The Instigator
dance_mi_amor
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

2040 the federal government should mandate that all new passengers vechcles and light trucks sold in

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 5 votes the winner is...
wjmelements
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,772 times Debate No: 6620
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (5)

 

dance_mi_amor

Pro

I am for it because gas that people put in there cars is polluting the Earth and off shore drilling and drilling is getting expensive. and if we get alternative fuels which would also consist of hybirds,etc. than it would stop global warming and help the enviroment and also help the Earth go green
wjmelements

Con

There are many factors to weigh in when buying a new car.

The value at stake in this debate is liberty. That is, the freedom to do what you please and make decisions regarding your life.

Should the government require that companies produce lighter cars, then it will only have a small effect on the environment, as CO2 does not endanger the planet.

There are many reasons to buy heavy cars.
1) Safety
2) Durability
3) Capacity

1) Cars are much safer when they weight more. Heavier cars tend to do better in crash tests and are less likely to flip in an accident.

2) Heavier cars last longer and can survive more accidents than lighter cars.

3) A car can carry more people when it is larger. This alone makes it more efficeint. Further, a larger car can carry more groceries, bikes, etc. than smaller cars. Smaller cars do not accomodate larger families.

I thank my opponent for this debate but ask for him to clarify the resolution before I debate further. I reserve the right to adapt my arguments to my opponent's resolution and do produce new arguments as necessary.

I thank my opponent for this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
dance_mi_amor

Pro

The only thing Obama could agree with Bush about is bailing out the auto industry, because the industry was obviously failing . With the bailout of American auto-companies being hotly debated before Congress, this issue is at the forefront of the discussion. America's transportation sector is heavily reliant on oil, most of which is imported from foreign countries. Therefore this brings us to the resolution , That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. The only definition that I see fit to clarify is Alt. Fuels. Alternative fuels are derived from resources other than petroleum. Some are produced domestically, reducing our dependence on imported oil, and some are derived from renewable sources. Often, they produce less pollution than gasoline or diesel. What the resolution is asking of the affirmative side to prove is simply since the US now has the reins of the US auto industry, should the US lead the auto industry to start to transition from petroleum vehicles to alt. fueled vehicles. As we begin we will examine how oil has become very unreliable and will become even more of a strain on the US in the future then it ever has in the past. Then we will take a look at the environmental and political impacts of switching to alt. fuels. Finally we will pump are way to the simple fact that alternative fuels are the future.

Contention 1-Oil, oh how much we have come to not like it
The majority of people in the world know that oil was resting at about 140 plus dollars a barrel and we were suffering, but oil prices have fallen. So why should you care anymore, simply because of the fact that oil production is going to peak by 2040. According to Resource Investor ,"U.S. Report Predicts Peak Oil by 2040", 14 Apr 2007 ,Jon A. Nones writes, "In Feb. 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report to Congressional Requestors entitled, "Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production." The report examines 22 studies for estimated timing of peak oil production; 18 forecast peak production before or around 2040, with 2 more at or prior to 2050.". The industry has accepted this and the main reason why you should go to alternative fuels after oil production peaks is because of high global demand. The reason oil prices rose to 140 dollars a barrel was because we were consuming more than we could produce, therefore we produced more and that brought the price down, but the oil peak is significant because in the future when the oil prices go up, we will be unable to bring them down, because we can't produce more. Simply put we may be paying more for oil than just a arm and leg in the future. The US must mandate by 2040 because by that time we will be able to enjoy oil as much as we can, but we will be ready when the oil strikes back again.

Contention 2-CO2 emissions must be reduced as driving lessens
According to The Road…Less Traveled: An Analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled Trends in the U.S.", December 16, 2008, Transportation, Federalism, Highways, Traffic, Environment Robert Puentes, Fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program Adie Tomer, Research Analyst, Metropolitan Policy Program, "VMT levels have a direct link to the pollution generated via transportation. While aircraft and large ships produce significantly more pollution per vehicle than automobiles, studies have proven that a majority of transportation pollution is generated from personal and commercial surface Vehicles.", simply put petroleum vehicles are the highest polluter of carbon emissions. What is so bad about carbon emissions well if you may or may not know about the greenhouse effect. Life as we know it exists only because of this natural greenhouse effect, because this process regulates the earth's temperature. When the greenhouse effect would not exist, the whole earth would be covered in ice. The amount of heat trapped in the troposphere determines the temperature on earth. According to Lenntech "Carbon Dioxide", Of these activities fossil fuel combustion for energy generation causes about 70-75% of the carbon dioxide emissions, being the main source of carbon dioxide emissions. " and increasing carbon emissions cause global warming which is suspected that global warming may cause increases in storm activity, Melting of ice caps on the poles, which will cause flooding of the inhabited continents, and other environmental problems such as polar bears becoming extinct. We must mandate by 2040 because people are driving less and are using other methods of transportation so why don't we try are best to stop the leading cause of carbon emissions which is petrol cars. We know the effects and we must take action as soon as possible.

Contention 3- Politics, you know a lot people don't like ours so why don't we change it
Sub Point A-Political respect renewed again
The US has made many commitments in reducing carbon emissions and has not met any of them. It is even happening in are allies country. According to BBC News Aug. 28,2007 "Lib Dems urge end to petrol cars " Chris Huhne , "The EU is now committed to reducing the emissions from cars on average. "What we are saying is that needs to go further. We need to provide certainty to the car Industry and every other industry that is involved in this area to make sure that by 2040 we are using alternative non-carbon emitting fuels. ", it simply means this, as a government looking at the well being of the US in committing to lower carbon emissions and helping the environment we must guide the auto industry in the right direction. Also by fulfilling our promises, we will look better in the political spotlight and help the environment which we all breath.
Sub Point B-World leader, USA again.
The world needs a leader, a leader like the US to lead the world out of major challenges. According to the Economist Nov.6,2008 "Green, easy, and wrong", "Combating climate change, which demands technological and financial resources of the sort that only America has, offers the right sort of challenge. The world needs America to lead the fight against climate change. ", This is not just about us but the world must get off oil. It is not about the means, its about the end. The world is waiting for our lead and we must take it. We may be beaten up now, but this time reminds me of a poem about an old Scottish warrior, "Fight on my men, sir Andrew said, a little I'm hurt but not yet slain, I'll just lay here and bleed awhile and then I'll rise and fight again".
wjmelements

Con

This debate was over biofuels, not making all trucks light. Next time, I ask that my opponent put the full resolution as the resolution.

First, nuclear energy will never power cars. Neither will solar or wind. Currently, solar cars can only go 50 mph and still have to charge when not driving. Further, these cars are already covered in efficient panels and are expensive.
Geothermal energy cannot power a car (imagine that...). To store these energies in fuel cells and have a car run electrically would also be impractical, as no electric car has yet to be produced. This is because the batteries needed to store this power are so very heavy.
So, by alternative fuels, my opponent means biofuels.

Instead of mandating biofuels, which are currently more expensive than oil, the government should stay out of the markets. The markets will adapt as necessary to a new market. As gas prices go up, there will be a demand for a replacement and it will become a natural part of the market. Therefore, the government should not mandate it, for it would happen at a more natural and necessary time if not mandated.

In response to my opponent's first contention:
If some people don't like gas, they don't have to use it. Such is the way of a free market. If some people don't like biofuels because they produce more CO2 than conventional gasoline per mile, then they don't have to use it either. However, a government mandate would limit one's ability to make a moral choice in their lifestyle.

In response to my opponent's second contention:
CO2 is not a pollutant.
pollutant- Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.
pollute- To make unfit for or harmful to living things, especially by the addition of waste matter.
(Source: The Free Online Dictionary)
CO2 is not harmful to living things, as it aids photosynthesis. http://biology.clc.uc.edu...
Further, polar bears are not becoming extinct. The earth has been hotter than it is now and they did not die off. In fact, eleven of the thirteen polar bear populations are booming. The two that aren't booming live in the colder parts of Alaska.
Even if you find my opponent's claims true, then you cannot support biofuels because they produce more CO2 than conventional gasoline per mile. http://www.nature.org...
Writes Joe Fargione: "Previous conclusions that biofuels reduce greenhouse gases were based on incomplete analyses." (same source)
Some biofuels even produce as much as 420 times more CO2 than they offset. (same source)
My opponent is just misinformed.

In response to contention 3:
If biofuels produce more CO2 than gasoline, then we will not get a better global standpoint as my opponent claims.
Should the US force biofuels into American cars, we wouldn't be leading the war against a supposed climate problem, we'd be creating more of the problem.

So, my opponent's argument is based entirely on the assumption that renewable energy is cleaner than exhaustable energy. So, here's my argument against a government biofuels mandate:

It is not the natural way of the market. A government mandate hurts the system.
We have limited technology now, so we shouldn't decide what the future must use (because something better may come along).
There is not enough farm land in the US to produce enough biofuels to power all of our cars. We'd become dependent on foreign biofuels just as we are now of foreign oil.

I urge the voters to not vote in ignorance. My opponent's blatant value was the environment, yet I source evidence that shows that a mandate of biofuels would not help the environment. Finally, mandates violate liberty, and the spirit of decision.
Whether you prioritize the environment over liberty or liberty over the environment, you should clearly vote CON.
Thank you for your time.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 8 years ago
saamanthagrl
All research comes from some where, the original was probably a collective case of copy and pasted junk. Anyway, this was the resolution I first debated when I joined debate team, it was pretty easy I won 3:4 rounds. It is just really annoying hearing it again.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
lol I didn't notice that. Should debate.com members be banned for copying and pasting arguments?
Posted by KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
Pro's Round 2 is copied exactly from bigbass3000's opening constructive in http://www.Debate.org...

All points to Con.
Posted by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
At least post the whole resolution if you're going to debate it. I dislike Public Forum, and Public Forum topics.
Posted by gger 8 years ago
gger
I'm sorry if I'm interfering with the debate but here is a list of alternate fuels.... I've noticed both sides have insufficient knowledge of the list, so it should (hopefully) benefit the debate. http://www.afdc.energy.gov...
Posted by gger 8 years ago
gger
He means the following:

Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.
Posted by Maya9 8 years ago
Maya9
What exactly are you for? The resolution is incomplete.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by FlamingSheep 8 years ago
FlamingSheep
dance_mi_amorwjmelementsTied
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 LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
dance_mi_amorwjmelementsTied
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 SaraMarie 8 years ago
SaraMarie
dance_mi_amorwjmelementsTied
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 KyleLumsden 8 years ago
KyleLumsden
dance_mi_amorwjmelementsTied
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 wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
dance_mi_amorwjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06