The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
repete21
Con (against)
Losing
25 Points

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

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/29/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,082 times Debate No: 3845
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (13)

 

Johnicle

Pro

ATTENTION: This is intended to be a Policy Debate for the 2008-2009 topic. Thanks and good luck to my opponent…

Round 1/2: Constructives
Round 3/4: Rebuttals

I affirm:

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

Resolutional Analysis: The resolution specifies that ONLY incentives need to be "substantially increased" for the affirmative. Certainly the debate can talk about these effects (good and bad) but affirmative must only provide a plan to increase the incentives of the specified energy source.

INHERENCY

A. Fusion energy
-Wikipedia
-"The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring two or more atoms very close together, close enough that the strong nuclear force in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom. If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc�. If the input atoms are sufficiently massive, the resulting fusion product will be heavier than the reactants, in which case the reaction requires an external source of energy. The dividing line between "light" and "heavy" is iron. Above this atomic mass, energy will generally be released in nuclear fission reactions, below it, in fusion."

B. The Sun
-Wikipedia
- "The Sun is a natural fusion reactor."

-Spider-Man 2
-"The power of the sun in the palm of my hand."

C. Fusion power into energy
-Wikipedia
-"The idea of using human-initiated fusion reactions was first made practical for military purposes, in nuclear weapons. In a hydrogen bomb, the energy released by a fission weapon is used to compress and heat fusion fuel, beginning a fusion reaction which can release a very large amount of energy. The first fusion-based weapons released some 500 times more energy than early fission weapons. Civilian applications, in which explosive energy production must be replaced by a controlled production, are still being developed. Although it took less than ten years to go from military applications to civilian fission energy production, it was very different in the fusion energy field, more than fifty years having already passed without any energy production plant being started up."

HARMS

A. Gasoline Prices
-www.feulgaugereport.com
-‘The approximate gasoline price is around $3.50 per gallon and $115 per barrel' (approximately)

B. Lack of Fusion Power
-Wikipedia
-"Fusion power commonly proposes the use of deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, as fuel and in many current designs also use lithium. Assuming a fusion energy output equal to the current global output and that this does not increase in the future, then the known current lithium reserves would last 3000 years, lithium from sea water would last 60 million years, and a more complicated fusion process using only deuterium from sea water would have fuel for 150 billion years."

PLAN

A. Government will create a group of scientists to specifically study fusion energy.

B. The plan will allow the $150 million dollars "zeroed out" by Congress.
-From- http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org......
-"The 2009 request includes $214.5 million for work on the international fusion experiment, ITER, after Congress zeroed out the promised $150 million U.S. contribution for 2008"

C. The US Federal Government will increase the money stated (from B) by 12%.

D. The US Federal Government will create a emergency fund for necessary purposes for the group of scientists.

E. I claim the rights to fiat, clarification and legislative intent.

F. Funding will be from normal means.

SOLVENCY: Incentives of Fusion energy will be substantially increased.

Advantage 1: All Status Quo harms will be solved

Advantage 2: Abundant Fuel Supply to decrease tensions and save money
-From: http://www.pppl.gov......
-"The major fuel, deuterium, may be readily extracted from ordinary water, which is available to all nations. The surface waters of the earth contain more than 10 million tons of deuterium, an essentially inexhaustible supply. The tritium required would be produced from lithium, which is available from land deposits or from sea water which contains thousands of years' supply. The world-wide availability of these materials would thus eliminate international tensions caused by imbalance in fuel supply."

Advantage 3: No risk of Nuclear Accident
-Same Source
-"The amounts of deuterium and tritium in the fusion reaction zone will be so small that a large uncontrolled release of energy would be impossible. In the event of a malfunction, the plasma would strike the walls of its containment vessel and cool."

Advantage 4: No Air Pollution
-Same Source
-"Since no fossil fuels are used, there will be no release of chemical combustion products because they will not be produced."

Advantage 5: No High-Level Nuclear Waste
-Same Source
-"Similarly, there will be no fission products formed to present a handling and disposal problem. Radioactivity will be produced by neutrons interacting with the reactor structure, but careful materials selection is expected to minimize the handling and ultimate disposal of activated materials."

Advantage 6: No Generation of Weapons Material
-Same Source
-"Another significant advantage is that the materials and by-products of fusion are not suitable for use in the production of nuclear weapons."

I reserve the right to add evidence, extend on any arguments, and create new arguments in the next round.

With the increase of fusion energy incentives, many advantages will be reached. We are in the age of new energy and it is about time that we begin looking to many new forms of energy. With the increase of fusion energy incentives, that becomes possible. Therefore, I urge an Affirmative vote.

Thank You!
repete21

Con

I would first like to make note that the PRO is not allowed to alter his plan in any way after his first argument, although he may expand on everything else, I will first go over inherency, solvency, then significance and harms, covering all stock issues excluding topicality. I would like to remind the judges that it is the PRO's responsibility to cover all stock issues, and if even one is conceded (excluding inherency, that's up to the judge)that the PRO wins the round, since we are doing a policy debate.

INHERENCY

I believe that the PRO does not give a viable inherent barrier, without an inherent barrier the PRO and the judges both are often left misinformed on why the case isn't already being done, the PRO should show what the problem is in his inherency, then solve for that problem.

SOLVENCY

The PRO's plan says nothing about negotiating a contract to state how the money they pass out must be used, unless the PRO can prove that the organization they plan to give money to has absolutely no other agendas except obtaining electricity from fusion they cannot be sure that the money they put out will be used in the proper way, in which case their plan will fail.

The PRO's plan says nothing about making fusion derived electricity available if it is somehow possible to get it, therefore the best they can do with this plan is research, and cannot guarantee that widespread use will come after development.

The PRO has yet to show evidence that deuterium can be harvested legally. To expand on this I make note of the countless examples of endangered species living in the waters of our planet, unless the PRO can prove that harvesting deuterium out of our water will have absolutely no environmental repercussions we cannot be sure that the international community will allow the harvest of deuterium.

Possibly the most important question the judge must ask is "Is this even possible?" the PRO states that fusion energy has been researched for fifty years, to no avail, and has not proved that we are any closer now than we were fifty years ago, it could be centuries before we achieve fusion power.

SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS

http://finance.yahoo.com...- Water pollution is already the single largest cause of sickness and death worldwide

It is obvious that water pollution is a serious issue, but yet the PRO would like to harvest a mineral from our water, risking killing off species and furthering water pollution.

The PRO states that "Since no fossil fuels are used, there will be no release of chemical COMBUSTION products because they will not be produced."

The PRO fails to mention that there could be by products not produced by combustion, but simply states that combustion won't cause by products, other things could cause by products worse than burning oil.

I would like to make a press for evidence that

1- Harvesting deuterium from water will have no environmental effects

2- There will not be by products at all, rather than just from combustion, or if there are, evidence that they won't be worse than the status quo

3- The programs he wishes to give money to have no other agendas

4- A statistic on the chance of having fusion power in the near future

I believe that all of these facts are neccessary for the PRO to prove his point.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

I will go from paragraph to paragraph...

INHERENCY

The true inherent barrier is stated in the plan. This plan will only accomplish what it is supposed to when passed because of the money from Congress (that was cut off) is going to be paid. Since that money was overturned, the inherent barrier was created. Thus, the only way these incentives will be substantially increased is if the plan is passed.

SOLVENCY

The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased.

AGAIN, I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained or how long, but simply that the incentives will be increased and that when they are increased, the energy will come soon. The big problem with fusion energy is that people don't know a whole lot about it. But when we get the power of the sun, anything will be possible.

My opponent puts the burden of me to prove that environmental harms won't happen. But it is my job to show the advantages of the plan and it is my opponents job to show the disadvantages. My opponent offers no evidence that these harms will happen and I have seen nothing of this. The point of policy debate is to have AFF provide the advantages and NEG to provide disadvantages and compare them... THEN have the judge to decide if they should pass the plan. BESIDES ALL OF THAT, I would like to cross-apply my Advantage 5 from my case that states the few environmental harms. Even if there are some, it will not outweigh the numerous waste products there are now from current energy forms. the environment harms come from the factory (if there are any, but NEG still has to provide evidence that there is ANY), but then the harms would STOP right there.

Let's just say that before this plan was passed that it would be 100 years before fusion energy could be achieved. WITH increasing energy incentives, THEN it can be made possible to get the energy in 20 years. In other words, increasing the energy INCENTIVES does not mean that this energy will be ready for use tomorrow, but rather that we will have the POWER OF THE SUN in a shorter time.

SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS

1) There is NO link to water pollution
2) There is NO quote from the evidence that has ANYTHING to do with water pollution from fusion energy and if there was it has not been quoted in the round yet.
3) NEG MUST prove (with evidence) the link between fusion energy and water pollution AND must prove that it is significantly worse than current water pollution for energy.

(numbers on the bottom)

1)-->It is NEG's job to provide evidence of environmental harms.

2)-->It is NEG's job... again... to provide harms and disadvantages.

3)-->The agenda will be created by the legislative intent claimed in case. It will consist of making fusion energy WHICH increases energy INCENTIVES.

4)-->Must only increase energy INCENTIVES. With that increase comes the chance of getting the energy significantly sooner. The sooner we can get the power of the sun the better.

In the end, my opponent has offered NO disadvantages with any proof WHATSOEVER. If this was allowed, he could say that "he has not proven that fusion energy won't provide EVERY harm known to man." It is NOT my job to show that fusion energy does not have every harm known to man... Rather, it is NEG's job to show the disadvantages (with evidence) and then have us compare that to the advantages (in case) to decide if the plan should be passed.

Therefore, I urge a PRO vote...

Thank You!
repete21

Con

I will concede inherently, thank you for clearing that up.

SOLVENCY-

I'm not entirely certain if your first paragraph was a rebuttal to my money argument or a generic argument so I'll treat it as both.

The PRO says "The point in the round is to only to substantially increase alternative energy INCENTIVES. Therefore, the plan creates an organization specific to creating fusion AND therefore incentives are increased. When the group is made to create fusion (which increases incentives), then they will not be able to spend the money on other stuff so the incentives ARE increased." but this is not a solvency argument, this is a topicality argument, and as you know I have already conceded topicality, solvency does not focus on the ability to meet the resolution, rather to accomplish what the
resolution wants to accomplish ie. help the environment, so we must ask ourselves, will the plan really solve the problem, and will it be worth it, in my upcoming arguments I will prove that the plan will not solve.

The PRO's plan states that a group of scientists will be created and that the government will give money to a group of scientists, but the group the money is going to already exists so it is not the same group that the government goes too, therefore the PRO still has not proved that the group will have no hidden agendas yet.

My opponent says that "I do not have to show that fusion power WILL be obtained", but if he cannot prove this, will he really solve? The answer is no, the fact that we have been trying for 50 years and have not got fusion energy shows that it likely wont happen so unless he can prove it will, we must assume he will solve nothing.

The Federation of American Scientists states that "because of the low abundance of deuterium, an enormous amount of water would have to be boiled to obtain useful amounts of deuterium"
http://www.fas.org...

Unless my opponent shows evidence that the benefits which may or may not occur outweigh the risks which would undoubtedly occur my evidence, being the only evidence on the issue shows that there could be serious environmental issues from the harvesting of deuterium.

SIGNIFICANCE AND HARMS

From- Philadelphia Daily News - A nuclear power plant worker was charged yesterday with spiking a lunchroom cooler with radioactive water that eight men drank before the contamination was discovered. The eight who drank the contaminated water last month at the Point Lepreau plant have a slightly higher chance of getting cancer, officials said.
http://www.philly.com...

The water was from a plant that created deuterium from heavy water, and used it for nuclear fission, it clearly shows that harvesting deuterium does in fact pollute water, think of what would happen if this water were released somehow, no one would know until it was too late.

From -AECL-http://www.aecl.ca... "the Girdler process involves large amounts of hydrogen sulfide, raising environmental concerns."

This process refers to the production of deuterium, and the process it speaks of is the most economical, and arguably the only corporately viable process for producing deuterium from heavy water.

I have clearly shown some of the negatives of deuterium production, and still press for evidence that there is no pollution, although the PRO is correct in saying that it is the CONs job to show disadvantages, once someone claims something such as "No Air Pollution" it is their job to bring evidence proving their point.

The rest of my opponents arguments are his generic topicality argument which he attempts to use on other issues, so him claiming that he meets the resolution does not mean that the harms outweigh the risks.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

I'll go paragraph by paragraph:

INHERENCY: Inherency was dropped by negative.

SOLVENCY:

My first argument was really a generic argument (for clarification). You claim that I do not get solvency (which is his big argument from last speech.) Therefore I would like to use my reserved right to add evidence to prove that solvency will be reached (still on first paragraph).
-From: http://www.firstscience.com...
-"Nuclear power is deeply unpopular while renewable energy sources – wind, solar and tidal – yield relatively little energy for their high cost. But nuclear fusion could render carbon dioxide-producing fossil fuels obsolete by 2100."
-This quote proves two things, 1) If congress keeps cutting costs, then we will lengthen the amount of time it takes to achieve fusion power… 2) By fossil fuels running out and getting more expensive… therefore we must increase the incentives of fusion power, which is the energy of the future.
-(Same Source)
-"Energy production from nuclear fusion has proven an insurmountable challenge so far. Yet scientists are now saying that plans for larger and more sophisticated reactors around the world could finally make this possible in 50 years time. Is this more than just wishful thinking?"
-This proves that we can't be cutting the funding for fusion power ESPECIALLY NOW. If we substantially increase the energy incentives by increasing funding, these "larger and more sophisticated reactors" will be created if the plan is passed. The ITER is the head of fusion development, but the US must do its part and if Congress cuts this spending (that should be overturned and increased by passing this plan), then fusion power will only be prolonged. The question is not IF solvency will be reached, but when. The sooner this funding can go through the sooner the energy crisis can be over (because fusion power will end the crisis). This is proven by the estimates made by Chris Warrick (the UK Atomic Energy Authority) "You need 50 megawatts of power to heat it and you should get around 5,000 megawatts out."

(Next paragraph)--> The whole argument about "hidden agendas" is ridiculous. The CHANCE of hidden agendas does not make adequate grounds to vote down the plan. Furthermore, you have to see that the ONLY agenda that these scientists need to stick to is the agenda of finding usable fusion energy… that's it. The fact that there is a group of people being made to create fusion energy seems to be enough to see that they are going to have the agenda of creating fusion energy. ALSO, my opponent has not offered what these other agendas could be AND how they will harm anyone. This argument carries no weight whatsoever.

Solvency was proven to be met two paragraphs ago… Simply cross-apply it here.

(www.fas.org argument)--> This argument does not link to ANYTHING that has to do with fusion energy. If you go to the specific website of where he got this quote, it mentions fusion energy a whopping ZERO times. Furthermore, it never says HOW MUCH water would need to be boiled AND there is no link to how this would harm society. This argument continues to carry no weight…

--> First of all, the evidence mentioned has already been proven insufficient to proving anything… Furthermore, my opponent has yet to show how boiling water (still unsure about how much) can harm ANYTHING… BUT STILL, the 1 harm of boiling water can't even begin to weigh while compared to the MULTIPLE advantages listed in solvency AND the ones solved from inherency harms.

SIGNIFICANCE & HARMS:

--> This argument isn't topical to my plan whatsoever. This evidence deals with nuclear power plants BUT my plan calls for fusion energy which is as safe as can be (which is proven in my solvency advantages)… The evidence only speaks about nuclear power which does not talk about fusion energy specifically… please drop this from the round.

--> This paragraph clears up that my opponent does not understand what I am trying to do with my plan. FISSION power has many harms but FUSION power has yet to be linked to anything. My opponent talks about nuclear waste that is proven to not be caused by fusion energy (in my solvency). Then he talks about water pollution caused by fission energy but fission and fusion are completely different types of energy. There are no links and there are therefore NO disadvantages.

(www.aecl.com) --> Again the water pollution is not linked to fusion energy. The water pollution he talks about only deals with fission energy which has nothing to do with my energy plan.

In the end… even if ALL of these harms are passed (which they do not link so they don't), fusion energy should STILL be invested in. It IS the energy of the future with little to no negative effects. Boiling water does not kill millions of people. The harm is not significant but the advantages are. The costs of fossil fuels ARE expensive and ARE running low AND are causing significant pollution to our earth. Therefore, the plan should be passed immediately.

Thank you!
repete21

Con

For my first argument I would like to point out that my opponent has completely ignored a huge portion of my arguments by calling them irrelevant, when they were in fact totally relevant. The arguments he say pertain only to nuclear energy actually pertain to the water that deuterium comes from, which is used in both fission and fusion. Since we are doing a policy debate my opponent cannot add new arguments from this point on, (no new arguments in rebuttals) therefore I have won all of those points which he ignored.

My opponents evidence states that fusion COULD be achieved within the next century, by which point it will likely be pointless, we need to solve this problem and we need to solve it now, waiting for 2100 won't work, and even then we cant be sure we will get nuclear fusion.

My opponent has still not shown any factual evidence that there will be no environmental effects of nuclear fusion, but has relied on biased evidence which only states that there will be no pollution from combustion, which is obvious since combustion doesn't occur during nuclear fusion in the sense they are referring to. He has also failed to ensure that the program will have no other agendas, I cannot be sure what these agendas would be, but without enforcement the program could do anything they please with the funding.
Since the PRO has stated that the group will have no agendas I would like to press for evidence and remind him that you can, at any time be asked for evidence backing something you said.

Onto my argument from fas.org, I doubt you looked over that whole sight but I am sorry I didn't realise I didn't link you to the exact article, here it is.
http://www.fas.org...
This is in reference to the production of deuterium which you have said is so easy to come by, and the fact that you would need to boil lots of water to get the deuterium shows that you would need some form of energy to get it, just so you can make more energy.

The argument about the tainted water refers to water from a plant which made deuterium proving that bad things can come of this. Again, the water refers to the production of deuterium, directly linking it to your plan.

I believe I have shown that there are hidden environmental effects which would occur if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will, also that my opponent's form of research is flawed and could potentially cost the government a large amount of money since my opponent didn't put a cap on the emergency fund, also that my opponent has failed to prove any of these points to be wrong. When judging this debate the judges must ask themselves "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be?".

I stand firm on my arguments and again press for the same evidence as last time, I would also like to remind the judges of several things they may be unaware of about policy debate.

1- Ignoring a press for evidence is not acceptable.
2- No new arguments shall be presented during rebuttals (last 2 rounds), but debaters may expand on previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

Overview, line by line, and voting issues:

My opponent has offered a lot of things within this debate that COULD do harm, but NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan. He has said that we will have to boil a lot of water… but where is the disadvantage in that. He has yet to say how these "harms" will outweigh ANY of my advantages let alone have they been PROVEN to hurt anyone. The amount of money we presently spend in the status quo should SLIGHTLY be shifted to the energy of the future… fusion energy.

--> So my opponent says that I've called his arguments irrelevant. Well… 1) The evidence does not specifically say anything about fusion energy. 2) There are no harms PROVEN with boiling this water. 3) Even if there were harms, they would NOT outweigh the advantages already PROVEN.

--> I don't know the exact date of when fusion energy will be achieved, but I DO know that fusion energy will be EXTREMELY for longed if the plan is not passed. Fusion energy will be achieved, the question isn't when but how can we make it come sooner… the answer? Advocating this plan will make fusion energy (the energy of the future) come MUCH sooner. The reason that fusion energy hasn't come yet is because of people like negative who expect a new form of energy tomorrow. But in reality, it will take a consistent amount of funding until this new form of energy is reached. To all people judging this round, I ask you to be patient and pass this plan, if you do, the chance of fusion energy being here as soon as possible is increased.

--> AGAIN… It is not Affirmatives job to show the environmental harms of his OWN PLAN… I guess since I haven't shown any environmental harms then there aren't any. The only harms argued in this debate are that we have to boil a lot of water. 1) That's not a bad thing. 2) The harms from fossil fuels are MUCH greater.
--> The whole agendas thing must be dropped from this round. He himself has said that he doesn't know what these agendas are AND (like the other insignificant "harms") are not proven to do ANYTHING bad AND if those bad things (that don't exist) outweigh the advantages in my original case.

--> As proven in my previous speech, the energy exchange is 50 megawatts put in, 5,000 megawatts received (from fusion energy). Therefore the Deuterium argument must be dropped. He says that we need to put in energy to get energy… BUT when you get 500 megawatts for every 1 megawatt you put in, it is WORTH it. Multiply that many times and soon the energy crisis is over! Even the CHANCE of this is enough reason to pass the plan.

(he said), "proving that bad things can come of this."--> He says that bad things CAN come from this but has yet to say WHAT these bad things are.

(he said), "if we somehow achieved fusion, and that it is unlikely that we will"--> He never gave any evidence that fusion energy can not be found. I gave evidence that it is likely to come relatively soon, you simply have to be patient AND pass the plan in order to offer the appropriate funding.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT EXTENSION: Cap on the emergency fund is all controlled by the government and is issued by the government (post-plan). The point of the emergency fund is if there is need for more funding if what is originally issued becomes not enough.

--> Negative has brought up (in a small manner) the amount of money that this will cost. However, if you look to the amount of money that we spend on fossil fuel is SLIGHTLY transferred to fusion energy; it is not that much money. Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels, therefore, investing in another form of energy that will be cheaper in the end could HARDLY be "too expensive."

(he said) "Do the large amounts of risks outweigh the slim chance of success, and even slimmer chance that fusion will live up to what it claims to be?"--> 1) Again, it is not a matter of "IF" but "WHEN" solvency will be reached. Fusion energy has not been reached yet because the incentive is not high enough yet, therefore, I urge that this alternative energy incentive is substantially increased and therefore we make the "WHEN" sooner. It has been said that two heads are better than one… therefore the more we put into the research of fusion energy, the better we are.

1)--> Instead of providing evidence that you pressed for I turned it against you. You pressed me to provide evidence that there were no harms but it was you job to provide the harms and my job to prove that they are not that bad AND/OR they don't outweigh the advantages.
2)--> My new evidence was 1) reserved, and, 2) expansions and/or responses on previous arguments

VOTERS: In the end of this debate, I want judges to ask themselves, "Why not?" My opponent has said that we will have to boil a lot of water and that we might have to spend some money but has yet to show how this will "harm" society. One thing is for certain, we are in an energy crisis. Billions of dollars are being spent on fossil fuels and it is ridiculous. Imagine a world where you never have to fill your car with any form of energy… A world that you get all of your energy in each of your everyday items and only have to pay pennies for all of it. "The power of the sun in the palm of my hand" is what we are trying to achieve and the BEST way to achieve it is by passing my plan. ALL of my advantages must be flowed through to the end of the round and the harms from negative are SEVERELY lacking, so I therefore urge voters to pass my plan and vote pro (affirmative)…

Thank you!
repete21

Con

I would like to start my arguments for this round by going over the ethics of policy debate, for those judges who have not participated in it. My opponent has

1- Ignored several presses for evidence, saying he didn't need to show evidence because he turned my arguments around, which is not true.

2- Stated and restated information as fact but failed to show any proof ie. arguments about environmental effects and chance of getting fusion.

3- Attempted to add to his plan although this is not allowed, referring to his argument about the emergency budget cap.

Although some judges may not understand the value of the strict rules and ethics of policy debate on an internet debate site, I urge you to remember that my opponent started this debate as a policy debate, but yet has ignored the rules and ethics of policy debate.

My next arguments will flow from PRO's previous arguments.

My opponent states that "NO WHERE has he offered a direct disadvantage of passing the plan" so I would like to remind the judges of several things, the low chance of success, the dangers with hazardous materials associated with deuterium, the environmental factor, and the possibility that the money will be used for other means because my opponent has not brought up any enforcement (ethically) during this debate.

PRO says my arguments are not relevant to fusion energy but he has ignored the link between deuterium and fusion, the evidence is related to deuterium, deuterium is related to his case, linking my arguments to his case, PRO also states that the benefits outweigh the risk but has never once brought up evidence that we can be sure the benefits will even come, he has only stated it, but never backed his arguments. Until it is proven we must assume that the status quo -ie. not being able to obtain energy from fusion- will continue to be true.

The third argument my opponent presents is a prime example of him ignoring my press for evidence, and showing that he cannot prove that we will ever get energy from fusion, he states that it will, but if you read back over this debate you will not see a single fact showing that we will get energy from fusion.

My opponents next argument only refers to the process of obtaining fusion energy but ignores the amount of energy needed to harvest deuterium, although I have shown evidence that the amount of energy needed is very high.

I believe that any open minded judge will be able to find the examples of bad things from this plan by looking over my arguments again.

Again, we must assume that the status quo of not having fusion energy will remain, unless proven otherwise, and we have not seen any proof.

This paragraph is what I refer to in point 3 of unethical debating at top, and I would like to reiterate that you may not add to your plan after you have stated it, making this argument void.

The correlation my opponent attempts to make about money saved vs money used is flawed, the "Billions upon billions of dollars is spent on fossil fuels" as my opponent states comes from the pockets of citizens, the money spent in an attempt to obtain fusion energy would come from the government, yes the taxpayers give the government this money but think of this comparison if the plan doesn't work, which is likely, the people will still pay for fossil fuel, but will also pay more taxes to make up for the money our government would waste.

This proves the same points I make in the paragraph before last.

In this paragraph my opponent admits to denying my presses for evidence, and states that I do not provide any harms although I have clearly provided harms.

I would like the judges consider a few things when they vote;

1- Will we really get fusion energy? My opponent offered no proof that we will.

2- Will fusion energy be all that it is said to be if we do get it? I have shown many environmental and economic effects in my previous arguments.

3- What will be the economic impact of this plan if it fails? I have shown that there are many opportunities for this plan to fail.

4- If this plan were to somehow work perfectly and all my last 3 points were void, how soon could it happen? My opponent has stated that it could be a century or more before we get fusion energy.

If you the judge decide that I have failed to prove my opponent wrong, I would like you to reconsider the ethics of this debate, and decide if my opponent has won this debate ethically, and how much of an effect this will have on your decision.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 7 years ago
NukeTheJuice
I strongly agree with the Affirmative side.
I too debated this topic this year and I debated aff and neg.
and I agree more with aff.
But beside my biast opinion, good luck to both contenders.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
my first debate on this was made a joke so if you take this debate please take it seriously... thanks
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by NukeTheJuice 7 years ago
NukeTheJuice
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 repete21 7 years ago
repete21
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 kcougar52 8 years ago
kcougar52
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 Darkfire62 8 years ago
Darkfire62
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 jiffy 8 years ago
jiffy
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 KingYosef 8 years ago
KingYosef
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 Teddy_Bear 8 years ago
Teddy_Bear
Johniclerepete21Tied
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 zdog234 8 years ago
zdog234
Johniclerepete21Tied
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