The Instigator
deflep1691
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
robert.fischer
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels

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  
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: 2/11/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 731 times Debate No: 6879
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

deflep1691

Pro

1. Helps fight global Warming. Environmental Defense 2003. Our light trucks and cars contribute more to global warming than 190 other countries.
2. Nano-solar technology is a viable option, it runs at 80 % efficiency only way to be better is having your car be a nuclear power plant.
3. helps solve oil dependency
- oil dependence as bad as WMDs ( Senator Dick Lugar)
- Oil dependency = 1/3 of the US's account deficit harming the US economy
- Oil dependency funds terrorists, 1 million of Velenzuela oil profits to Al quada from USA money
- 15/19 9/ 11 hijackers received funds from our oil profits
4. mandate needed
- Romm a senior fellow at American progress; no country has ever introduced a mass market of Alternative Fuel vehicles without a mandate/
- Tampa Tribune 2008, Free Market wont solve . The fickle nature of the market along with market fluctations hurts private invesments.
We need alternative fuels to help combat global warming and oil dependency a mandate ensures completion.
robert.fischer

Con

I would like first to take the opportunity to thank my opponent for giving me the chance to engage in this debate, which I am quite sure will be both fun and challenging. I would also like to thank my opponent for creating a topic that is not only important and relevant, but quite interesting as well.
2040 has, of all years, been set by my opponent as the year by which the federal government ought to mandate all light trucks and cars operated within our borders operate on alternative fuels, which I take to mean, "fuels other than gasoline or diesel."
I'll not argue with my opponent about the virtues of alternative fuels. While I don't feel that using oil as a fuel is completely bad or wrong, I agree that other energy sources could provide a cleaner, more renewable form of energy. There is no doubt in my mind that the emissions that oil products produce could be harmful to our environment, you'll find no contest here.
However, I disagree most emphatically with my opponents exhortations that, "alternative" fuels ought to be mandated.
The American people know what they want; businesses provide it. Remember, it was not government mandates that brought about better computers, better cellular phone technology, better medical care, and so forth. Private businesses saw a need, saw a demand for a good or service, and provided it to profit from it. Some of those businesses will fail, especially at the beginning. Such is life. But A business led by a maverick entrepreneur will come along with the right business plan and will make new innovations available to the public.
Why the government has a right to mandate such a thing is beyond me, anyhow. Show me where in the Constitution, on what line, in what article, is the federal government granted the right to control what kind of transportation I use? Where are they allowed to force companies and private citizens to comply with their idea of, "good," means of energy? Emission standards, sure. You might have a case there. But looking at an American citizen and saying, "no. Your evil gasoline burning Honda is not good enough. We are going to force you to spend your hard earned money how WE want you to, and that is on a brand new alternatively-fueled vehicle.
It's preposterous.
We have, at citizens and as business entities, rights that our government should not be allowed to trample upon. This proposed mandate is just another head on the 1984-esque Big Brother-Big Government beast that rears up every four years or so. We must RESIST government growth and expansion wherever it comes up, especially when it is illegitimate and Unconstitutional, as this proposed mandate it.
Debate Round No. 1
deflep1691

Pro

deflep1691 forfeited this round.
robert.fischer

Con

Okay, so just extend all of my arguments here...
Debate Round No. 2
deflep1691

Pro

deflep1691 forfeited this round.
robert.fischer

Con

...and that's the round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by robert.fischer 8 years ago
robert.fischer
deflep1691robert.fischerTied
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