By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels
Debate Rounds (3)
I stand to negate 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."
1. To start of, the fact that we are changing to alternative fuels is bad and means no improvement of the status quo : pollution and oil shortage; What happens is that when you introduce these new vehicles with their alt. fuels, is that these are still fuels. To get them will cost more CO2 and they themselves won't solve much. What we need is alternative energy run cars: solar energy, not onother CO2 producer.
2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", thsi i presume to be all types of fuels other than oil. Nuclear energy is a type of alt. fuel and it in itself is the worst idea of the century, imagine cars runing on nuclear fuel. My oponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide.
3. The resolution asks for 2040, as long as I prove it could be 2041 or 2039 etc. I ought to win. There is nothing special about 2040 and this fact alone negates the affirmitive resolution
Thanks and good luck.
Ps if you don't by any chane believe in any of my claims, just ask for the source in the comments, i really don't have my files on me, thanks.
1 – My opponent made a semi-valid point that all alternative fuels do not solve the problem of pollution and the shortage of oil. I assume, although he didn't say, that he is referring to diesel – which is already in common use in Europe where over half of all new passenger cars sold run on this fuel.
True, diesel is not a complete solution, though as it burns more efficiently than gasoline (petroleum) it produces less CO2 and provides better fuel economy. An alternative power unit such as hydrogen fuel cells produce only water vapour as a bi-product and, as my opponent conceded, solar power is a free source of energy and pollution free (although this would probably only be used as a supplementary source of power). Of course, these technologies need further development in order to become viable mass alternatives to fossil fuels, but the car companies have over 30 years to achieve this and have already made significant advances.
Just think about the advances in vehicle technology that have been made in the last 30 years and, with access to far more powerful computers, what can be achieved in the next 30 years.
2 – Certainly nuclear power is an alternative power source. However, I wouldn't envisage each car being fitted with its own nuclear-powered engine, rather that electricity generated in nuclear power stations would be used to charge the cars' batteries.
3 – 2040 may seem arbitrary, and perhaps a year either way wouldn't make much difference. However, One year had to be chosen and that year was 2040. It doesn't follow that because there is "nothing special" about that year that my opponent "ought to win" this debate by default!
anikiforouk forfeited this round.
anikiforouk forfeited this round.
Thank you and good night!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by iXetsuei 4 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:||7||0|