Here's the fact that should end this: in 2023, Google showed that adding more physical qubits to a quantum error correcting code actually reduced the logical error rate. That's the first real proof that scalable, fault tolerant quantum computing isn't fantasy. My opponent will say it's always 20 years away. But 20 years ago we had a handful of qubits in a lab. Now we have hundreds, plus logical qubits. The hype isn't wrong, it's just impatient. Give it time, and quantum will deliver on drug discovery, materials, and cryptography. The other side is betting against physics. Bad bet.

My opponent's energy math is a red herring. Yes, dilution fridges draw power, but fertilizer production alone eats 1 to 2 percent of global energy. Quantum simulation of catalysts could cut that drastically, plus unlock better batteries and carbon capture. That's not maybe, that's the whole point. And error correction overhead? Google already showed adding qubits lowers logical error. The other side is betting against a trend line. They're right we can't bank climate targets on one tech, but we also can't afford to quit the one that could actually solve the

My opponent just conceded the science works and then retreats to the electric bill. That's not a rebuttal, that's surrender with extra steps. Yes, fridges draw power. But the whole point is quantum simulation could kill the fertilizer energy hog, which burns 1 to 2 percent of global energy. That's not niche. That's food for billions. And energy per operation drops as hardware matures. The other side trades a massive potential win for pennies on the margin. Betting against physics, again.