The Instigator
olivertheexpando
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
ABNYU
Con (against)
Winning
22 Points

The USFG should fully fund the ITER program until its completion. (Policy Debate Aff)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,485 times Debate No: 4846
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (9)

 

olivertheexpando

Pro

Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase its AE incentives in the US.
Plan: The USFG will fund ITER till its completion in 2016.

Observation 1 is Inherency:
Frank Munger, 2008 (staff writer, July 3rd, Lexis)
Oak Ridge is home to the U.S. effort on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a huge project. The fiscal 2008 budget approved earlier by Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7 million, instead of the proposed $160 million - and endangered U.S. participation in the project

Obv. 2 Solvency.
Funding is imperative to the ITER project
Munger 2008
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason said supplemental funding will be used to keep the U.S. team together and sustain operations. More than $200 million is being sought for the ITER project. Additional funds for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under a continuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose other restrictions.

Only the federal government can solve
DOE, 2008
Since we are the government are the only ones who can control what goes on with nuclear power we are the only way that ITER has a chance.

Fusion is the only way to stop Global Warming
Wilkerson, 2008 (professor of climate sciences, July 29, Lexis)
Since Global Warming is a major problem there is only one way to stop it and that is through a fusion reactor specifically ITER which is in need of funding. With that we can solve the great problem of global warming.

It will only take 8 years to have the reactor up and running producing power for the world
US Department of Energy, 2008
When we get the funding for the ITER program it will only be eight years for the project to begin producing power.

The ITER will allow the U.S. to transition to a hydrogen-based economy:
The U.S. Department of Energy, 2006 (http://www.science.doe.gov...)
Another key advantage of fusion energy over current methods of electricity generation is that it can produce hydrogen with no carbon emissions. Thus, ITER may contribute to a hydrogen-based economy of the future.

There is no waste from an ITER reactor just Helium-3 a non-radioactive isotope of Helium.
US Gov. 2008
Fusion combines two isotopes of hydrogen deuterium and tritium which makes helium-3 a non radioactive isotope of hydrogen

Other nations will model the US energy policies, like ITER
Global Power Report, 2008
Because other countries have the same urgent needs and therefore will adopt our ideas, for the rest of the world," The energy project should focus on developing nuclear fusion, especially through the international ITER project.

ITER is safe and viable
Calder, 2008
ITER will be the world's largest fusion facility and is a fusion power plant that is safe and reliable, environmentally responsible and economically viable, with abundant and widespread fuel resources.

ITER reactor will provide a limitless supply of safe energy:
Tatiana Sinitsyna, 2008
ITER could provide an unlimited source of energy. Some people compare it to an artificial sun, Physicists have long dreamed of harnessing thermonuclear fusion, which is much safer than nuclear energy. Thermonuclear reactors cannot explode the way the Chernobyl nuclear power plant did.

Be skeptical of the negative evidence; fear Fusion
Lovelock 2004
Opposition to nuclear energy is based on irrational fear fed by Hollywood-style fiction, the Green lobbies and the media. These fears are unjustified, and nuclear energy has proved to be the safest of all energy

Adv 1. Global Warming
The earth is warming and we have only 15 years until the impacts will happen.
Pentagon Report 2004

Global Warming leads to the end of all life on earth.
Buencamino, 2004

It's try or die for the Aff we have a systemic impact that's happening now.
Bauch 2008
Since global warming is happening now, we must solve it or we will all die.

Fusion is the best way to stop Global Warming
Borland, 2007

Slowing the rate of Global Warming is enough to solve.
Reuters, 1999
Global warming is becoming the biggest problem and it's so easy to solve all we need to do is slightly slow it and we are fine.

Global Warming is a systemic impact and must be looked at first in the round.
Wilkerson, 2008
The most likely way the human race is going to die is from the great demon of global warming and it must be stopped because it is happening now.

Adv. 2 Soft Power
The United States is number one in hegemony
Nye, 2008
The US is the leader in hegemony and must maintain that to insure that it can control what it wants.

The US is key to get other nations to follow in the fight against Global warming
Smyth, 2008
If the US does the ITER project it will show the world that we are committed to solving global warming, and get countries to come along

ITER is key to retain hege
US Department of Energy, 2006
The US is losing its creditability in the world and the ITER project is the best way to retain it.

Technological and scientific leadership is critical to maintain overall U.S. leadership:
Zalmay Khalilzad, 1995
To sustain and improve its economic strength, the United States must maintain its technological lead in the economic realm. Its success will depend on the choices it makes. If the United States fails to recognize the change and adapt its institutions, its relative position will necessarily worsen. To remain the preponderant world power, U.S. economic strength must be enhanced by further improvements in productivity, and by generating and using superior science and technology.

Adv. 3 Oil dependence
US is addicted to foreign oil
Cap Hill Press Release, 2008
The US imports over 70% of its oil and we have shown no signs of getting off of it so we will stay addicted to it until something is done.

Continue to use oil fuels terrorism
Beres, 1999
Oil is the main source of money for terrorists and to keep buying it is going to fuel it even more

Fusion decreases our dependence on foreign oil and saves our economy
Huber, 2005
The best thing we can do to decrease the Middle East's hold on us is to turn off the spigot ourselves. For economic, ecological, and geopolitical reasons, U.S. policymakers ought to promote ITER on the supply side, wherever they reasonably can.

Failure to stop use of foreign oil leads to war
Hart, 2007
To believe that military intervention is the key to security is to badly miss the point. We would liberate our foreign and defense policies, contribute substantially to solving climate change, make our livelihood more secure, liberate resources for education and health, and dramatically increase our sense of genuine security.
The ITER will allow the U.S. to transition to a hydrogen-based economy:
The U.S. Department of Energy, 2006 (http://www.science.doe.gov...)
Another key advantage of fusion energy over current methods of electricity generation is that it can produce hydrogen with no carbon emissions. Thus, ITER may contribute to a hydrogen-based economy of the future.

Adv. 3 Air pollution
Coal power plants kill over 24k a year
Margonelli, 2008
Nukes in the United States haven't killed anyone outright, while air pollution from coal is known to cause 24,000 deaths a year.
Air Pollution threatens billions
Roberts, 2002
In the US, air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people

ITER solves Air pollution
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2008
Unfortunately, there is little public discussion about the enormous benefits of expanding the use of nuclear power, let alone celebrations. The great environmental advantage
ABNYU

Con

This debate looked fun...so I thought I might take a stab at it.

First, lets take a look at the resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its AE incentives in
the US.

Fair enough, seems that all the Affirmative would need to do is show a need for Alternative Energy incentives.

Next, we have the plan: The USFG will fund ITER till its completion in 2016.

Hmmm, interesting. I will take that as meaning that all the USFG has to do is fund ITER and it is increasing AE incentives.

Alright, on to Observation 1: Inherency.
"...Congress slashed the spending for ITER - allotting only $10.7 million, instead of the proposed $160 million..."

Wait a second...congress is currently funding ITER?I could have sworn that the plan was "fund ITER till its completion in 2016." This is not only a key plan flaw but a perfect point for me to jump on the offensive, first with topicality.

A. Interpretation: Increase- To increase is to make
greater in quantity.

1."to make greater, as in number"
http://dictionary.reference.com...

B. Violation: The resolution clearly calls for an
increase in the USFG's AE incentives. However, the
plan only calls for the USFG to merely fund ITER.
The problem here is that the USFG funds ITER as we
speak as per the Affirmatives FIRST piece of
evidence. For it to be an increase...there must be
some type of increase.

C. Standards:
1. Bright line-The Affirmative needs to be held
responsible for presenting a plan that is clearly
topical and clearly increases AE incentives. At
this point...the only thing that it is increasing
is the length of my speech due to a clear
Topicality violation.

2. Education-I like to think that debates on
Debate.org have some educational meaning. Sure,
it's mainly for fun, but this is clearly a topic
that is used for school and this will surely serve
as a learning experience to either A. never run
this case again, or B. actually increase the
funding.

D. Voters:
1. Jurisdiction-Come on guys...there is no reason
to vote Aff. The laid out the framework for the
debate with the resolution and plan at very
beginning of the debate. If they cannot debate
within that framework, they should not win.

2. Education-Teach Aff not to run this case.

OK, now that Topicality is out there, let's move on. Observation 1 obviously presents a problem from the plan's standpoint. However, let's look at it from an Inherency standpoint. Oh yeah...there isn't an inherent barrier to the passage of this plan- the plan is being implemented by congress as we speak (Once again, the plan is merely to fund ITER). Using only one piece of evidence for this claim is weak. And uh...oh yeah guys, let's take a peek at the 2009 budget...just for fun.

"The budget would provide $214.5 million for the

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor

(ITER) for in-kind components, personnel and

funding. According to DOE, "ITER will, for the

first time, demonstrate the technical and

scientific feasibility of a sustained, magnetically

confined fusion burning plasma." The U.S. is one of

seven nations participating in this partnership."

http://www.aaas.org...

Enough said.
Let's move on to Observation 2: Solvency. Funding is needed. Alright. "More than $200 million is being sought for the ITER project. Additional funds
for this year were particularly important because the government may operate under a continuing budget resolution for the first six months of fiscal 2009 and freeze spending levels or impose other restrictions."

Well, just take a look at the source I have just previously provided. ITER is receiving well over $200 million. The evidence provided by the Affirmative guarantee's the solvency for the status quo. That, I believe, is called a solvency turn.

Next, the DOE evidence is a little sketchy. I don't want to come right out and accuse anyone of doctoring evidence, but it clearly has some grammatical errors. And at this point, I would like to make it known that nowhere in the Affirmative's evidence do they make it known that specifically USFG funding is imperative and by simply saying that funding in general is imperative leaves ground for anyone to solve not just the DOE.

Moving on, "Fusion is the only way to stop Global Warming."

Oh, well in that case, I guess I can stop:
-using compact fluorescent light bulbs
-inflating my tires
-changing my air filter in my car
-filling my dishwasher all the way
-using recycled paper
-adjusting my thermostat
-checking my water heater
-planting trees
-buying organic foods
-using cloth bags at Wal*Mart
-changing my AC filter
-taking shorter showers
-buying local food products
-using my hybrid car and pull my Escalade out of
the garage and drive it around whenever I feel like
because the smell of burning gas makes me feel
good.

Goodness, the evidence doesn't even give a reason as to why it is the only way to stop it. Give some warrants!

Next, "It will only take 8 years to have the reactor up and running producing power for the world"

...I'm counting.

"The ITER will allow the U.S. to transition to a hydrogen-based economy"
I'm glad to hear that. Good to know we will be fine without the implementation of the plan...I'm going to have to say the exact same thing for
the remaining 5 Solvency cards. At this point in the debate, I have proven that there is absolutely no reason for this plan because it is clearly already in place. Therefore, any solvency evidence in favor of the Aff should flow Negative as well.

Wow, I didn't expect that to be all. I had really
hoped to write more, but seeing as any advantages
stemming from this plan can only work in my favor,
it would make no sense to do a line-by-line of the
rest of the Affirmative case.

Therefore, I will present the following Kritik as
an indicator of my boredom with this debate. I will
make note that I am aware that this Kritik
interferes with the framework of the debate that I
have previously engaged in. However, it should not
be seen as a reason to vote me down. It serves
solely as purpose for the entertainment of this
debate round and perhaps a voting issue if everyone
likes it. So I would suggest and perhaps hope that
anyone judging this round would look to whichever
set of Negative arguments that they like the most
and vote accordingly. Because of speech-length restrictions, I will present tags and sources and will read specific evidence if needed. I'm sure the Affirmative will have no problem with this...haha.

A. The Affirmative presents themselves as masters of the universe. They think that they will be able to rid the world of all pain and suffering by renouncing uncertain and chaotic aspects of life like global warming. This negates life.
-Saurette '96
B. The Aff's political statements are merely justification for harsh reaction. They think that they can invoke change while nothing actually happens.
-Nietzsche 1887 (GS 56)
C. The Aff is always able to make up a threat to our existence. Insecurities of the world are all around us: Global warming, disease, poverty. The way that the Affirmative attempts to control these inherent conditions of life is a method that negates life by destroying the human ability to affirm and create.
-Nietzsche 1886 (BG&E)
D. The alternative is to affirm chance as well as destiny by letting us see what happens. Forget the impacts and don't worry about trying to solve for inherent conditions of life. This is the only way to live life in a positive way. Roll the dice.
-Deleuze '83

Well, I know the Kritik doesn't have as much substance as it could have, but it's a fun argument. Sorry for any typos...I may not have caught everything. That's all the room I have for now, but I will eagerly await olivertheexpando's reply in the next round. Very interesting topic, thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 1
olivertheexpando

Pro

I would first like to say that the plan text was supposed 2 be fully fund but if my opponent doesn't want to allow a change I will be fine with that.

On T:
1. W/M- We increase by 1500% so we make it A LOT GREATER.
2. C/I- Sub. Is large in size
American Heritage Dictionary 2008
3. W/M C/I- we increase by 1500% enough to meet both definitions
4. Standards-
B/L- We give the best bright line because we clearly increase AE incentive by 1500%
Education- Because he has lit there is enough for an in-depth debate and he admits there is education here
5. Lit checks abuse
6. No voter- abuse is like being pregnant you are or you aren't.
a. we are clearly in the framework of the debate and his definition is make it larger well we make it 15 times large so we clearly show how this is fair to him.
b. he teaches me nothing just that if he does policy he needs to make better T frontlines.

His evidence from aaas.org is horrible because one it assumes the best the first part of the article says that it will increase 4.4 to 72.1% so they have messed up numbers to start and second their card is for this year only. The plan is 8 years long.
http://www.aps.org...
The United States made a major commitment to the construction of the (ITER). Today, Congress has pulled the plug. In so doing, it critically damages American credibility as a reliable scientific partner throughout the world and compromises the nation's standing as a host of future international scientific facilities.

Inherency:
First we must fund ITER till its completition and the only way to do that is to give them the 1.6 billion needed over 8 years and his "status quo" only gives 214 million. There's a problem.

On what he was saying about it being sketchy, I had 2 cut down some evidence to make it all fit so that why it didn't flow.

On to warming:
He talks about the Wilkerson card what the card talks about is the fact that right now there are no major efforts to stop GW, and fusion is the only way to stop it if we do something because it gives the most power for the least fuel. He talks about how doing the plan is the only way to solve on top of what is being to stop it.

Onto the hydro econ:
The card talks about we must use ITER because it allows for further development into the use of hydrogen, but to achieve this we must do the plan.

Also ITER is needed because our energy demands are rising now and the status quo calls for more drilling look towards the House of Representatives, today the Republicans called for a vote to drill. That hastens our CERTAIN DEATH, so you have one choice here die or live in a world with cleaner air, peaceful middle east, no terrorists, etc. IT'S TRY OR DIE FOR THE AFF.

TRY OR DIE FOR THE AFF. I repeat this again and again but since he skipped this I must stress it because you must look to this first.

He never addressed my leadership advantage which talks about how if we don't do the plan we will live in a world where the US isn't the top one.

On the K:
1.Perm do the plan with the mind set.
2.Perm do the plan and see what happens
3.Perm the only way to solve for their impacts is by the plan
4.Nietzsche is a contradiction he says live life and see what happens but he conformed to ideas and values so he didn't let life be he tried to force himself on people.
5.Also if he wanted to see what happened he never would've published his work.
6.He also got sick in his life and he went to the doctor (in the 1800's) he never saw what happened
7.Link turn- plan causes the mind set of do nothing
8.Case solve the K
9.On their impact, we have a systemic impact which means we know it's happening and the effects are being felt NOW. WE MUST STOP GLOBAL WARMING THERE IS NO TAKING A CHANCE HERE, THERE IS ONLY CERTAIN DEATH WE KNOW WHATS GOING TO HAPPEN WE HAVE UNDER 15 YEARS LEFT. THE K IS THE WORST IDEA FOR ALL LIFE. A SYSTEMIC IMPACT MEANS ITS HAPPENING NOW!!!

A. THE ALTERNATIVE IS UTOPIAN; AT BEST, THE NEG CAN SOLVE FOR A FEW PEOPLE LOCALLY. THIS PUTS THEM IN A DOUBLE BIND- EITHER THEY DO NOT CHANGE ENOUGH MINDSETS TO SOLVE FOR THEIR IMPACTS, OR THEY ARE THEORITICALLY ABUSIVE.
UTOPIAN ALTERNATIVES BAD—
1.RECIPROCITY— IF THE AFF HAS TO DEFEND REAL WORLD SOLVENCY, THE NEG HAS TO, TOO.
2.MOST REAL WORLD—NOBODY EVER MAKES A DECISION BASED ON A PERFECT OUTCOME.
3.SKEWS THE AFF—UTOPIAN ALTS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE AFF TO WIN.
4.VOTER FOR FAIRNESS

Framework:
A.THE AFFIRMATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WEIGHT THEIR IMPACTS TO THE KRITIK.
B.EVALUATING AFFIRMATIVE ROLE-PLAYING IS KEY TO EDUCATION—IT UNIQUELY LETS US LEARN ABOUT GOVERNMENTAL DECISION-MAKING.
C.RECIPROCITY—THE 1AC SPENDS 8 MINUTES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DEBATE TO SET UP THE FRAMEWORK. IF THEY WANT TO RUN THEIR KRITIK, THEY CAN COME UP WITH A KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVE CASE. DON'T PUNISH US AND DISREGARD OUR ENTIRE SPEECH JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T PLAY BY THE RULES.
D.ALWAYS LOOK TOWARDS FRAMEWORK BECAUSE YOU CONSIDER THE DEBATE
A.Extend our GW adv. If we don't solve then there is no chance. Also he gave no answer to our systemic impact so you must accept this as true.
B.Also extend our oil dependence adv. which talks about how a failure to do the plan gives more and more money to terrorist groups, which is also a systemic impact too. It's happening now too.
C.Extend our Air pollution adv. which talks about how a failure to act in dangers billions.
His only solution is to go by the status quo and live positively until the day, which we know is coming, we die of climate change, species dying, and lack of livable land.

I'd like to thank my opponent for taking up this debate and anything I say that is offensive I mean nothing by it, it is how policy works. Also, please accept my amended plan.

I am a proud policy debate from VESTAVIA HILLS HIGH, and this is not my aff.
ABNYU

Con

OK, we can start off with the plan. The plan initially stated that the Affirmative was to merely fund the ITER program. The Affirmative has since stated that the plan text was to "fully" fund the program. Since I do not believe that the Affirmative's interest was to cause a Topicality violation I will, of course, respect a change in plan text. However, the change in plan text is still fairly vague and at first glance readers may think that this change avoids violation of the Topicality argument as per my first Negative. However, this is not the case. The Affirmative has not defined "fully" in any way and I am forced to believe that "fully" may simply mean whatever may be required to make the plan solve.
But let's not forget about Topicality:
1. W/M-The Affirmative claims that they meet my definition of "increase". However, this is simply not the case. The Affirmative claims to increase by 1500 percent but they do not specify. From what I have read, the negative's first piece of Solvency evidence indicates that over $200 million (200-300 million USD) will be needed to successfully implement the plan. What I gather from this is that to "fully" implement this plan $200 million will be required. The Affirmative makes a mistake by using evidence that it critical of the FY 2008 budget but does not look to the FY 2009. I have proven this with my aaas.org evidence but it has since been refuted as being "horrible". However, in the interest of protecting the education of this debate, I will provide the following source.
http://www.ostp.gov...
This is a very reputable source that speaks on the FY 2009 budget. Note that it states that there will be $214 million allocated to the ITER Fusion Project, a 1,855% increase from last year!!! So to answer "we meet"--the status quo certainly meets, and to a greater extent might I add.
"2. C/I- Sub. Is large in size
American Heritage Dictionary 2008
3. W/M C/I- we increase by 1500% enough to meet both definitions"
-At this point I have proven that the counter-interpretation of "substantial" is already present in the status quo. Points 2&3 should go negative because the Affirmative is not really increasing anything. In fact, a 1500% increase to the 2008 budget would be a decrease in the status quo. Is that what the Affirmative wants?
4. Standards-
-Bright Line-"We give the best bright line because we clearly increase AE incentive by 1500%" Is this clear to anyone?
-Education- Fair enough. I did admit to education coming from this round. However, the fact that I am running Topicality should be an indicator as to the wasted time that could have been spent on more detailed aspects of the plan.
5. "Lit checks abuse" Just because I can find something on the internet on a case doesn't make the case topical. Actually, you could run a case about Paris Hilton...and I could find "lit" on it. Certainly you will concede this point.
6. Voters- The Affirmative makes their biggest mistake on misconstruing the topicality as being solely based upon abuse.
a.Jurisdiction- At this point, I have proven that the Aff is still not topical and my jurisdiction voter still stands because the Aff does not increase.
b. Education- "he teaches me nothing just that if he does policy he needs to make better T frontlines." Are you willing to concede that there is need for me to be educated about something in this debate?

Inherency:
The Affirmative concedes the fact that the status quo provides $214 million dollars in the next budget. They claim that we need to fund ITER to its completion. However the Affirmative makes a mistake in providing no evidence that the ITER program will not continue in the years to come. What we have seen is a strong increase in funding over the past few years(EOP evidence)and since 2001. The USFG clearly has an interest in ITER and actually calls it an Advanced Energy Initiative. Wow...that seems eerily similar to the resolution of this debate round. Increase AE initiatives...Wow...maybe the USFG is doing more than we thought.
Also, if you are cutting down the evidence, I would appreciate the source.

Global Warming:
The Affirmative talks about the "Wilkerson card" and how it explains it all but they give no warrants...I don't see that anywhere in the card. Maybe the Affirmative could provide some context to strengthen this debate. Otherwise, my initial arguments stand.

Hydro-econ+Adv's:
Yes...I read it the first time. What I'm saying on this piece, as with the rest of the Aff is that these arguments flow Negative because they strengthen the case for the status quo. In fact, they show why we shouldn't implement the Aff's plan. If anything...they decrease funding and make things worse. It doesn't matter if I went line-by-line on the advantages or not.

Next, the Affirmative makes their biggest mistake of the round by trying to make this into a "TRY OR DIE" scenario for the Aff's plan. This is an oddly perfect time to start on the K. I find it peculiar that the Aff would so blatantly bite into the Kritik. Oh well...

1. Perm-"do the plan with the mind set" ehh...what? You mean the mind set of affirming life? You can't do that...that would mean not doing the plan at all. This makes no sense.
2. Perm-"do the plan and see what happens" Scaredy cat! That's not a perm. In fact, that's the opposite of what this Kritik calls for. To truly affirm life, we roll the dice pre-plan. We don't try to change things and then duck for cover.
3. Perm is not the only way to solve for the impacts. Aff gives no reasoning behind this and does not make any sense. The Kritik solves for its impacts by not attempting to master the inherent conditions of life.
4. I don't know where you are getting this interpretation of Nietzsche. This almost upsets me. If there is anything to learn from Friedrich Nietzsche, it was to create your own values and ideas. He certainly did not "force himself on people". He is known for not entertaining the idea of followers.
5. "Also if he wanted to see what happened he never would've published his work." This holds no ground because Nietzsche's work does not link to the Kritik. His work demonstrates an Affirmation of life by accepting destiny and chance.
6. He got sick? Oh I get it...this is supposed to be a "how would he know" argument. Well, have we solved inherent and unknown aspects of the earth such as global warming since Nietzsche's death. Don't think so.
7. Link turn? The K in no way advocates do nothing. Rolling the dice is a big step in affirming life. I don't see how this is a link turn at all.
8. Case solves the K? Wow...this case rids the world of all the Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of the world? I'm going to doubt that...seeing as it is not possible as per my Saurette '96 evidence.
9. This point bites our impact evidence directly...Systemic impact and all. We admit to "feeling" the impacts now. That doesn't change the fact that inherent conditions of life such as poverty, malnourishment, and global warming can't suddenly be solved. Is Aff still perming?
A. Utopian? I will disregard this set of args due to lack of space on my behalf and a lack of logic on the Affirmative's. Clearly, I have shown that the only utopians in this round are the Aff.
FRAMEWORK:
A. Fair enough.
B. Role-playing-read further
C. Reciprocity-points B&C are mistakes on the Affirmative's behalf because this pounds in their need for order in a world of disorder which I have proven to be impossible in my Kritik. Yes, that is the basis of my Kritik as per the Saurette '96.
D. "ALWAYS LOOK TOWARDS FRAMEWORK"...as another link to the K.
The under view of advantages has been previously touched in this speech.
At this point in the debate, I have proven the plan to be non-topical. If anything, the proposed plan is worse than the status quo. The Kritik still stands and should not have been permed. Framework links to the K. Thanks!
Debate Round No. 2
olivertheexpando

Pro

Thank you to my opponent who accepted the plan text, now on to his T.
He says we don't increase but there is a problem there he gives no clear rule as to what is an increase it could be a dollar or it could be billions. Don't let him bring up what he defines it as because that's unfair to the aff.

On the W/M first off he says he meets his definition but you don't have to also we increase it by infinite amounts because the evidence I gave talks about how all the funding was cut, but if that's not good enough I would like to say his evidence only talks about how its that much for a year not eight. So we increase that by 1.4 billion clearly an increase.

The C/I is about a substantial increase which is more than he asks for so he should be happy.

B/L- We give the best B/L because he gives no definition of what "increase" is so you must go by my B/L which I give a better one because I specify.

Education- he concedes this so you must see that we are topical because if there is education coming from a debate that means that there is lit on the topic and that it's within the resolution and we are 100% topical.

Lit checks abuse because he has lit then we are with in the resolution.

Topicality is not a voter- he says that we assume T is about abuse but that's what T is it is a way to show that the aff is abusive which we are not and he concedes this.

Inherency
His evidence is for this year only our plan is talking about the entirety of the plan. Not one year.
Extend both of my other inh. cards I read that talk about how all the funding was cut.

On warming
He attacks my Wilkerson card but he neglects all of the other cards that talk about how warming will kill every one and we only have 11 years to solve or we die.
Wilkerson card:
Many people believe that Global Warming is a major threat to the environment we live in. The problem with global warming is the fact that there isn't a definite solution to the problem; I have the solution to the problem, ITER. ITER is a fusion reactor that makes loads of energy with little waste and upkeep. It is the best and only way for people to solve global warming. Many people have ideas about fusion but it is the safest form of energy around because the researchers listen to people and find ways to prevent what they think will happen.
For the sake of space I can't put the whole card and I had to cut it down.

He says that he doesn't need to address my other adv's but he must in order to get them to "flow negative" since he gives no reason specifically why they go to him they are still adv's for the case. Also extend all my adv's because they are reasons why we solve better than the status quo.

K
On the first perm it is that we do the plan but we act like we don't want to, we act like we want to roll the dice.
On the next perms, I am going to drop them because my first perm solves the case and K best.
On what he said about him being a hypocrite, if he didn't want to force himself onto the people then he wouldn't have written the books. The only reason he wrote the book was to show people his ideas and make them think the same way. The neg is an example of this because he is trying to force his ideas into this round.

Cross apply what I said to the next argument.

Global warming's effect have come into light in the last 10 years and it wasn't even known of when he was alive but Nietzsche decided he didn't want to roll the dice with his life so he went to the doctor when he was sick so you can't follow any of his authors.

Extend across my link turn because if the plan is done then people won't have to "interfere" with everything.

Cross apply what I just said about link turn and apply it to the case solves the K

He says that we don't advocate doing nothing well then fine we can do the plan and the K becomes a PIC. He also admits to us having a systemic impact, he admits we will die so there is no reason no to do the plan and we must get rid of the K because HE ADVICATES DYING.

Onto his utopia I will be fine with him bringing it up later but he forgot to put a no voter which is huge in this round.

He accepts our framework in this round so you must accept our impacts in the round and evaluate them against his. Also you must see that this round comes down to impacts and that we have the larger ones and that with a systemic impact, that he admits to us having, you must look to this first in the round. The plan is the only way to solve because the status quo only gets us 1/8th of the way to solving while we solve 100% of the case and the K so there is no reason to vote for the neg. You must vote aff.

The chance of global warming causing extinction is 100% because it's happening now, I know I keep repeating myself but this point is huge and we must solve.

If there is a 1% chance of anything happening because of global warming that's a reason to vote aff, or if there is a 1% chance of us solving then you must vote aff.

Thank you to my opponent who made this debate challenging and if he does policy I wish him all the luck this year, and once again I thank him.

I hate myself right now because I didn't look at where I was posting and I cut it down to two thousand characters not what it was. So I redid what I was doing
ABNYU

Con

Alright...It's going to be Plan, T, Inherency, Global Warming, Hydro-econ+Adv's, K, Impact Analysis.
To begin once again with the plan. My opponent has agreed with my interpretation of his plan and that "fully" may simply mean whatever may be required to make the plan solve. Because of this, when voting in this round, readers should look to the scenario in which the harms are best solved for. My analysis has shown that this is obviously the status quo which provides more money than the Affirmative's plan calls for.
Topicality:
When I read the final Affirmative speech I was somewhat baffled by the way they tried to make a case for the Negative not providing an interpretation for the word "increase". This is incorrect. The first Negative speech provided an interpretation for the word "increase" as "to make greater, as in number." This has obviously been overlooked and is in no way "unfair" to the Aff.
W/M: The Affirmative did not refute my argument about the violation of the interpretation. If there is no increase to the status quo, then the case is not topical. I have provided evidence from the Executive Office of the President that notes a 1855% increase from the date of the Affirmatives evidence. This means that the Affirmative cannot meet unless they increase by an amount greater than 1855%. However, doing this would be ridiculously wasteful given the fact that the status quo solves as we speak.
C/I: Unfortunately, I have proven that my opponent's plan is not enough to be an increase at all much less a substantial increase. The counter-interpretation obviously flows negative in this case.
B/L: My opponents reasoning for Bright Line is that since I gave no definition of increase...I should lose. Well, if the reader has payed even the slightest attention to this debate, he/she will no where to flow this argument.
Education: I don't believe that I conceded this argument at all. I clearly stated that debating Topicality on this subject has led to a clear loss of education given the fact that we have spent less time on the issues. However, the Aff plan is clearly not topical given the fact that it does not make an increase; it makes a decrease. Just because this case seems to have a topical subject does not mean it is fit for debate on this resolution.
Lit Checks Abuse: The Affirmative dropped my argument about this. Look to my last speech as to the reasons why just having information on a subject does not make it topical. Come on...we have the internet.
Voters: The Affirmative has dropped the voters of A. Jurisdiction and B. Education. My opponent simply states that I conceded them. However, this is not the case. Readers do not have the jurisdiction to vote for an untopical case given the framework set forth by the Affirmative with the first words of their first speech. Also, vote on the grounds of Education. Show the Affirmative that they need to run a topical case to increase the education as well as the merit of a debate round.

Inherency: Once again, my opponent has made a fatal mistake in dropping my argument about the Affirmative needing to show that the ITER program will not be extended for the next 8 years. It has been funded for the last eight, why not eight more? I have given evidence from a report from the Advanced Energy Initiative showing that there has been a great increase in interest and money given to ITER in recent years and it shows no signs of stopping. Inherency is won by the Negative because I have proven that there is no inherent barrier to the passage of this plan. It is already being done, and to a greater extent than is called for by the Affirmative.

Global Warming: My arguments on this were mostly geared towards showing that ITER is not all that is necessarily needed. Readers may look back to my previous speeches for my analysis of these ridiculous cards. ALSO, the global warming argument holds no weight in the on-case debate in this round because of the fact that the status quo is solving for it.

Hydro-econ+Adv's: The Affirmative states that I did not give any specific reason that these should flow Negative. Hmm...I don't believe that is correct. If readers will recall my previous speeches, I gave an in-depth analysis of the reasons why it would not make sense for me to debate the advantages because the advantages stand as reasons to vote for the status quo that the Negative protects. That is certainly a good reason for them to flow negative. I have turned the evidence of the advantages to the Negative's use.

The Kritik:
-I laughed when I read this. "Do the plan but act like we don't want to"? "...we act like we roll the dice"? This is terrible. A permutation of the Kritik would necessitate an ACTUAL rolling of the dice not just a pretend one. Just "acting" like we want to roll the dice but not actually doing it completely avoids the positive, life-affirming outcome of the Kritik.
-The other perms were dropped but I don't believe that the first perm solves the best.
-On Nietzsche being a hypocrite: The Affirmative does not answer my argument here about the basis of Nietzsche's ideas. This is where my opponent loses this argument. The Affirmative makes the assumption that people make books just to force ideas onto people. Even if this were true, it holds no weight in the debate of this Kritik. Nietzsche's personal actions have nothing to do with the ideas presented by the Kritik. By the way, I'm sure he didn't go to the doctor on his own will. He was suffering from mental trauma at the very late stages of his life. Yes, I am trying to enforce ideas of life-affirming value...that doesn't contradict the Kritik at all.
-Just because Global Warming hasn't always been at the height of global alarm does not prove it to be anything more or less than an inherent condition of life that is caused by nature. Just because Nietzsche didn't write about it specifically does not mean that we should disregard his ideas in this respect.
-The Affirmative says extend their link turn. However, this is not a link turn at all. Doing the permed plan does not avoid the link because it is not actually doing the dice roll. The Affirmative admits to only wanting to "act" like they are doing the dice roll but not really do it. Is this some kind of trick? Who is my opponent trying to fool?
-Umm...PIC? I don't believe that the K becomes a PIC if we are doing something. The Affirmative has twisted my words from saying "doing something" to meaning "create a policy". This should not stand as a valid argument in this round. The Negative certainly does not advocate dying.
-Utopia:
"Onto his utopia I will be fine with him bringing it up later but he forgot to put a no voter which is huge in this round."
Well, as I have stated earlier...don't vote for this because the argument is absurd. The only utopians in this round are clearly the Affirmative.
-Framework: The Affirmative states that I have accepted their framework for this round. This is not correct. My last speech clearly states that this framework for the debate is ridiculous and links back to the Kritik. My opponent dropped my initial arguments about the Saurette in 96'.

IMPACT ANALYSIS: At this point in the debate, we have the on-case issues as well as the Kritik. If the reader votes Negative, the status quo will solve for the harms presented in the 1AC as the Affirmative claims. The reader is also given a chance to vote on the merits of the Kritik. It is a positive, life-affirming way to vote Negative knowing that you have not given in to the jibber-jabber of the Affirmative. This is not to mention global warming. A negative ballot still avoids global warming. Voting Affirmative gives ITER less money than the status quo and possibly makes things worse.

The Affirmatives plan isn't topical, it has no inherent barrier, it negates life, and it makes the status quo worse. Does anyone really want to vote for that? Thanks for the debate and good luck this year.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Murphy_is_Law 9 years ago
Murphy_is_Law
I just read over the two final arguments. I voted Neg because the Aff fought against nothing the entire round. Olivertheexpando did not really read, or understand anything that ABNYU brought up in the areas of T or I. Aff debated that their T was better, but never attacked the Neg's. Inherency was dropped by the Aff in my eyes. You said that ABNYU's evidence had to predict the next eight years because yours did, but in reality, ABNYU's evidence gave a better long term depiction of where funding for ITER is going than any piece of AFF evidence did. T and I flowed Neg, that won ABNYU the round.

And now the K. Aff, if you ever use a permutation
(On the first perm it is that we do the plan but we act like we don't want to, we act like we want to roll the dice.)
like that in a round that I was judging, I would stop you, call you an idiot, and then sign the ballot right there. You have to take Kritik's seriously because they are substantial in a debate. If your only answer is act like we are going to do it, you either cannot form arguments in your head, or you don't understand the literature. If you are going to be debating at high school level next year, read up on some viable Kritik's and have them blocked out and don't try to perm one like that, ever.
Posted by Murphy_is_Law 9 years ago
Murphy_is_Law
I strongly affirm rolling the dice. It is the only logical way of solving the worlds problems, besides a deliberate human-influenced Armageddon.
Posted by alvinthegreat 9 years ago
alvinthegreat
love the card with only the tags...anyone who takes this debate is gonna have a fun time refuting your cards...
Posted by emmccarty214 9 years ago
emmccarty214
haha, still nobody has taken this debate.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by rofflewoffles 8 years ago
rofflewoffles
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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 sword_of_lead 9 years ago
sword_of_lead
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 9 years ago
fresnoinvasion
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Grimmly 9 years ago
Grimmly
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 lacanrox 9 years ago
lacanrox
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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 abney317 9 years ago
abney317
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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 ladygirl 9 years ago
ladygirl
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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 Murphy_is_Law 9 years ago
Murphy_is_Law
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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 9 years ago
olivertheexpando
olivertheexpandoABNYUTied
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