The Instigator
jacob9874
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuel

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Technology
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 852 times Debate No: 19576
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

jacob9874

Con

Would anybody like a vehicle that goes 90mph at fastest? Would you want to throw your old car away and get a new car? I, Jacob Park, the con side, am against the resolution: That, by 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels. I am on the side to keep our awesome ol' cars, in our ol' garage. Nobody wants to change our fast and cool-looking cars to slow cars ran by alternative fuels. Alternative fuels are the natural powers, such as wind, electricity, solar energy, and etc. How can these power out power the oil cars?

My first contention is about the weak powers of the alternative fuels. Do you think that wind would actually power a car? And if you think wind does, what do you think the maximum speed is? It is scientifically proved that solar cars' fastest speed is only 90mph. This is nothing compared to the cars ran by oil, which the fastest is 267 mph. In modern world, the customers desire cool-looking cars and the fast cars, especially for young aged people, since they like to enjoy fast speed.
imabench

Pro

Electric cars can go very fast already, the Chevy Cruze for example can reach speeds of 100mph right now, by 2040 future cars could go much faster. I consider 100 mph to be fast, and most oil-powered cars have limits of just over 100 mph... the 267 mph number the Con is using is for NASCAR cars, not cars available for public use.

Proof that solar cars can exceed 90 mph, http://science.howstuffworks.com...

In the modern world consumers want cars that dont burn through gas quickly. With gas prices climbing higher consumers want cars that save them money by having a higher MPG rating. Cars that run on other fuels produce less pollution too so they benefit the environment more.
Debate Round No. 1
jacob9874

Con

Thank you for responding to my argument.

First of all, this mandate will consume LOTs of money, and is bad for the poorer people.

This mandate means that no citizens will no longer use the oil cars. Then, how about the people who has oil cars that costs thousands of money? And the more significant point is, how about the people who cannot afford to get a new alt. fuel cars? This mandate does not consider the poorer people, who will lose the right to ride their oil cars, and will not have the sufficient money to purchase a new, alt fueled, cars. I ask you people, do you think people has to lose their precious cars and be forced to buy a new one, for the sake of saving environment?

I will post my second argument after the opponent's response.
imabench

Pro

Such a mandate would cost money but the long term benefits from paying less to refuel would over time offset the costs. Also the mandate would lead to a better environment so less money would be needed to help make it better.

People could still use oil powered cars, the law would require NEW cars to be powered with other fuels, people dont lose a right to their oil cars they only lose the ability to purchase newer gas powered cars. If production is large enough though such cars could become affordable if enough of them could be produced fast enough so that even poorer people could afford them. A new "cash for clunkers" program may also help the poor buy newer cars, it was a hit before it would be a hit in the future as well.
Debate Round No. 2
jacob9874

Con

Just so you know, the debate topic is the Federal Government, which is also known as United States central government.

This means that all U.S. citizens will lose the rights to drive oil cars, and cannot drive a car unless it's ran by alt. fuel. This will be the biggest technological revolutionary, and along with that, it will demand priceless money. U.S. is not a rich country, and is in debt, which is over $15 trillion dollars. U.S. does not have an opportunity to do such thing, and should care more about the debt than thinking to change all the vehicles in U.S.

I ask you again, how will the poorer citizens afford a new car?
United States do not have enough wealth to provide each citizens a new car, and it's impossible.
imabench

Pro

The proposed law only requires new cars to be powered by alternative fuel sources, it would not make driving oil powered cars illegal. The US isnt trying to change all the cars in the country because this law only requires FUTURE cars to be powered on cleaner fuel sources. Poorer people could afford these cars if mass production were large enough the price of the new cars would be lower, the same thing happened with the Model T Ford because so many of them could be made. The program I cited would be a program where people who want to upgrade to a new car would get government help, not an all expense paid upgrade like you claim. People would get aid to buy new cars and in some cases could afford to buy new cars with government help.
Debate Round No. 3
jacob9874

Con

jacob9874 forfeited this round.
imabench

Pro

Vote Pro :D

I wish we could have had a larger character limit though.....
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
why did you lower the time limit to post arguments from 72 hours to 12?
Posted by jacob9874 5 years ago
jacob9874
Guys I'm sorry I was at school and forgot to post my argument for Round 4
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
jacob9874imabenchTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Should is a difficult standard meaning it is totally unreasonable to do otherwise, I saw no evidence presented to support the position. Cars go fast is not evidence.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
jacob9874imabenchTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Alt fuel is cleaner and better for the ecomy
Vote Placed by vmpire321 5 years ago
vmpire321
jacob9874imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well conduct goes to PRO for the forfeit... Overall, PRO's arguments seemed superior to me. Good debate