The Instigator
Con (against)
14 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

This years policy topic

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/2/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,254 times Debate No: 6393
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)




I would like to go on the neg against any policy kids out there, who knows, there may be some.

This "speech" is just to set up rules and explain and whatnot.

I am on the neg for a 5 round debate because its pretty much what policy is. Ill give this as like a wasted speech, so the aff will get first word still. Although the aff does not get the 2AR last, he gets a 3AR last... i dont get the neg block, it will just have to be dealt with I guess.

So its 5 rounds, this is wasted. The aff gives a 1AC and i think there should be a CX in the comments. A small one for sure, just to keep things so that everyone understands whats going on and what not. Then the 1NC, 2AC, 2NC, 1AR, 1NR, 2AR, 2NR, then the aff gets a 3AR...

Cards- Post the Tag- Site- and a sentence or two that really sum up the tag. Im sure i have access to the evidence, I just need to see the name date and website (in case i really dont have it)

So itll look like

Heg good- Kalilizad 95
"Prevents 9 scenerios for war..."

Something like that, im sure not too many problems will arise with evidence.

Im pretty sure Im going to be running a K out of the 1NC, just make sure you know how to debate framework and whatnot.

Other than that I think everything is good. CX in comments, make sure to check up on that.

I am looking foward to your 1AC!


(Provided are tag lines, the evidence is available upon request)
Inherency: (Or what is preventing the case from being being written into policy currently)
Status Quo Incentives Fail
New Licencing Process, but not currently being utilized

Thus we present the following plan: Resolved: The United States federal government should offer businesses in the United States substantial positive financial incentives and a combined licensing process for nuclear power plants that use Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactors.

Significant Harms:
Phytoplankton population decline results directly from carbon based polution, and threaten extinction.
Natural Gas Price Volatility kills US Econ because of gas supply short-fall

Environment/Extinction- Warming is occurring now – new IPCC models, which are the most comprehensive studies done, show it is caused by humans; CO2 in oceans kills phytoplankton which is key to oxygen having massive impacts on the eco system leading to extinction; Nuclear energy is the only viable carbon and greenhouse gas free approach to base-load electricity production

Cost support and licensing is key to nuclear expansion
GT-MHR is prepared for every possible accident, ever.
GT-MHR Promises to be the BEST contender for Alternative Energy
Debate Round No. 1


7 off and solvency

Interpretation- The affirmative must specify who will be building the reactors
Violation- The aff doesnt do that
This is bad-
Education- How are we supposed to learn about what buisnesses are good for nuclear energy in the status-quo if he just specifies "buisnesses"
Moving target- This is unfair to the negative because he doesnt back only 1 buisness, he backs all. If I prove that 1 buisness is bad, hell say he doesnt use that one.
Voter for fairness- The only way we can have a fair round is if he doesnt spike out of every buisness I think he is going to use. Make him choose 1!


A. The underlying mindset of the Affirmative stops him from solving any true ecological problems. Uranium needs to be mined, he believes that we can mold the environment to take whatever he needs from it. This is how we got in the ecological mess we are in in the first place.
- The industrial revolution and inventions of the car were all seen to be for the best of society, however, we merely drew things from the environment when we saw fit. This made the environment into something to be changed for our use and this underlying mindset is what is causing all of our problems in the first place.

B. The alternative is to reject the aff and pursue policy options that do not subjectivize the environment and rely on intrinsically motivated change
- Only when we realize that the environment is not to be molded for our use will we respect it. Climate change will be immediately solved by this because we will no longer drive cars that are bad for the environment because we finally respect it.
- Intrinsically motivated change will be lasting, because people WANT to make the change, not forced too like the affirmative tries to do.

Kritik 2
The Gregorian Calendar

Link, impact, and alternative-
The Affirmative makes two initial mistakes in relation to temporality: By choosing to situate their evidence within the Gregorian Calendar, and by misidentifying the root cause of their harms as something other than a fundamental alienation of ourselves from the natural order, which has it's genesis in dualistic thinking derived from the artificial compartmentalization of time—Vote Negative to reject the affirmatives endorsement of the Gregorian calendar in favor of the 13 Moon Peace Calendar.


A. Coal use is high now
- Most of our energy that we get is coal powered and that is an undisputed fact.

B. The economy of Australia is tied to its coal exports to the United States

C. Nuclear energy will trade off with coal production- thus destroying Australia's economy

D. US-Australian relations key to hegemony
- Australia lets the US keep huge submarines off of their cost. This stops other countries navies from moving into the area. We are seen as hegemonic because of this, we are controlling who sits where in the sea.

E. US Hegemony good
Kzad 95- "a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange."

Disad 2

A. The end is near- The Earth is racing towards the carrying capacity as population continues to rapidly expand

B. The plan reverses death checks - Reducing mortality rates exacerbates overpopulation problems.

C. A population increase leads to an overshoot of our carrying capacity- A massive die-back is inevitable.

D. Overshoot leads to extinction- Nuclear shootouts and ecocide.

Disad 3
I farted.

Text: the United States federal government should mandate the phase out of subsidies for fossil and nuclear energy and the complete phase out of fossil and nuclear energy by 2050. We will clarify.

A. The United States must phase out subsidies for fossil fuels to enter into the energy revolution, solves global warming and the economy

B. Complete phase-out of fossil fuels is critical to ending oil dependence and global warming

C. The counterplan is economically and technologically feasible – World War II proves industry will adapt

And case

Turn- Ending civilization is critical to ensure survival. Only by returning to anarcho-primitivism can we end exploitation of nature and creatively sustain life on Earth

Multiple worlds good

It tests the aff on multiple levels and increases education. I should not have to stick to one strategy but should be able to test the aff on multiple levels in "multiple worlds"
Its real world- If a policymaker presents a plan, many people will oppose of it and they will all have different reasons they oppose. The policymaker has to defend all areas of attack, I have to resemble the multiple people objecting


1. Cross-ex checks. The neg could have asked clarifying questions in cross-x. The right of the 2AC to clarify should be maintained—it's still a constructive.
2. Normal means checks. Any plan using normal means that specifies the USFG would use Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court.
3. We increase ground. By not specifying our agent, we give the negative better DA ground, meaning they can run disads to Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court. Their interpretation costs them ground to any predictable agent indicts.
4. Most predictable. The res specifies the USFG, meaning the neg should be prepared as a minimum to argue against that agent.
5. We turn limits. Forcing the aff to specify explodes the neg research burden, since there are literally tens of thousands of government operations.
6. ASpec is not a voter. We increase their ground, decrease their research burden, and have the most predictable interpretation. There's no in round or out of round abuse. Make them show you how they've been abused.
7. Infinitely regressive. If we specified our agent they'd just read OSpec on us. These arguments are just time sucks.

The first kritik claims that the our plan falls under a certain mindset that leads to the "molding" of the environment, as he puts it. However, if we analyze his reasoning, we see the underlying flaws in he theory.
1. What plan would not fall pray to this Kritik? There is absolutely no uniqueness to our case, and thus, he could run it year after year, on case after case. This limits the educational value of our round, and destroys learning about other arguments.
2. He does not provide a possible alternative, as it would be impossible to run any case that does not fall under his kritik.
3. Though he claims an impact.. look at the actual kritik, where is the impact? where is the harm?
4. Our plan already solves for the supposed impacts... so their alternative does not stand.

Kritik 2

The Kritik proposes that we adopt the 13 Moon Peace calendar.. though does not specify how the status quo is bad, or how the Peace Calendar would be better in anyway....
1. You must through out the Kritik on framework alone, let alone the fact that there is no uniqueness (which leads to the same harms as the first kritik)

Disad 1
A. Coal May or may not be in high demand now... ill give that.
B. The Austrailian economy is NOT TIED to the united states, as the united states relies on Gas power plants, not coal. The majority of their exports go to China.
C. it will not trade off with coal production, as they do not really export to the US, and their economy IS NOT BASED ON COAL EXPORTS.
D. Submarines are NOT KEY TO HEGEMONY..... the world is controlled by air superiority, not a navy.
E. US Heg is good, but will be unconnected to an increase in nuclear power.

Disad 2
Again, absolutely no uniqueness..... any case would fall under this..... END IS NEAR DisAd... therefore, no link to this case... therefore not a voting issue under frameworks violations.
A. There is nothing wrong with reducing mortality rates... nature finds a way of natural checks... no overshoot.
Since we "break" or disprove one of the links, all the subsequent harms and effects are broken, and therefore the affirmative wins on this issue.

Disad 3
I farted too... so there.

That is not a counterplan....? and it does not escape the disads of the rest of the negative case... or the kritik. SO... once again, the negative team's argument fails to hold up.

that is the most ridiculous argument i have ever heard. END CIVILIZATION!?!?!? Wow....
Debate Round No. 2


Dropping spec

Kritik 1- Overview, line by line, overview

The affirmative massively undercovers the kritik, he does not even understand the concept. The point is that his mindset when writing this affirmative was flawed therefore he cannot solve. We must change our mindset before we can solve any environmental problem.

1. Any plan that does not make the environment a subject. Unless we are co-operating with the environment and not mentally putting ourselves above the environment we can never begin to understand it. You can legalize hemp. You can pursue the cultivation of switchgrass, you can use solar power, wind power, tidal power. All of these things work along with the environment and if you were to run one of these affirmatives it would be evident that you are in tune with nature, understanding it, not stealing from it, but co-operating with the environment that is equal to us.
2. My alternative is specifically, " to reject the aff and pursue policy options that do not subjectivize the environment and rely on intrinsically motivated change". I laid out affs that you can run that dont make the environment a subject, but co-operate with it. The judges should mold their mindsets to only accept policy options that are presented by a person in tune with nature, and is evident in their plan text because they co-operate with mother earth
3. The harm is obvious. You are perpetuating the mindset that its ok to think we are better than the environment. This is where the conceded industrial revolution example will come in to play. This mindset turns back the case because there is no way you are ever going to solve for environmental issues. Not only does it turn back the case, it ensures extinction through global warming because you havent molded your mindset, which is critical to solve for global warming. Cross apply his extinction impact from the 1AC
4. They dont solve. This is where understanding of debate and critiques is critical for a two way debate, if he understood what was going on I am very sure this would be a much better debate. The critiques turns his solvency in the long term, and says he cannot solve unless he changes his mindset.

What is really going to screw over the affirmative is that he does not even mention intrinsically motivated change in the entirety of his speech. He concededs 100 percent that intrinsically motivated change solves the case and solves better. The alternative there alone solves the case because he conceded that it does. He has dropped the argument, dont let him bring it up again because thats horribly abusive to my side of the debate.

Overview- The Affirmative has no idea what is going on. I have attacked his mindset at its base and it is evident that his mindset is what I say it is because even he says "wtf can i run then?". He cannot see that co-operation with good ol mother earth is possible and ties himself only to policies that make him feel superior to the environment. For this reason alone you have to vote for the negative team. Embrace my alternative of intrinsically motivated change that does not subjectivize the environment to promote a lasting change to America. He concedes that intrinsic motivation will solve the case 100 percent, and then some. Look to my alternative to actually solve what the affirmative wants to do.

You may be for nuclear energy, and that is all fine and dandy, but at the point in which the affirmative debater does not answer the K at all, you have to immediately look to the negative.

Second K- Overview, line by line, Overview

This again is a fundamental issue, when we convert to the 13 moon peace calender it symbolizes our connection with the environment. The gregorian calender has nothing to do with the environment, and if we were to switch over to the other consideration for the environment will be woven throughout our everyday lives.

1. No uniqueness? No sh*t. We are on the Gregorian calender and our environment is being horribly destroyed. This is not a disad that you can just say "mehh its happening now". Because it is happening now proves why it needs to be changed.
2. Yes there is. Best K ever!
3. We can convert, if we truly want to solve our environmental problems. This will be the ultimate test of our dedication to saving the environment, if we can change even our calender system to help mother earth, we can do anything.

I am also winning this K. I really hope some REAL policy kids are out there that know how to judge tab.. PLEASE GOD PLEASE

Disad 1

I will concede Australia exports to China mostly. Theres no existing turns. Just drop the DA as if it doesnt exist.

1. He concedes link to the case by saying it links to all cases. So what I am lazy and found a killer disad to take out every team out there?
2. My evidence indicates that our society has become so obsessed with saving lives (ie cancer research, malaria nets in ssa, giving asian people rice [hehe togamisan]) that we forget there is not an infinite amount of room on earth and eventually we will run out. Nature will not work itself out because we have become too good at saving lives, which is bad!
3. You dont break the link. I have proven that nature wont work itself out. This ties into the K, our mindset that we OWN the environment stops this from happening. We think we can control whatever goes on in the world, including people dying so this throws off the natural balance and insures overpopulation. The only way to solve this is to adopt the framework of the negative.
4. I have TURNED his answer to the disad

Disad 3- I will concede he farted too. Pig.

Case- Yes sir. (attacking from a different perspective/world). If we let nuclear war happen, the world is going to start over. We need to start over and live like primitive man did because our cavemen ancestors knew what was up with the environment. I mean havent you ever seen The Flinstones? They had cars too. With ZERO emissions. We need to be like the Flinstones, and restart our society from its base. So if you dont want to vote on the K, or the disad, you have to vote here because I have proven nuclear war and extinction is good!

And a prayer

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
[For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.


I would like to establish the overview of this round as we move on to the final rebuttals. When looking to evaluate this round, that MEANS CASTING YOUR VOTE, you should consider these 4 noble truths of POLICY DEBATE:
1. Buddha is an all-knowing "ENLIGHTENED" being, and should represent the affirmative case by similarly bring light to a world otherwise enshrouded by darkness, corruption, and deception. The Negative team represents the agents of chaos, by trying to convince the populous that the darkness is either to be preferred over enlightenment, or that the light does not exist. Any way you look at it, the negative team is here to provide entertainment, and if truly evaluated for their honest sentiments on issues, they would not argue that there is an "underlying mindset" that needs to be changed.
2. No one has the ability to change the minds of other people except by continuing to construe those same principles of corruption, darkness, deception, and exploitation. The negative team can only be judged to be as good as their actions, so we can clearly see that we need to continue on the path of enlightenment, otherwise known as the status quo mindset established by the affirmative team
3. All arguments arguing against preservation of human life... in the long term in or short term are SADIST. They say that we are doomed in any plan we run, and indeed all plans will fail in the long run is highly preposterous. Let us consider the framer of the topic's intent... if there was absolutely no succeed... why would they take the pain of establishing two sides of an issue? Obviously, we are not more enlightened then the framers.
4. The united states was not founded on SADIST PRICIPLES, and was indeed founded to protect the inalienable rights of LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF PROPERTY. In the end, any attempt to stop the venerable United States from fulfilling these duties will be shot down anyway, so why bother arguing to the contrary?

I will briefly cover the arguments presented by the oppressed agents of darkness and despair (the negative team) so they dont scream abuse

The First Kritik
1. The alternative does not hold up because it is in violation of the 4th noble truth of policy debate. This leads to the forfeit of this argument to the affirmative camp under frameworks.
3. The environment is firmly honored by the principles of 4 truths... we allow for the preservation of the united states, which can be considered part of the environment. If we reserve the right to preserve some, why not extend that right to do all that we can?
4. By saying you link to all cases, and therefore that is the link... you inherently prove the abuse against our value of education and enlightenment, once again forfeiting the argument to the affirmative team.

(its these little things that keep picking your argument appart...)

Kritik Two
Just logistically IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. The US would reject any policy dictating change to the fundamentals of our country.... we could more easily change our principles of free speech then our calendar. YOU MUST THROUGH THIS ARGUMENT OUT SOLEY ON THE BASIS THAT IT POSTULATES A WORLD RUN BY IDIOTS, WHICH OURS IS NOT.

DA concerning Coal and whatnot
1. As stated before, a CHAIN (a metaphor for the DA) is only as good as its weakest link, and if we break one of the links, we break the CHAIN. Its the end of the road for this DA. The negative team as good as forfeits this argument as well... unfortunately.

Second DA concerning the end of the world....
1. IN VIOLATION OF ALL 4 OF THE NOBLE TRUTHS... and is a perfect representation of the negatives agenda to keep us in darkness, and prove that the darkness is good. This is absolutely SADIST, and should not be allowed to pass.
2. The united states would never let its self endowed principles to be defiled while they have the ability to solve it.

Third DA concerning flatulence
1. The hardest part about farting first in a debate round is telling your parents your gay.

2. How can you possibly propose that we end civilization? Again, the US would never do something self-destructive
3. YOU HAVE PROVEN NUCLEAR WAR AND EXTINCTION IS GOOD? This again proves the insanity of the negative team.

Impact Calculus:

A note to flow judges:
We have successfully addressed every part of the negative onslaught, and dropped no argument the negative team did not also drop.
This leads me to my IMPACT CALCULUS:

3/4 ISSUES UPHELD UNCONTESTED BY THE NEGATIVE TEAM, (Inh, Sig, Solvo) = 75% chance of our case happening, so our plan is guaranteed to pass.

5/5 ISSUSES UPHELD OVERALL: (INH, Sig Harms, Solvo, Advs., Off) = 100% chance of the ballot going to the affirmative team.

Now, let me explain why you cannot argue with these numbers; Because our case is more likely to pass, the impacts of our advantages are more likely to happen faster as there is no timeframe for the impacts of the DA's, we must assume they happen after the advantages. Therefore, the aff gains the offcase and advantages, bringing the total to a round 100% in favor of the affirmative.

The affirmative team has had to put up with PROVEN abuse throughout the entire debate, especially concerning the proposed VIOLATION OF HUMAN LIFE, END OF CIVILIZATION, AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT. instead of accepting that there are problems that need to and can be solved, they play the pessimist sadist, and try to drag the whole world down into their emo interpretation. last time i checked, no one WANTS to see any of those things happen, no one wants to be left unenlightened... with obvious exceptions...

Happy Debating!
Debate Round No. 3


Vote how you choose. I understand I am in the wrong environment for a real policy round
Enjoy :-)

1. Buddha was a 500 pound crazy mo fo that did nothing but sit under a tree! He says that he is enlightened but that is totally bs! Would you vote for a jackhole that eats the whole towns food and just sits under a tree for a living? Absolutely not. The Buddha is the true representation of what seems like a good thing but really is not, he says hes enlightened, but really, he just has type 2 diabetes. Of course I am not the buddha, I keep myself in shape. Now idk what togamisan has been doing lately, but hopefully hes been keeping himself in shape too. But he says hes like Buddha. DOUBLE BIND TOGAMISAN!!! Either you are like the Buddha, and fat. Or you are not like the Buddha and I win the round!!

Now let me explain why this is a double bind. If youre like the buddha and FAT then that means you take the environment and subjectivize it and mold it for YOUR OWN GOOD. This is horrible and links him into my kritik (trust me on this one, im winning it if this was real policy.. But eh). Oh no togamisan! You thought being Buddha was good, but this is horrible for the environment. If Buddha had his way, he would eat everything on the planet. That ensures extinction because that means you want to eat everyone too. Mold your mindset Togamisan!! Get rid of your inner Buddha!

2. Nope. I am the true enlightened one because I can see through your BS and look at the deeper issue. Being that the Buddha is fat. And that means extinction.

And you drop my argument!!! Remember when I prayed? Oh man this is going to kill you. This proves I can mold a mindset because God told me I could when I prayed. If you would have addressed my prayer you would be safe in this part of the round, but you didnt. You dropped it. You cant come back and answer it later. I win because I have GOD on my side. And GOD is not a fat man that just sits under a tree, he works. "In the beginning...". A vote for the neg is a vote for Jesus! And against fat men that ensure extinction!

3. This is where you lose AGAIN togamisan. You dont know who the framers of the topic are, but I DO. They are a bunch of guys with no lives that sit at home thinking of topics for a living. Knowing this, they probably have a bad outlook on life. The only love they can get is found in a magazine for Christs sake. These people are SADIST. I actually conform to what they wanted the debate to look like. If one of those crazy old men read this round, I would definitely win because I tell the man to "talk to the hand".

4. The USA has committed the worst human rights violations of any country EVER. Who cares what they think. We have to START OVER and be CAVEMEN. Cavemen are the only ones that are in tune with good ol mother nature.

I will not cover the rest because this debate is stupid. If any real policy kids are out there, you know to vote for me. I know I probably vote get any votes other than that, but eh.


Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.

I think we should talk about that too. BUt not right now


I win because the aff is just a fat man that wants to eat the world. Vote neg to save your life!


MRLETHAL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


Aw man. He drops that Buddha is bad and that I am good. Not only that, he concedes nuclear war is good. It is very important that you show up for debate rounds. For these reasons vote neg.

I was hoping the debate would become even more epic after his response :-( but no... :-(


MRLETHAL forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
Eh. No need for CX
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
well its not traditional aspec by any means... I just wrote it because I saw how ridiculously abusive your plan text is because you dont specify which buisness will take the subsidy. Basically this is abusive because if I say "Nuke power inc is bad" youll just say "oh we dont use them".

First off they are pretty huge submarines holding some pretty big guns. We cant hover a giant plane over australia, we have a presence everywhere and these submarines are key to have a presence in the Australia area.
We dont need to. It effects us because it will decreases our hegemony. I can care less about Australia, but it effects our hegemony.

Kritiks do not carry "uniqueness" you perpetrate the mindset. That is bad enough. We see all the bad things because of these mindsets and its not until we mold them that we will be able to solve anything.

An overshoot in our carrying capacity. Resource wars because there is too much overpopulation. Ultimately nuke war and extinction due to overpopulation.

idk what happened to the rest of your question. you can take 2 more rounds if youd like
Posted by MRLETHAL 8 years ago
What does your "aspec" argument mean? Could you explain for the spectators what exactly an aspec argument is?

Explain the reason why:
A. Having submarines is significant in a war-scape dominated by air power?
B. The UNITED STATES needs consent of the Australian Gov't to do anything?

What is the uniqueness of any of your kritiks?

What is the impact of your second Dis Ad?

What is the impact of your
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
ok 1nc in a bit
Posted by MRLETHAL 8 years ago
Like I explained earlier, the GT-MHR utilizes PASSIVE SAFTEY, something the IFR does not, WITH AN INCREASE IN PRODUCTION, and a CLOSED FUEL CYCLE. This is the best design to date, why use an outdated model?

The subsidy will be as much as it take to allow the companies to build. When in a financial deficit, as we are currently, it is important to invest in infrastructure reform, which is what we are doing here. The subsidy will not be repayed per se, but will better our country in a way that outweighs the cost.

Look to the inherency for the "why not now" question.

Co2 levels increase carbonic acid in water, which upsets the PH level in the water, and erodes the calcium carbonate shells of the plankton, killing them.

We are immediately removing our powerplant footprint on the atmosphere, which left unchecked, will destroy the environment. The significance of the phytoplankton (not pyroplanklon) is that the extinction of one of the base load suppliers of food in the ocean will lead to mass death and extinction of ALL species, including Homo Sapien, a lot faster then climate change by itself.

We reprocess and re-appropriate the uranium, and other fuel sources
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
Why cant we use another reactor such as the IFR? It also works under the closed fuel cycle, why must we use this one and only this one?

What is the subsidy? Will it be payed back?

Ok, but why are people not making them now?

Can you explain how Co2 is killing them? They are underwater...

So you solve climate change, but your impact story is pyroplankton?

So you reprocess correct?
Posted by MRLETHAL 8 years ago
The reactor we are employing is called the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR), which utilizes the passive safety of the Helium injected fuel, and the productivity boost of the Gas Turbine.

It solves for the advantages by taken current form of producing of electricity including coal and gas power plants, thus eliminating the carbon footprint from such power plants.

The positive financial incetive will be enough investment incentive to build the powerplants, essentially a subsidy,

Current nuclear plants are inefficient, and not nearly as safe as generation 4 (GT-MHR). Additionally, they are too few in number to solve for the advantages.

Phytoplankton are a base level supplier for the ecosystem, and are an absolutely critical to sustain life as we know it.

Climate Change, as well as phytoplankton deaths, are what we aim to solve with our plan. The increase in CO2 levels have killed the phytoplankton, and the only way to save this critical component of nature is to substitute our base level energy production with a carbon free option. The only current option is nuclear energy.

Refer to the "positive financial incentives card" for answer on solvo.

The waste is usually recycled, and can be multiple times, spent uranium has a myriad of uses in modern technology, and that which cannot be used, is transported to disposal sites, though with the replacement of current generators with GT-MHR, as we advocate, the disposal sites could be eliminated as a necessity/
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
What reactor are you using?

why is it key?

How does it solve the advantages?

Define "positive financial incentives"

Whats wrong with the status-quo in relation to nuclear energy

Who cares about pyroplankton? why do they matter?

Is your advantages Climate change? or just pyroplankton deaths?

Explain your first solvency card. Does this mean you pay them every dollar needed?

You cause a reduction in coal use right?

Where does the waste on the nuke energy go?

More to come... with follow ups
Posted by fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
haha thanks. I didn't catch my mistake
Its not like I ever debate the resolution anyways :-)
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
jeez... an LDer knows the policy topic better than the policy debater. its actually, "The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its alternative energy incentives in the United States"

Also, you should note that the college policy topic is on agricultural subsidies and that according to your topic, there is no difference. lol
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Alexmertens559 8 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 peace-maker 8 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 fresnoinvasion 8 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