Pro ~ Round 1

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

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

I affirm:

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

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

INHERENCY

A. Fusion energy
-Wikipedia
-"The basic concept behind any fusion reaction is to bring two or more atoms very close together, close enough that the strong nuclear force in their nuclei will pull them together into one larger atom. If two light nuclei fuse, they will generally form a single nucleus with a slightly smaller mass than the sum of their original masses. The difference in mass is released as energy according to Einstein's mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc². If the input atoms are sufficiently massive, the resulting fusion product will be heavier than the reactants, in which case the reaction requires an external source of energy. The dividing line between "light" and "heavy" is iron. Above this atomic mass, energy will generally be released in nuclear fission reactions, below it, in fusion."

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

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

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

HARMS

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

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

PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

F. Funding will be from normal means.

SOLVENCY: Incentives of Fusion energy will be substantially increased.

Advantage 1: All Status Quo harms will be solved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You!

Con ~ Round 1

I forfeit. I could win this debate by taking a nap because I am a policy debater at heart and Mr. Cumbee has no idea what he is talking about. But I am the laziest person in the history of society so I decided to take this debate just to annoy him.

Thank you for your time.

Pro ~ Round 2

I agree, I do not know what I am talking about dealing with policy debate. Please vote up shaqdaddy as he is amazing at everything.

Con ~ Round 2

OK, now that we have it cleared up that I am amazing and will inherently win this debate, let us look to the real issue that we ought debate. The killing of innocent squirrels crossing the street by vehicular homicide. I know, this is a very controversial issue and I personally have a very heavy heart as my good friend Kate Moss (the squirrel) was a victim of this atrocity that we have in society. Now that I have made known the real debate, I would appreciate if Sir Johnicle would debate this as he has already told me that even though i forfeited that I should still win this round.

Once again, thank you for your time.

Pro ~ Round 3

Well... after my friend took this debate and posted his argument and posted my argument (as I went to go and get lunch), this debate has turned into a joke. But I will repost the debate or maybe find a challenger elsewhere. Flow through my entire case and cross-apply it to the squirrel argument. This argument doesn't have enough harms to outweigh the advantages stated in my case... ;)

Con ~ Round 3

I believe my opponent accusing me of posting his argument is complete blasphemy. I am a person with very high morals and can't let this accusation stand as I would never even consider doing something like this. In reality Mr. Cumbee forced me to take this debate, but in his enforcement he failed to maked me debate but simply accept the debate. Therefore I met his criterea and saved my family as he threatened to murder them if I did not accept this debate.

Now that I have clarified the real purposes of this debate let us look to a very important issue which my opponent did not specifically address. This would clearly be the all to common catatrosphy of vehicular homicide towards the Paraxerus cepapi. I really don't think proving some sort of alternative energy will stop this problem; and seeing that my opponent dropped my argument in my last speech that we should automatically debate squirrel homicide rather than the initial resolution, I ought automatically win this round as he dropped the issue at hand. I must note that he dropped the issue without being forced to do anything as I was forced to take this debate because of the threat Johnicle put upon my family.

Thank you for your time.

Pro ~ Round 4

haha... your last argument made me laugh... but I will make 3 points as to prove why this round belongs to PRO.

1) My opponent forfeited the debate in his first round... His first two words were literally "I forfeit"

2) My opponent did ALL of this by his own free will (including MY round 2 argument)... We were eating lunch together and I was asking people if they wanted to take my debate and he said he would so that he could run a counter-warrent. Then he got lazy and started typing essentially nothing (as I went and got lunch) he posted his "argument" and then got on my computer and posted my "argument"...

3) The only argument in this round is ridiculous, has no links, is not significant, does not apply to the resolution, has no effect on if you pass my plan or not (he even admitted to that), and does not outweigh my advantages PROVEN in solvency. And besides, if we stop using fossil fuels, I'm pretty sure that means we stop having to destroy the environment as we can then use the RENEWABLE recource known as fusion energy. Even if it doesn't, it still has NO additional negative effects against the squirrels. Therefore my opponent stands on no ground...

Thanks for a laugh but if people actually want to take this debate it is currently in the challenge period right now...

Con ~ Round 4

I really don't care. Vote for him I have just been messing around and having a good laugh. Although the issue with squirrels is a problem, I don't think you should vote for me cuz you agree with that.

Thank you for your time.