The Instigator
mostatebears17
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
righty10294
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

Alternative Energy used by 2010

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: 12/18/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,229 times Debate No: 640
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (3)
Votes (9)

 

mostatebears17

Pro

We live in a world in which the past is now blending with the present and possibly influencing the future. A world in which our most valuable resources are not being used and where our oil is thought to be depleted by year 2050. I am in strong affirmation that the United States must start using alternative energy such as wind, solar, ethynol, and electric type vehicles. We have to see that our Ozone layer is depeleting and our world as we know it will not be there for our children and our grandchildren if we do not start focusing on this topic. Corn is thought to produce a fuel that is cheaper and easier to make called E-85 and is already sold around the United States but we need to use it quick and stop using oil as our primary resource. The Nations with the most oil are our enimies at this moment and we must starting fighting this problem. Lewis Black once said "We live in a world without a Ozone layer, and we have men, we have rockets, and we have siran wrap...FIX IT!!"
righty10294

Con

Hello bears:

Let me get this straight first, I support alternate fuels, but having them by 2010 is impossible. For my argument, I'm going to focus on the car business. Having alternate fuels would be great, but 2010 is too soon.

1) Congress would agree with me here that 2010 is too soon, because their new Cafe Laws will require cars to have a minimum of 35 mpg' s by 2020(I do not support this law). This is a whole 10 years after than you propose.

2) Where can we fuel up. If we were to grow to full time alternate fuels in 2-3 years there would be no fuel to fill up. factory's and scientist need to find ways to these fuels at high demand. Another thing is we would need gas stations to fill up. It would take at least 5 years to get the right number of gas stations to fuel our demand. I know that General Motors is trying to get more E85 stations, but they are having a lot of trouble. It has been 2 or so years, and the only places that they are common are in Minnesota and Wisconsin (there are not that common, but there are more in those states than any other state). Lastly, how would we get the fuel to the stations. It would take billions of dollars ant multiple years to get a truck fleet to fit our demand for the fuels.

Three years isn't enough time. It won't be till 2030 before alternative fuels are more common than gas.
Debate Round No. 1
mostatebears17

Pro

Okay, now i belive you took this out of actual reality. I understand your point and i do agree with you that totally converting to alternative fuels by 2010 is impossible. What i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST. I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture. No thats a joke. Well these fuels such as wind, solar, and ethynol can be used very soon. You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it. If our big car companies would make more cars that could tolerate these fuels i would not have made this argument. But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money. Now is money more important than the environment. I think not. Just watch the movie "Who killed the Electric Car" and you will understand my point.
Alternative Energy will help Americas future, and if this is what we need then why NOT DO IT?
righty10294

Con

Hello Bears and thanks for debating:

"i was saying is that we need to start making a jump towards these types of cars because our oil source is not very dependable and also its the MIDDLE EAST."- Bears

I guess bears, that you haven't really looked at car news these days (i live around cars, because my family owns a dealership so i love to read about all the new cars). Just this week, President Bush signed the Cafe Bill to become a law (which i'm against). This is going to require that by 2020 all cars must have 35 mpg's. Also that Honda FCX is now available in southern California. GM will also start selling Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell cars, which are powered by hydrogen. This car is strictly powered by water, no gas. Also, plug-in hybrids are coming. Toyota will have one available in the 2nd half of 08. Chevy has the highly anticipated Volt available in 2010 and Ford plus another China auto maker has plans to produce plug in hybrids. For hybrids, Chevy will have a Tahoe hybrid (SUV) that will have better fuel economy than a regular hybrid. Imagine that? There are tons of other cars, but I have to stop at some point.

"I like how you are in agreement with the alternative energy and you have a 2009 camaro as your picture."- Bear

I back the producing of alternative fuel cars, but I love Chevy, and can't wait for the Camaro to come out. The design is awesome, in my opinion, so what does this have to do with supporting alternate fuels?

"You have to realize we have E-85 available and we just are not making cars that can use it."- Bears

We aren't making enough E85 cars?!?! That is what you want to believe for this debate, but it is totally wrong. In chevy alone there are 7 E85 capable cars. At our dealership, every car we get that's available for E85 we order and we have no trouble getting it or having a car that is E85 capable. I can speak for GM, they are making plenty of E85 cars.

"But did you know that GM and Ford bought out the electric car because they knew it would sell but stopped selling it because they were losing money."
-Bear

I can not speak for ford, but GM is selling the electric car in 2010. As I mentioned before it is the Volt. It runs on plug in electric for 40 miles, then your choice of E85 or biodiesel. They stop selling it, because they were LOSING MONEY! You will get no where when you are LOSING MONEY!

So in conclusion, you have clearly haven't read Motor Trend yet and saw that there are already alternative fuel cars out there. Car companies can't just decide they will make a electric car one day, and be on the lot the next. It take 4-7 years for that. We are currently in the 2nd or 3rd year. Everything just takes time.

Go to http://www.chevrolet.com... for more info.

Merry Christmas
Debate Round No. 2
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
"Meanwhile, nuclear generation will fill the gap if we, in the majority, can overcome the politians' fear of the environmental left."

I competely agree with this comment.
Nuclear Power is a very miss understood Alt. Energy, but all in all its the best idea.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
I agree with the Aff. of this topic. But not this debate.
I believe the Aff. needs to do more research and learn some facts.

"must start using alternative energy such as wind, solar, ethynol, and electric type vehicles."

Wind and solar energy are GREAT and we may be able to use them in the future but as of right now, they can not work together to make ENOUGH energy to run America. Espically the way we Americans waste it.
Posted by magpie 9 years ago
magpie
hey, both of you guys: Check it out. Ethanol and electricity are not primary fuels. That is, they are derived fuels which are converted - very inefficiently - from primary fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Because of the inefficiencies of conversion it is better to just use the primary fuels.
Ethanol (from corn) as a substitute for gasoline, in part or in total - is a scam. Very casual research would demonstate that to you. Ethanol from sugar cane is viable in tropical zones (Brazil) where cane is grown but does not work, here. Ethanol from switch grass, rice straw, corn stalks, etc. may work when/if scientists can develop an inexpensive method of conversion. Ultimately, thermonuclear generation will make ethanol and electric cars (battery and fuel cell)viable. Meanwhile, nuclear generation will fill the gap if we, in the majority, can overcome the politians' fear of the environmental left.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Justinisthecrazy 8 years ago
Justinisthecrazy
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
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 BB1 9 years ago
BB1
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Bigmomma1 9 years ago
Bigmomma1
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by texasrulz10 9 years ago
texasrulz10
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mostatebears17 9 years ago
mostatebears17
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
mostatebears17righty10294Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03