2040 fed govt mandate all light trucks and cars in the US should be powered by alternative fuels
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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.
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.
deflep1691 forfeited this round.
deflep1691 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by robert.fischer 8 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.