The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
41 Points
The Contender
Pluto2493
Con (against)
Losing
27 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: 6/18/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,038 times Debate No: 4095
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (16)

 

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: 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… If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses… 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."

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. There currently is no useable form of fusion energy. (common knowledge)

D. Fusion is the energy of the future.
-From- http://www.davidpace.com...
-"We need fusion because it has the highest energy yield and is completely controllable. Fusion energy is a source that is most useful for all of the future problems that have not been foreseen, for the energy crunches that lie ahead and strike without warning."

E. Fusion energy needs more funding
-From- (Same source as "D")
-"More funding for fusion research for non-energy applications and more funding for fusion research for energy applications will help keep the US on top of science research and development."

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."

C. We are heading for an energy crisis.
-From- http://www.wtrg.com...
-"Various measures of US energy security indicate that the US might be heading for an energy crisis. Many of the warning signs that existed before the energy crises of 1973 and 1979 exist today and they indicate that the current situation could be even worse. US dependence on petroleum imports has grown steadily for over a decade and has been at record levels for several years. Petroleum inventories are low and the ability of Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and commercial petroleum stocks to cope with an interruption in imports matches the historic lows preceding the 1973 and 1979 energy crises.

-Further evidence from: http://www.energycrisis.org...
-""There are currently 98 oil producing countries in the world, of which 64 are thought to have passed their geologically imposed production peak, and of those 60 are in terminal production decline."

D. Substantial harms to the environment:

1) Global Warming
-From- http://www.ucsusa.org...
-"Motor vehicles are responsible for almost a quarter of annual US emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary global-warming gas. The US transportation sector emits more CO2 than all but three other countries' emissions from all sources combined. And motor vehicle emissions will continue to increase as more vehicles hit America's roads and the number of miles driven grows."

2) Air Pollution
-From- http://www.alphanutrition.com...
-"Driving a car is the most polluting act an average citizen commits. Emissions from passenger vehicles are increasing in Canada and the US despite attempts to make engines more fuel efficient and despite the addition of antipollution devices. The two main reasons are: 1. vehicle use has increased; 2. cars are getting bigger and pick-up trucks, vans and sports vehicles are often replacing smaller, lighter passenger cars."

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 17%.

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

E. The agenda of the scientists will be to create a useable form of fusion energy for the people of the United States and the world.

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

G. Funding will be from normal means.

SOLVENCY: Incentives of Fusion energy will be substantially increased.

Advantage 1: All Status Quo harms will be solved (if evidence is pushed for please ask)

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."

Advantage 7: Substantial increase in energy.
-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."

Advantage 8: The energy crisis will be over. The power of the sun will make any energy problems completely obsolete.

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 a PRO vote!!!
Pluto2493

Con

TOPICALITY- INCENTIVES

A. Interpretation- ‘Incentives' is defined as something that induces action or motivates effort.

DICTIONARY.COM, ‘08

In-cen-tive n. Something, such as the fear of punishment or the expectation of reward, that induces action or motivates effort.

B. Violation- the plan does not create any incentive to make fusion energy.

C. Voter-

1. Ground- This steals Neg ground to argue because they can simply create any plan that has something to do with energy. It also takes out a huge arguing point within incentives.

2. Education- We take nothing out of this round except for a loss if Aff runs a un-practical case. This is our first Neg debate, something that should teach us a lot.

SOLVENCY:

Fusion power is not yet ready to be an energy source.

From his own source, Wikipedia.org:

"There are still significant barriers standing between current scientific understanding and technological capabilities and the practical realization of fusion as an energy source. Research, while making steady progress, has also continually thrown up new difficulties. Therefore it remains unclear that an economically viable fusion plant is even possible…Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050."

VOTE THEM DOWN because they are being abusive by only using certain parts of the article that work in their favor.

Now my own source:
Fusion energy research is taking too long to become a new energy source.
New Scientist, June 06. (http://www.newscientist.com...)

"Most scientists and engineers working on ITER are more wary. "The current timetable is very, very, very ambitious," said one veteran last week. "I think it will be 100 years before we have commercially viable energy." Such caution is not surprising. The reactor will heat plasma to temperatures 10 times those in the core of the sun. Harnessing such extremes in an engineered bottle will take many decades, and ultimately may not be practical."

Fusion energy will cost too much.

This is Peplow in March '06. (http://fire.pppl.gov...)

"But the projected costs of building and maintaining a plant, let alone getting it to work, are simply too high for fusion ever to become a viable power source, according to William Parkins, formerly chief scientist with the California-based technology company Rockwell International and author of an article in this week's Science…
Parkins wrote that the energetic neutrons produced in the fusion reaction will gradually degrade the walls of the reactor itself. All design studies have indicated that the vessel will need periodic replacement, which would drive up costs. The large size of the reactor makes it virtually impossible to stop air leaking into the reaction chamber, causing further expensive problems…
ITER currently commands a budget of around US$5.5 billion, making it one of the more expensive scientific projects ever conceived. "It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power," wrote Parkins."

COUNTERPLAN:

TEXT: The United States federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by increasing farm subsidizes to develop wind energy.

SOLVENCY:

Wind energy is the energy of the future.

American Wind Energy Association, '07 (http://www.awea.org...)

"Wind power is ready to be a significant source of American energy. Diversifying federal support to include newer, non-polluting, domestic energy industries like wind is smart energy policy."

Wind energy will never run out.

Energy Information Association, Nov. '07 (http://www.eia.doe.gov...)

"Wind is called a renewable energy source because the wind will blow as long as the sun shines."

Subsidies provide incentives for farmers to create wind energy by providing tax breaks.

AWEA, Previously cited.

"The main incentive for wind, the production tax credit (PTC) is an effective policy to facilitate wind power development, as evidenced by today's growth in the use of wind power. Wind project owners receive tax credits only for energy produced; thus they have an incentive to use better wind sites and better technology – harvesting the most energy possible from every wind turbine."

Subsidies have been effective in the past.

AWEA, previously cited.

U.S. subsidies for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro power totaled approximately $500 billion from 1950 to 1977 (in 2004 $).1 In the last century, this investment created an abundance of affordable domestic energy, powering strong economic growth. It also contributed to a heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Today's rising energy demands – and volatile prices – reveal a need for a more diverse energy supply.

WE ALSO solve all of Aff's advantages as well as harms.

NET BENEFIT: Cost.

Cross-apply Peplow in '06, which states that there is a demand for $5.5 Billion for fusion energy, not to mention updating and replacement costs.

Wind energy costs 5 cents per Kilowatt/hour and costs are decreasing.

AWEA FAQ, no date cited. (http://www.awea.org...)
"The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced."

BECAUSE farmers are doing this, not the government, it will help farmers get back on their feet, create more jobs, and create competition.

The counterplan is conditional.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Off Topicality- Incentives:

--> What can be a bigger incentive of creating fusion energy than millions of dollars AND a brand new government program? The agenda is simply laid out. The incentive is specifically labeled under the plan sub points A and E. We give a bunch of scientist's ample money in order to do one thing, create fusion energy. How can the incentive be any bigger?

Off Voters:

1 (Ground)--> This argument is mislead because I not only have to increase incentives but I also have to get solvency out of the whole plan. This gives complete fair ground.

2. (Education)--> The point in this debate is not to create an education for the people but rather energy for the people. After that, the advantage of people becoming familiar with fusion energy will come. Education comes post initial solvency.

Off solvency argument

1. He is right that fusion energy is not quite ready as of now. HOWEVER, the whole reason to be increasing incentives (substantially) is to GET it ready.

2. The amount of time for a useable amount of fusion energy is not that long (as determined in the following evidence):

A. Evidence #1 (http://au.answers.yahoo.com...)
-"I've frequently read that fusion energy could be developed as soon as 2035."

-"The way gas is (going) right now I suspect it ill be done by 2015 or maybe 2025."

Evidence #2 (http://www.iterfan.org...)
-"The reactor is expected to be up and running by 2016."

Evidence #3
(http://www.iter.org...)
-If you go to this link, you can see the timeline of the ITER program. You'll notice that NONE of their timeline goes past 2016. In other words, with the United States creating its own fusion program, then they can help ITER and perhaps one day join them. However, the first step is to create a program.

3. My own evidence may show 2050, but the initial creator of fusion energy shows that fusion energy is not that far off. I would guess that the person that put in that estimate is unfamiliar with the ITER program.

4. After all of these timelines, you have to see that fusion energy will be ready to use VERY soon. Patience plus the adopting of the affirmative plan will solve the energy crisis as long as the earth still exists.

5. DON'T VOTE ME DOWN because the parts of the articles that I don't mention may be because I need to save everyone's time by not putting everything. If you want me to say everything, one of the blogs has a guy that talks about how great solar power is but 1) Fusion power solves the energy crisis forever and 2) More energy equals more welfare for America so it doesn't even matter and 3) After everything is said and done, fusion energy is cheaper.

Against "his own source" you must note that:

1) The United States program could substantially increase the amount of time that things get done. Therefore bringing solvency all the faster.

2) There is no timetable restriction stated either in the resolution OR in any argumentation made by my opponent. The only thing that is important is that fusion energy is eventually created and solvency WILL be here eventually.

Against fusion energy will cost too much:

(http://mccaskill.senate.gov...)
"Missouri consumers, farmers, and businesses are on track to pay $10.7 billion for gasoline this year." However, this only accounts for one state AND was taken in 2002 where gasoline was still under $2.00 per gallon.

(http://fusedweb.llnl.gov...)
-"Like all stars, the sun is a huge fusion reactor, pumping out 100 million times as much energy in a single second as the entire population of Earth uses in a year!"

If you combine these two factors, you have to see that it won't take much "fusion energy" to take care of all problems the energy crisis is putting us through right now. No matter what, fusion energy WILL cost us less money than gasoline.

COUNTERPLAN:

1) This counter plan is NOT mutually exclusive. I am in support of having as much energy as possible BUT as soon as fusion energy is in its usable form, no other energy forms will be needed.

2) He does not meet his own text… He shows no new "substantial increase" in wind energy. "The cost of Wind Energy technology has dropped dramatically in last years and, thanks to government incentives or subsidies, a Wind Energy system may be your most cost-effective power solution." You see, these subsidies that he talks about ALREADY EXIST. His counter plan changes nothing and helps no one. Wind energy is already in effective use AND the energy crisis still exists in the middle of it all.
(http://www.leonardo-energy.org...)

In the end- The counter plan can be passed WITH the affirmative plan. Futhermore, there is NO reason yet presented to vote down the affirmative plan. Because of this, I urge it to be passed!

So please vote PRO!

Thanks!
Pluto2493

Con

Pluto2493 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

It seems that my opponent has forfeited his final constructive. It really is unfortunate because there is nothing that I can do to extend much argumentation in any way. It essentially takes a 4 round debate to a 3 round debate. The thing that makes "forfeits" the most unfortunate is that it doesn't always take its full affect. For example, if someone in a real round were to just say "I'll skip this speech" they would assuredly get voted down. But forfeits on debate.org are so common right now that it hardly takes any affect. I know that there is a different "type" of atmosphere, but still. This round provides nothing. It's unfortunate to say the least. It's not like I can draw arguments against myself. But nonetheless, I would like to flow through all of my arguments and would like to point out that no more arguments can be provided in "rebuttals"…

Thanks!... and vote PRO!

P.S.- I'm not "mad" at "Pluto", just at forfeits. We all have our legitimate excuses for a forfeit here and there; I just decided to make a rant out of this one :)
Pluto2493

Con

TOPICALITY-

A. The reason he is un-topical is because he does not increase incentives. If you look at his plan in the 1AC, there is absolutely NO mentioning of paying these scientists. It simply says, 'A. Government will create a group of scientists to specifically study fusion energy' and 'E. The agenda of the scientists will be to create a useable form of fusion energy for the people of the United States and the world.'
Those are the only two places at which the scientists are mentioned. At this point, it is abusive to change his plan to include incentives. All I had to go off in the 1NC was the 1AC, so it is abusive for him to change his plan and make my T moot.
Please pull arguments from the 1NC, as he still did not show where he is increasing incentives.

B. Voters-

1. Ground- My opponent's argument makes no sense. Yes, I can debate solvency, but a huge debating point in this round is incentives, something that I cannot argue if he does not provide it. Now he is picking and choosing what arguments I can bring up, which creates unfair ground.

2. Education- Aff says that the point of this debate is not education. I beg to differ. The reasons we would be doing this is because of two reasons: A: Education (which I am) B: For fun. No matter what, at least one person is looking for education. At that point, my argument still stands because I want education from this round, and aff has no right to take that away.

SOLVENCY:

1. My opponent states that fusion power will be ready soon. Think about how much time that will take: 1st, make sure you can get energy out of it; 2nd, make sure it's safe; 3rd, build fusion plants; 4th, switch everything oil to everything fusion. Now take wind power: it can avoid 1 and 2, and 3 takes a lot shorter, since it is private.

2. He goes on to say that it will be ready by 2016- 2035. 2035?! That's not short at all. We need to control gas prices NOW before the U.S. is sent into depression, and we need to control greenhouse gases before millions of speices are lost. Also, look at his first source. It is a contradiction. It says gas will run out between 2015 and 2025. Then it says fusion energy will be ready by 2035. So, what about the 10 years in the middle? We just don't have energy? That will definitely cause the global economy to crumble.

3. Okay, so he admits that it is an abusive source, because the author is unfamiliar with ITER. He is abusive, AND you can throw that card out.

4. Already answered this...

5. I did not say that he had to put EVERYTHING into the card. It would be fine if the rest of the article agrees with what you put in. But that's where the abusiveness comes in: if the article later goes on to say something completely in favor of the other side, it is abusive. If the only way he can get articles to agree with him means taking little words out of the article, he has a major solvency deficit and is making it unfair for our side.

6?. Okay, let's look at my sources. Revered scientists and journalists saying fusion energy will cost to much. Now look at his. He has a source saying that gas costs a lot and that the sun has a lot of energy. My argument is much stronger because it is based on first hand observation about fusion energy. He also does not explain why or how fusion energy is cheaper than wind.

COUNTERPLAN-

1. He says it is not mutually exclusive. I ask: Where do you get your fuel? A gas station. Every car we buy has gas. What will happen if we have two forms of useable energy? Will we be picking between a wind car and a fusion car? Will you only be able to go to wind or fusion fuel stations? No, that doesn't make any sense. The USFG can only pick one, like the way it is now with gas.

2. AWEA, '07

"During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy. Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total."

He says that wind energy is already here, but this card disproves that. I don't even need to be arguing this. Go out and fill up your car on wind. Oh, you can't? That's because there currently is no official form of energy with wind. Common sense here.

3. Extend all my dropped solvency arguments. He concedes that wind power will work.

I urge you to vote Neg (I'm running out of time, sorry for any confusion and mistakes).
Debate Round No. 3
Johnicle

Pro

-First off I would like to apologize/inform… I have seen a LOT of these forfeit "bugs" and what my opponent talks about is COMPLETELY legitimate. I have narrowed the forfeit time to actually not hit zero but instead post a forfeit in the range of 30-45 minutes. I literally posted a few minutes after that and before he even realized that there WAS a forfeit, I had already posted. So essentially, please accept this as a 3 round debate…

TOPICALITY- INCENTIVES

A. There is a good reason to why I claim the right to clarification, for reasons JUST like this. The payment of the scientists is ASSUMED through the idea of it being a government run program. Furthermore, I would like to clarify that the amount of money paid to each of the scientists/workers is determined through committee based on qualifications through education and experience. I apologize for not pointing out everything extremely in depth.

B. Voters

1. Ground- The reason that the incentive topicality in this round is such a futile argument is because I do not have to create the incentive (through the plan)… the incentive ALREADY exists for every person in America (scientist and all)… All Americans are currently spending AMPLE money on the energy that is needed to function from day to day (particularly gasoline)… By the government giving people money to create one of the greatest forms of (possible) energy, incentive is created whether you like it or not. FURTHER MORE, when these scientists are going to be ASSUMED full time employees (something else that I am clarifying that I figured assumption for)… therefore they have the incentive of their job AND the TRILLION dollar industry product that they are trying to create. In other words, incentives are NOTHING of concern and this topicality MUST be dropped from the round.

2. Education- I understand that my opponent didn't have much time to read and argue like he wanted to BUT I DID claim education to come "post- solvency"… But if he doesn't see that as sufficient, I must point out this major contradiction argument made by Negative. He gives you a voter of not getting education, but A) NO education is gained by voting down the resolution and B) Plenty of education is gained by creating a NEW FORM OF ENERGY… The scientist will reach solvency and gain education and then will pass that knowledge onto us (as I talked about in the last (full) speech)… Judges, essentially he asks you to vote down my plan because you gain no education but if education is SO important, you MUST vote my plan UP because education is only POSSIBLY gained on the Affirmative side.

SOLVENCY

1) My opponent's argument simply says that we shouldn't look into fusion energy because we can't get it NOW… This seems to be the typical human/American answer. Well, I am here to tell you that great things take time (and it turns out that not that much time is needed because of ITER)… We are simply helping them (In the United States as specified by the resolution/plan). And as far as the 1/2/3/4 thing goes… 1- (evidence from previous rounds): -"Like all stars, the sun is a huge fusion reactor, pumping out 100 million times as much energy in a single second as the entire population of Earth uses in a year!"… 2- Advantages 3, 4, 5, AND 6 PROVE that fusion energy is safe… 3- First fusion plant finished by (appx.) 2016 (which will be sooner if the Aff. Plan is passed… 4- Again, it will take time to transfer everything to fusion power but once it is done ALL of the transferring is done. This will be nice because we won't have to transfer to ALL wind power then to ALL hydrogen THEN TO ALL fusion energy power. By passing the Affirmative plan, you cut the amount of "transfers" required. So essentially, I have ALL 4 WAY better that negative does.

2) I'm sorry but this argument is ridiculous so I'm going to make several arguments against it…

A) The 2035 estimate (person) didn't seem to be familiar with ITER…
-The only reason I put it on there is to get several estimates… The truth of the matter is that this estimate is just from some blog.

B) The 2016 estimate is from the official ITER website…
-I mean seriously, 2016 is only 8 years away and if you take into account the transfer time, we could all legitimately be using fusion energy around a decade from now. NO MORE ENERGY PROBLEMS FOREVER IN A DECADE. Now, this also has to take into affect that this estimate is WITHOUT America's help, if the plan is passed, the time will inevitably be shorter.

C) Other energy forms are for the transfer/creation time…
-I will argue this under the counter plan but essentially, we need to use other energy forms (gasoline, solar, wind) for the time BEFORE fusion. When fusion energy is created, all other forms of energy will be unnecessary.

3. Ok, throw that card out. He says how it is abusive but the only thing that the source did was explain fusion energy (which is common knowledge (the basics that is), AND explained in other cards) and it explained that we don't have enough fusion energy which is obvious because we DON'T HAVE ANY (common knowledge)…

4. Argued before… (same as he did)

5. Well, he only found one card to be abusive and I have found one of my cards to be lacking knowledge (b/c I was trying to get more info as he requested). The card has been dropped but what you'll find is that my important evidence does not have any abusiveness at all. He claims that my abusive cards make a huge solvency hole, but NONE of the them were in solvency… One was simply a harm saying that we need more fusion energy but (once again) that is OBVIOUS.

6. To be honest, he claims that his scientists have first hand "knowledge" but just because you're a scientist doesn't mean that you know about fusion… I offer knowledge from scientists that actually work on fusion energy (ITER)…

COUNTERPLAN-

1. --> There is no reason to not pass both plans.
This debate is not about who's plan is better but if we can create alternative energy. If there is more than one way, by all means access it but don't say that because one is better than the other we should ditch it. However, the way it is, fusion energy is WAY better than wind energy. Wind energy will only get us to fusion energy because it's (wind) unreliable and extremely weak. Essentially, don't put all your eggs in one basket, so I wouldn't mind putting a few in the basket of wind energy but in the end of this round you MUST put some eggs in fusion energy and therefore must vote Affirmative.

2. --> Ok, so wind energy has potential, but NOT the potential to be the sole energy form for the world forever. Fusion energy has that capability. Judges, I urge you to adopt both plans because they make the perfect combo. Until (appx.) 2020, wind energy (and others) can help us get to the creation of fusion energy which will complete our energy needs until the end of time. And since there has been NO timeline placed upon me by the resolution OR my opponent, you must pass the Affirmative plan. All other forms of energy can go along with status quo (or increase) until fusion is done… then, no more worry!

3. Great, wind energy works, and you know what, so does fusion energy. Look at the sun, the only thing that we are really doing is learning how to harvest it (there IS a way). What makes his form any better than mine? Which of these two create the most energy…? The answer, BOTH OF THEM… I have already said that the more energy the merrier so pass both plans and get both energies. ALSO on this argument, he doesn't show which arguments were dropped AND why that's bad… essential.

Besides that… there is NO substantial reason to vote down the affirmative plan.

So please vote PRO (affirmative)!

Thanks for this great debate!
Pluto2493

Con

Once again I'd just like to ask that you disregard the forfeit, as it is a common glitch on debate.org. Please examine only rounds 1,3, and 4.

Forget everything else, we're going for the counterplan!

Let's just take some time and answer what my opponent said about the counterplan, line-by-line.

1. "This debate is not about who's plan is better but if we can create alternative energy. If there is more than one way, by all means access it but don't say that because one is better than the other we should ditch it."

I beg to differ. Just think of mad havoc that will erupt if we have multiple kinds of energy. We will have to go to special fuel stations for our specific kind of energy. "Wind or fusion" will become as common of a question as "paper or plastic". Eventually, one kind of energy AHEM**wind**AHEM will become cheaper. Then look at what we have: All those people who bought the other kind of energy will have no place to fill up (because the fuel companies are going out of business), they won't have anywhere to buy fuel, etc. I can't even explain how ridiculous this would be. We would even have to have separate power lines, separate power plants, and as I have stated several times, separate fuel stations. This is completely mutually exclusive. Either that or we'd make a HUGE mistake.

"Wind energy will only get us to fusion energy because it's (wind) unreliable and extremely weak."

Okay, NOW we're making our arguments? This is completely abusive to bring in new arguments in the 2AR. If that's acceptable, I could bring in a whole new topicality this round and I'd win automatically because, hey, he didn't respond to it. Plus, this isn't even backed up. There are no cards or even reasoning. Using this strategy I could say 'fusion energy sucks' and they'd have equal weight.

2. "Ok, so wind energy has potential, but NOT the potential to be the sole energy form for the world forever. Fusion energy has that capability."

Okay, so we have a theme here. Looks like Johnicle is going to the 'Let's bring up 2AR arguments with no back-up' party. Cross-apply the number 1 argument above me. Same deal.

3. "What makes his form any better than mine?"

Alas, Aff sets me up to win this debate. I've argued why the counterplan is mutually exclusive. Now it is up to me to show that wind power is better than fusion.

Why is it better? You guess it, the economics.

Nowhere in Aff's R2 nor his R4 does he say why fusion power is cheaper. Cross-apply my card and argument from ROUND ONE that said that fusion energy will cost too much. Here it is again:

Fusion energy will cost too much.

This is Peplow in March '06. (http://fire.pppl.gov......)

"But the projected costs of building and maintaining a plant, let alone getting it to work, are simply too high for fusion ever to become a viable power source, according to William Parkins, formerly chief scientist with the California-based technology company Rockwell International and author of an article in this week's Science…
Parkins wrote that the energetic neutrons produced in the fusion reaction will gradually degrade the walls of the reactor itself. All design studies have indicated that the vessel will need periodic replacement, which would drive up costs. The large size of the reactor makes it virtually impossible to stop air leaking into the reaction chamber, causing further expensive problems…
ITER currently commands a budget of around US$5.5 billion, making it one of the more expensive scientific projects ever conceived. "It's time to sell fusion for physics, not power," wrote Parkins."

I also stated this in R1:

Wind energy costs 5 cents per Kilowatt/hour and costs are decreasing.

AWEA FAQ, no date cited. (http://www.awea.org......)
"The cost of electricity from utility-scale wind systems has dropped by more than 80% over the last 20 years. In the early 1980's, when the first utility-scale wind turbines were installed, wind-generated electricity cost as much as 30 cents per kilowatt-hour. Now, state-of-the-art wind power plants at excellent sites are generating electricity at less than 5 cents/kWh. Costs are continuing to decline as more and larger plants are built and advanced technology is introduced."

"BECAUSE farmers are doing this, not the government, it will help farmers get back on their feet, create more jobs, and create competition."

This is why I win the round. I showed mutual exclusivity, and nowhere in this WHOLE debate does Aff debate the price. I carried this under my cross-appliance of solvency in R3, and it still stands now. Wind power is cheaper, it will create more jobs, and it will lead to lower prices through competition. Therefore, wind power is better, as Aff does not bring any arguments about wind power into this debate.

So, at this point, I see no other way to vote but Neg. I showed how my counterplan is mutually exclusive and a better plan. There's really no question here.

Thank you to the voters for judging and thanks to Johnicle for an EDUCATIONAL debate. haha.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Plus there was no net ben
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
Yeah, that was as a topical of a counterplan as you're gonna get
Posted by olivertheexpando 8 years ago
olivertheexpando
dude lit checks abuse on T need it
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
And erm, this may sound dumb, but isn't wind energy a form of alternative energy?
Posted by PublicForumG-d 8 years ago
PublicForumG-d
Wait....there are "Fiat is Illusionary" cards? Doesn't this destroy the functionality of Policy debate? You need Fiat to be able to win.

Voter:

Abuse. Steals neg ground. Education and all that jazz.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
dude alt. energy and SSA are great topics! Now that I think about it it WOULD be better to get the health care topic when I'm going to a KRITIK CAMP
Posted by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
uhhh (i'm not a policy debater, but i have had experience) this has to be the stupidest topic since health aid to Africa...oh wait....

Just read some cards that say "Fiat is illusionary" (as neg) and win!

Neg wins on the CP btw...
Posted by alvinthegreat 8 years ago
alvinthegreat
sigh...policy debate does not work too well in debate.org format...

take real arguments to debate camp!
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
I posted my argument with 30 minutes left. When I looked at the debate, everything looked fine. I just checked my e-mail, and looking at it, it now seems as though my R2 was a forfeit, your R3 was that forfeit bad speech, and it automatically posted my R2 speech for R3.
Posted by Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
? WhaT?~!? I definitely did not forfeit. Is this that glitch? Oh man, I posted it, it appeared posted, I looked back and it said my argument was posted in the next round... I just wasted 2 rounds...

sorry about this Johnicle but it appears I've been bitten by the bug.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Lakeville votebomb
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 5 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 rofflewoffles 7 years ago
rofflewoffles
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by mrbullfrog11 7 years ago
mrbullfrog11
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 Pluto2493 7 years ago
Pluto2493
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohniclePluto2493Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 ajn0592 8 years ago
ajn0592
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 olivertheexpando 8 years ago
olivertheexpando
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 g713 8 years ago
g713
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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 Aaron100 8 years ago
Aaron100
JohniclePluto2493Tied
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