completely agree that those are three good examples of energy, but those are not the only examples. The human being is one of the greatest sources of energy that we have or have ever had.

II. DA

A. My opponent attempts to unturn this but does not justify why at all. Instead he simply states that I will not be able to educate everyone and I have no way of educating the leaders. Negative, I do have a way of educating leaders as the children who are being educated in school will one day be those leaders. And yes, I agree, not everyone will be educated or even care to be educated, this does not change the fact that a large portion of people will be and that I still have a comparative advantage over the status quo. As long as my case offers and advantage over status quo it is the better option.

B. No its not, already covered this with world sovereignty. Also if this was completely true then we would have seen more atrocities back when there were not governments, the opposite is true, we have seen worse and tragedies of a greater magnitude under governments in modern times.

C. Turn, the economy still exists it just becomes more a world economy. The only difference is pork barrel-esque spending slows down as it can no longer be justified. This allows for more money to be put into the economy for real purposes, economic increase.

D. The destruction of the imbalance comes from a decrease in the idea of subsets and population. I will admit that some people will not pay attention in the classes and will still attempt to categorize, that does not change the fact that many people will stop. This avoids harms such as pointless wars and the genocides. These two impacts far outweigh my opponents impact of vigilantism which he has not proven yet.

E. Government does not cease to exist, government changes.

III. DA

A. Wrong! A decrease in biopower comes with the decrease in the population subset system, this decreases the imbalance far more than anything else. Even if some children do not receive the education they will not be viewed as lesser by those who do, on the contrary they will be viewed as part of the world population. This is an overall disadvantage and turns my opponents entire case.

B. NO UNIQUENESS. This disadvantage does not apply what-so-ever, even if my opponent is completely right then that just means the world will be exactly how it is now. World before passage of plan = x world after passage of plan = x. Same thing, no disadvantage. Furthermore I'm solving for genocide and wars, which is a serious advantage over anything my opponent has.

C. My opponent cannot even come close to attempting to prove that a system implemented K-12 would be ignored by everyone. If this was true then our entire modern schooling system is completely failing. My opponent fails to show how implementing a system that stresses whole population and individual energy will have any backlash.

D. Reread: "Biopower is the subjugation of a people through the pretense of being essential to their very survival. A decrease in biopower destroys the pretense of being essential to survival. This disallows for any sort of act being made that would go against individual rights. For instance things like the patriot act and our invasion of Iraq would be critically evaluated and found not to be essential for our survival. Furthermore under a world population system entire populations could not be targeted as the false perpetrators of any crime as there is only 1 population."

E. So my opponent states this,

"Again, cross-apply when he said, "Biopower created and maintained the holocaust""

I agree, however my opponent seems to think that I am increasing biopower. I am decreasing biopower, and decreasing the idea of populations. Meanwhile I am increasing the energy of the individual and the concept of one world population. Which means I am avoiding events such as.... the Holocaust. This is the largest impact in this round and outweighs anything my opponent could possibly say.

IV. Counterplan

A. Wouldn't work.

1. If we voted on every single bill and every single election nothing would ever get done. Not only that but people wouldn't bother voting under your system. Political apathy is at an all time high.

2. Politicians in the status quo lie a great deal. How are you going to mandate that politicians tell how they work instead of run? This plan in itself with just increase corruptness.

3. Harms will not stand with the adoption of my plan. My plan also inherently urges some political reforms, which would consist around the premises of my opponents plan.

B. I think my opponent is once again missing the point of my plan. I'm stressing world pop, and self energy. This detracts from a sovereign's ability to classify people into subsets while simultaneously detracting from a persons false need to do a sovereigns bidding to survive. In turn we have a decrease in corruption and a disability to justify wars and genocide. THIS IS THE GREATEST IMPACT IN ROUND AND MY PLAN SOLVES FOR IT.

C. Political apathy still exists, as your plan in no way even begins to solve for this you cannot claim and advantage. Instead my plan starts to target the voters from the age of 5 or 6 stressing the ideas. This will in the long run decrease politically apathy. Even if like you say people will ignore 12 years of schooling this doesn't change the fact that some won't and this is a comparative advantage over status quo.

D. You're right of course. You're counter plan does save some money. Actually I take that back, having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money. However even if it didn't this is what we have.

Your counter plan: Saves some money. Gives an apathetical population the chance to vote on everything.

My plan: Disallows events such as wars and genocide because of no populations to wage while decreasing apathy from a young age. Which means in turn those children will eventually become the politicians of the world and can implement your counterplan to voters who actually care.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Con

I'm going to begin with Biopower clarification and then continue by going straight down the flow then onto summary.

Biopower: It seems that Biopower is not what I have made it to be. Let it be quoted and pulled through the round that my opponent said, "The energy of the human being, not as an individual but the energy of the human in mass. This energy has been defined as biopower or the power of life"… This was EXTREMELY abusive and on the verge of abusive. For this reason, I will be pulling through one disadvantage to advocating the plan at hand.

TOPICALITIES:

1. Significant/Substantial: First of all, like I said, this is my first round of policy, but that still doesn't mean that you're topical. I dropped your standards and voters because I didn't even know that they were some sort of special argument. However, he does not significantly (or substantially) increase anything whatsoever. He ATTEMPTS to "increase" human energy, but this class he offers will not even be close to substantially increasing any human power.

2. Increase: My opponent drops the most important topicality on the flow. WHAT is he "increasing"? Nothing… He ATTEMPTS to increase "human energy" but has yet to show how his class will increase the human energy. His plan is to offer a class, but classes have no connection whatsoever to increasing energy. Which leads to what is energy…

3. Energy: My opponent seems to be pushing his standards… HOWEVER, he never picks up the standards of the definition itself. Here is the definition: "any source of usable power, as fossil fuel, electricity, or solar radiation"… In his first argument, he states the following, "I agree with my opponent definition and meet it"… He says that you can apply this definition to Biopower, BUT Biopower has NOTHING to do with any of that definition. When the word "or" is put into the definition, you can see that energy has to be one of those things, the human energy he talks of is nothing from the definition. Human's get energy from other sources. Humans in and of themselves are not energy. The energy for the human comes from food and the last time I checked, the only thing that he is doing in his plan is offering a class. No food increase whatsoever.

II/III Disadvantages: As I've been mislead to believe Biopower as something it's not, I will only be pulling through one disadvantage (which has been argued before)… The disadvantage is the imbalance of power that will happen if you advocate the plan. If this class becomes successful, you will see that some will learn and some will not. This will lead to an imbalance in power which will make some more dominant than others. In his plan, he offers no change in our diplomatic power, thus, these dominant figures will become high in the political chain, and we will be stuck in status quo. The only thing that is different from this is that there is a class, but this increases no energy whatsoever. Furthermore, he argues in solvency that by decreasing Biopower, no more murders will happen. This is not true, my opponent HAS admitted to this imbalance, thus you will see that these murders will continue. Either people won't learn it from the get go, or people will learn it and then forget it down the road (as many adults of today don't remember physics class when they were in high school)… NO political power is taken away in the plan… and because of ALL of this, he does not get solvency and does not solve for ANY of the disadvantages offered in every round.

IV. Counter Plan: My counter-plan solves for the imbalance provided by the Affirmative Plan. It will also save loads of money. It also prevents political corruption (that you claim that you solve but offer no change in politic policies). A class won't do anything, my changes will. You want to help the people decide how things are run, pass my plan and leave his plan in the "file" of good plans that wouldn't solve anything. The voice of the people is only assured on the Negative side.

I apologize for not going line for line but I think by now the round just needs to be summarized.

SUMMARY

In the end of this debate round, there are 3 places to vote for Negative…

1) Topicalities: My opponent is not topical. He does not "increase" anything, it is not "energy" that he is trying to increase, and it would NOT be "substantially" increased. Therefore, he does not stick to the resolution provided thus he must be voted down.

2) Disadvantages: The disadvantage debate has been skewed by my opponents hard to understand clarification. But in the end of the debate, you must see the political imbalance to be INCREASED by his plan. He offers to change in government and he offers the corruption to be increased by ONLY the kids that actually learn in his class. He has never said WHAT exactly these classes contain, thus I have no idea how "energy" will be increased or how any status quo will be changed. How do these kids know that this class is "special?" If it were me, I would just get through the class to get the credit. After this, you have to see that IF something will happen, it will ONLY create an imbalance that will make the harms in status quo MUCH worse.

3) Finally, the counter plan. Judges, you must see that EVERY disadvantage is made better by my counter plan. The reason you pass my counter plan rather than the plan, you give EVERYONE a voice in our government AND you save money while doing. Not to mention the balance you give to everyone is equal. In other words, the imbalance seizes to exist.

After this debate, you must vote Negative for the better advantages with no harms. My opponent is not topical and even if he was the disadvantages carry too much weight to be ignored. Thus I can only see a Negative vote.

Thanks Yraelz for this debate. For my first policy debate, it was a lot of fun. I'm sure we'll debate again sometime, until then, good luck in the tournament.

Thank You!
Yraelz

Pro

Alright my opponent begins his final round by telling me that I am abusive. He does this by quoting me when I defined biopower. I would agree that this would be very abusive of me if it wasn't for my solvency specifically stating in round 1, in the last paragraph:

"This plan takes away all of the political energy known as biopower and replaces it instead with the energy of the single individual and the energy of the whole."

My plan throughout this entire debate has been to decrease biopower, I openly stated such. It is not my fault in any way that my opponent did not understand this.

TOPICALITIES:

My opponent puts no standards for voter on any of his topicalities. Thus if you as a judge agree that my opponent has won on any of the topicalities then you do nothing. However if you feel my opponent has lost any of the topicalities then the result is a pre-fiat vote in my favor. Thus the only way that anything else said in this round is important is if my opponent wins all three topicalities, otherwise I win this debate by default.

Significant/Substantial: My opponent doesn't bother arguing this standard in his final round. Instead he argues that there will not be an increase in energy. Whether there is an increase in energy or not whatever happens is going to be substantial as this class will be offered nationwide. Nationwide = substantial. My opponent once again agrees that this is a reverse voting issue, and agrees with all of my standards by dropping them. Thus this issue flows to my side and results in an automatic vote for Pro.

Substantial increase: See above. This class will decrease biopower whilst increasing individual power. These two being opposite ends of the spectrum. My opponent has shown no evidence on the contrary, and once again drops all standards thus agreeing that my interpretation is the most fair.

Energy: My opponent once again pushes his definition which contains 3 examples. I will once again therefor remind the voters that energy, while including those examples, is not limited to them. Humans are an energy source in themselves, they can work, and they can attain an output. Without humans being used as energy society as we know it could not exist. My opponent drops my standards thus my opponent agrees:

1. Humans as energy increases the education in todays round.
2. Humans as energy makes this round fair.
3. Humans as energy gives us each equal ground to debate on.

Furthermore my opponent drops my r.v.i thus he once again concedes that he should be voted against.

II/III DISAD: My opponent completely drops each point I brought up in my last speech. I would ask that all of those are extended into this round as they all still hold just as much weight as they did then. He then goes on to state that I can not possibly solve for murders. Thats great, I never claimed to, I am solving for Genocide and War. As my opponent has dropped both of these points they flow to my side.

IV Counter plan: My opponent drops my 4 points and 3 subpoints. Instead he simply states that his plan would cost less money, apparently he missed point D from my last round,

"having an election for everything would cost mass amounts of money."

Thus his counterplan would actually not save money. Once again my opponent concedes to my plan solving for genocide and wars. Therefor at the end of this round even if you agree with everything my opponent says its saving money vs stopping genocide and war.

Once again I must restate that his counterplan is not mutually exclusive therefor it can and will happen at the same time as my plan.

Vote Pro, my plan prevents wars and genocide. My opponents case can claim no such benefit.
Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Lol, my Aff is a kritikal aff, I'm not sure you can really compare.
Posted by MaxHayslip 9 years ago
MaxHayslip
My Aff against Johnicle is better.

Link: http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
R U SERIAL? Policy owns LD. It takes so much more skill and awsomness.
Posted by birdpiercefan3334 9 years ago
birdpiercefan3334
I HATE POLICY. THAT'S WHY I'M AN LD BOI. SO, OUT OF BIAS. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE. YAY! A TIE!
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
A guy that knows about the Illuminati and supports Huckabee?

First time I've ever seen that combination.
Posted by Aietius 9 years ago
Aietius
Anonymous, that's just what they wantyou to think.
Posted by Anonymous 9 years ago
Anonymous
What in the F*ck are you guys talking about?

Oil is a big business. We have the capacity to produce energy much more efficiently. We don't need to research. We are oil dependant because the Illuminati wants it to be that way.

P.S.- By illuminati, yes I mean that at least America, if not the entire world is controlled from behind the scenes by a small group of wealthy dominists.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
It sounds like a comment that could have severe sarcasm but I think that's more of a hope than a truth. I'm considering writing a Aff. case either for this resolution or abolishing legal marriages. I'll put it up to the public unless you want it (but I don't know when I'll get to it)...
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Prepare for my response of devastation at midnight! It will come on glossy wings!
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
uh-oh... he only has 4 hours left, i dont know if ive ever seen a forfeited round from Yraelz
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 7 years ago
Logical-Master
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Yraelz 8 years ago
Yraelz
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 9 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleYraelzTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Darkfire62 9 years ago
Darkfire62
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by jiffy 9 years ago
jiffy
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Partyboat 9 years ago
Partyboat
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by brittwaller 9 years ago
brittwaller
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by meganlg43 9 years ago
meganlg43
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Pluto2493
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by armychick 9 years ago
armychick
JohnicleYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30