The Instigator
Pro (for)
20 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 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: 7/30/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,352 times Debate No: 4838
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)




ROUND 1; JUDGES: Mitch Dunn and Henry Chen

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.


A. Fusion energy
-"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
- "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.
-"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."


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

B. Lack of Fusion Power
-"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.
-"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:
-""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
-"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
-"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."


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.
-"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
-"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!!!


In this round I have chosen to step back from the normal debates about saving everyone from nuclear war and extinction.I am not claiming to solve for any impacts that are not within my reach.I am critiquing the way debate is going on. I am not even going to bother rebutting my opponent, as he is asking me to participate in a form of debate that destroys much more than what he claims as impacts.

Children don't choose who their parents are or what kind of life they are going to be born into. They go to the schools they are sent to and this is the first time they can make their own decisions that will change their lives and the lives of their future children, or at least this is what they are told. Just as the Matthews Effect says, these not so privileged children will never be able to gain the credit they do or could deserve. Instead, you have the other children, who maybe by luck, were born into families where they can go to a school and wreak the benefits and affect their future by joining the debate team. So yes, I guess my partner and I were two of the luckier ones. And now that we recognize what has been going on, we have decided to use our fortunes to help those less fortunate.

And you too, whether born fortunate or not, this is your chance to show that you disagree with what is happening. You disagree with this developing sense of deprivation and socio-economic absolute. Vote Aff to show that you agree that as the last card I read said, you must use your key as the gatekeeper to open the gate so we can make a difference.

Contention One- The Debate World Isn't Perfect!
The debate world we are involved with right now is severely flawed. We are debating in this fiat world that makes us think we are good people just because we are "pretend helping people around the world." In reality, this pretend world we are debating in actually distracts us from the real problems educational debate is bringing.

1.Robert K. Merton's "Matthew Effect" exemplifies exactly what is happening within debate, even though urban and rural schools are in perfect location for debate. Those with an initial advantage enjoy continual advantages over those born into the position at a disadvantage.
(Herder ‘06 Rick Herder, 20 year NFL coach, currently Graduate School of Communication at the University of Miami)
Despite these demonstrated and potential benefits to students, he argues, high school debate programs of all types tend to be concentrated in affluent suburbs in what [Merton] terms, "a doughnut pattern." Urban and rural schools, which lie within or without the boundaries of this geographical doughnut, rarely participate in LD or policy debate.

2.Just as the Matthew Effect states, high school debate is leading to continued deprivation and a socioeconomic absolute.
Merton ‘95 Robert K. Merton, The Matthew Effect in Science II, University Professor at Columbia University)
Conceived of as a locally ongoing process and not as a single event, the practice of giving unto everyone that hath much while taking from everyone that hath little will lead to the rich getting forever richer while the poor become poorer.

3. In a day and age when love thy neighbor is needed more than ever, and in our pretend fiat world where we debate about pretending to help people, the Matthew Effect shows how the disadvantageous people here are never experiencing nor learning by experience the act of helping others. This leads to a world of everyone only caring about themselves, outweighing any fiat world implications.

Thus, we give the following alternative plan:
The United States Federal Government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of affiliates of high school debate volunteering with the Learn and Serve America to create or enhance local Urban Debate Leagues. We reserve the right to clarify.

A. Contention II Sub point A: Urban Debate Leagues
1. Everyone in this activity is here today because we all agree that debate is good. What is probably unknown is how successful the Urban Debate Leagues have already been in their cities.
Boston Debate League '06 (
"Urban debate needs community partners to survive. Urban debate has proven success in single-handedly increasing the quality of urban education and spurring urban school reform. The educational benefits of policy debate have been documented by many scholars of education and education reform."

2.The Urban Debate League in a Baltimore local school put more students through college on debate scholarships then all of their athletic programs combined.
Brooks '02 (Baltimore City Police Officer of the Year and Walbrook Academy Debate Coach)
"We have put more kids in college through debate -- on scholarships -- than all of our athletic programs combined."

3. Urban Debate Leagues increases workers productivity adding to the global economy. The UDL reduces the educational-opportunity gap separating the rich and the poor and in turn, making first steps towards solving for the Matthew Effect.
Reich '04(Professor of Social and Economic Policy, Brandeis University, former Secretary of Labor)
The economy of the United States depends to an ever greater extent on the productivity and preparedness of all of our workforce, and on the value our workforce can add to an increasingly global economy. we must provide all of our youth with a world-class education. Urban Debate Leagues take us a solid step closer to that goal.

4. The current debate world could not be any more pro-whites.
Wise ‘05(Tim Wise, Anti-racist writer/lecturer, White like Me; Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son)
"It is safe to say that the activity is very, very white. All of it literally excludes whiteness and privileges white participants in any number of ways."

5. White privilege must be confronted in order to stop the domination and subordination
Wise ‘05(Tim Wise, Anti-racist writer/lecturer, White like Me; Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son)
"White privilege is real and must be confronted, discussing white privileges us to begin the dialogue on other forms of domination and subordination."
Debate Round No. 1


I have decided to drop myself from both LD and Policy tournaments. This is because I truly NEED a debate "break" before school starts up again. I will finish this debate (just for fun) and will continue w/ tournament director "duties". I'm interested in judge decisions but irregardless, I will give both "wins" to my opponent. but lets get to the arguments!


My opponent essentially runs this uber kritik. To counter this, I'm going to run a counter-kritik:

A. Flow through the argument that states that the debate world isn't perfect.

B. My opponent warrants that the debate world isn't perfect but later in his speech he breaks one of the very FEW debate rules, changes the resolution.

C. By changing the resolution, I am left unprepared with what I am debating pre-round (at least to a degree) and instead am left with a bunch of how debate is in the current world. As far as any policy making in this round, you must vote aff. Because all stock issues were dropped stone cold.

D. By voting Neg., you increase the imperfection of the current debating world. If you were to tell ANY kids a resolution to be debated (rich or poor) and they went into the room prepared for it and it was instead switched to another resolution, it would be unfair for them. This only furthers the imperfection of the current debating world.


Onto how my case could solve for the current situation.

My opponent claims that such activities such as debate are dominated by rich white people. But what you have to see is that when you link the substantially increased economy from my case with the more money for everyone, you will see more people being able to do what they want. (If you want evidence I can get it but it seems pretty straight forward.)


Finally, off of the specific point about racism.

Fear of racism leads to unfair treatment for all.
--> Since my town has been seeing a lot more of the Hispanic race, I have seen MULTIPLE people bending over backwards to help them because they would feel racist if they didn't. New classes have been made, dates have been switched, all so that they may "feel at home"… Instead of being prejudice against them, it's like we are being prejudice against ourselves.

In the end- My case solves for all of his "problems" AND it was completely dropped. My counter-kritik shows how my opponent is the one making debate worse. And because of this, I can only see an Affirmative vote!

Thank you!


Flow the following off his first A, B, C, and D:

His B: While my opponent attempts to debate that I have contributed to the imperfect debate world, he falls into the same trap that my argument constructed. My plan suggests to not only increase debate participation, but to change the way it is structured. The only real way to have debate as an activity benefit the real world is by following the same structure as a real world debate. No one wakes up in the morning and knows he will debate a colleague about salary, a pier about which "school of thought" is better, or a group of protesters on the way to work. These are real life examples of where debate can be applied, and in both instances the person was unprepared. Following my plan the only real way to have an educational debate is by having both teams not know the subject going into the round and/or it being changed in the course of the debate round. Because this is how a real world debate functions!

My Subpoints regarding his B:
A. Education is inevitable; as long as we sit here and talk for a while we'll learn something. Senses plus memory equals learning.
B. Turn: The degree of education though is measured by how memorable something is. We increase education more by how what we are discussing is not like any other debate round using the magical word fiat.
C. They have no offense for why the kind of education they provide is better than the kind we offer. We provide education about our ethical obligation and create discussions around it.
D. Turn: The education in standard fare policymaking that they provide is the kind of education that increases the problems we mentioned in the 1NC.

His C: In this sub-point my opponent continues to use a debate style that is modeled by the matthews effect as a poor way to debate. Extend Merton ‘95. We need to break away from this debate where we feel we have to debate a certain way, not every debate needs to have stock issues.

His D: Seems like he is trying to make a predictability argument here. So I'll answer predictability:
1. This is just them complaining. Just because some arguments are more common doesn't make them better. We can change what is common and only having normal debates makes them less educational because they're routine.
2. Make them prove why it is actually bad to be predictable. Now take out their reasons that can be solved with them just doing a little more work.
3. Predictability decreases education. Debates about more predictable things regresses to debates about as little as possible.
4. Crushes national debate: because predictability is local and if we only allow what's common here we can't compete on a larger scale, which would shrink the educational benefit of debate.

Next flow off his econ argument:
Hundreds of bills have been passed through the house with incentive provisions, that hasn't cured poverty and the people qualified to debate in UDL's are still in the same class issues. Here is an example of how even if my opponent could solve for case(he dropped solvency, but this is irrelevant): assume everyone who increased Alt. Energy consumption was given 500 dollars. This money won't do much separating classes because a person making $20,000 will now have 500 dollars more (a small percentage to even make an impact), but a person making 1 million will now have 500 dollars more also. So unless you advocate a new plan that ONLY pays minorities a SUBSTANTIAL amount of money, class issues are still going to persist.

Off racism:
I am advocating UDL's not white dominated debate leagues, which he cites. Further, you only cite one example, my cards state that still non-UDL's are dominated by the upper class. Your one example doesn't effect much of the percentage on a whole.

Off his last paragraph:
How can his case solve for my problems if he is committing the acts that created the problem in the first place (i.e poor structure, etc.)? If we were following white supremacy debate structure, you dropped your whole case including advantages and solvency. You didn't extend one advantage and not a single solvency arg. The only thing you extended was an econ link which I just took out.

In the end all my cards are backed with qualified sources, he just makes anaylitical arguments. Further he conceded to my solvency.
Debate Round No. 2


Johnicle forfeited this round.


Opponent conceded this round because he failed to post his arguments in time. However, I am willing to give him a one day extension if he is interested.
Debate Round No. 3


I am sorry that I forfeited last round. I am just having difficulty trying to get myself motivated to write a speech.

Against B: He claims that true debate is not knowing what you're debating. But this is not true, sure you can debate on the fly, but when a subject is posted AND THEN is accepted, typical assumption is that you debate that subject. Whether or not I win who hurts the debate world more (however) I still win the resolution and my plan is assumed passed and therefore wins.

He is simply non-topical with his plan... Go ahead and flow it through but it holds no weight within this round.

Essentially, even if you accept his plan as legitimate, simply weigh them, which is more important, the energy crisis or people not debating or not debating properly. It is sad that it is a white dominated sport (in general) but that is because 1) There are more whites in America and 2) It just seems to interest more white people. Irregardless, other cultures have been known to be THE most persuasive speakers. From Martin Luther King of the past and Barak Obama of the present, everyone who is interested can debate. It is FREE to debate in high school so it's not like there is some overwhelming barrier that prevents everyone from debating. The biggest barrier, however, is poor sport. Such as my partner coming into this round (knowing the resolution) and debating something completely different.

It simply comes down to this. Unfairness. More people are intrigued to debate when people don't try to pull "stuff" such as my opponent. I win anything that has to do with plan, economy, or overall benefits. I'm the only one who EVER talked about the resolution and thus I urge you to vote PRO!



Adam_Goldfarb forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by rofflewoffles 9 years ago
aff wins

RFD: neg link (affirming the resolution -> impacts) is unwarranted. counterplan is not competitve. neg does not convince me that debating realistically is more important than saving lives via aff plan advantages.
Posted by CX-ierthenLD 9 years ago
Citing both Wikipedia and Spiderman 2 in the same sub-point. That might have made my day, debate wise anyway.
Posted by Adam_Goldfarb 9 years ago
Yup...This original outline was used before those two brought it in. They were the one's who brought this to the mainstream debate world.
Posted by Pluto2493 9 years ago
Hmmmm... Have you seen "RESOLVED?"
Posted by Adam_Goldfarb 9 years ago
I was originally going to really debate each one of his arguments. But I found myself too tied up with huge amounts of cards citing wiki as a bad source. But he has no links or impacts. He just says global warming is bad, but does not provide any reason for it. Does anyone know if he actually debates in policy?
Posted by olivertheexpando 9 years ago
nice i hate K's but i some how like this maybe cause he cites wikipedia, or cause he give no reason y but i love the nuke senselessly cp but u are smart here
Posted by Adam_Goldfarb 9 years ago
Its not even worth debating 7 advantages. So hopefully, he'll like what I threw at him
Posted by olivertheexpando 9 years ago
u like policy huh well we will see bout it and 7 adv's not a good idea and where is the solvency
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 9 years ago
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 The_Devils_Advocate 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by ajn0592 9 years ago
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 Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
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