The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
14 Points

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

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,582 times Debate No: 6445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)




I stand to negate the following once more (I read the agreement this time so I hope there won't be nothing I' do wrong this time):
"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 another CO2 producer.
You see the problem is that the fuels need land and transportation and finally conversion, when these factors are included there is no reduction of CO2.
2. The resolution calls for "alternative fuels", this 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 running on nuclear fuel. My opponent has to defend all types of alternative fuels which is in itself a suicide. For example, Hydrogen vehicles will be used by the terrorist since each car will be like a big bomb.
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 affirmative resolution.
4. Finally ask yourself, why should the government mandate the change, obviously the alternative fuels are not competitive, a better way would be to go with tax incentives.

Thanks and good luck.


I really appreciate the being given the opportunity to debate a subject that relates to my favourite interest in life – cars – and I thank Russia very much for the invitation. Now, to respond to each point in turn:

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!

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting and I truly apologize for the inconvenience of having to accept the debate for the second time.

1. I do believe that my logic about "You see the problem is that the fuels need land and transportation and finally conversion, when these factors are included there is no reduction of CO2." stands valid, my opponent although has yet to answer this point (Please don't make that a voting issue, since there are still more rounds to go, therefore, the last speeches count when considering the conceded points) below is the evidence link.

"Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks
and accelerating global warming"

"Ethanol production increases air pollution"

The paper by Crutzen at al is frequently cited as evidence against the use of biofuels as an effective
means of mitigating global climate change, HOWEVER, Crutchen's methodology is flawed, when land use is considered there is no reduction in GHG emissions

Yes we have a come a long way, however, because the policy, plan, resolution, what ever one wants to call it, calls for all vehicles sold in the USA must work from alternative fuels by 2040, after it no other car may be sold, thus if we wait till 2040 our commuting would be cut, since no other car would be allowed to sell.

Secondly, although you are not predicting directly, you are implying a prediction that by 2040 we will have biofuels that work great, that is incorrect; Menand 2005, (he is the author I use to answer your prediction) what we find is that our predictions are no different than the prediction made by experts, furthermore, the more information you have, the more you are likely to be wrong, finally monkeys throwing darts are more accurate then the people who predict, therefore I urge voters not believe that we will find some miracle by 2040.

2. Ok, perhaps not nuclear cars, but the hydrogen example I have brought up, which was conceded weights heavily against the Pro. Imagine a world where we will be at a constant threat of having terrorists use our hydrogen powered cars to cause 2nd 9/11.

Also please note that my opponent has agreed that he has to defend all fuels, so as long as I prove one bad alternative fuel I ought to win, since it is Con's job to prove the Pro's resolution wrong. Again the resolution asks for "alternative fuels" word "fuels" being the multiple therefore Pro has to defend all fuels, I didn't make up this resolution, the national committee did for the PF debate.


"Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers"

3. Ask yourself a question, are we ready by 2040? Certainly there are no guarantees? Finally, if the alternative fuels are so sweet, why not mandate by 2030?

4. My forth point is conceded therefore I win that the government has no reason to mandate, and because my job is to prove something about the resolution is wrong, I ought to win. (Again conceded or not, please don't count the conceded arguments until the last each of our speeches, since the argument could have been overlooked)

Thank you for the debate and good luck!


Thanks for continuing this debate. I must apologise...I have only minutes until the deadline expires. I am afraid, therefore, I will not have time to post an argument that his contribution deserves.

Suffice to say that, my opponent made a number of valid objections to the current technology, which I accept. Nonetheless, I would reiterate that 30 years should be sufficient time to develop alternative fuel-powered cars - even if it is simply more efficient versions of hybrid petrol (gasoline) / electric vehicles with batteries that store energy that would otherwise be wasted as heat during braking.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


I understand and thank you again for the debate.

Firstly cross apply all of my points and weigh them against Pro, with that said let's go line by line:

1. First of all, I win that technology is not good now and that you cannot predict thing (Menand 2005), therefore at this point technically the debate is over.

2. Look at the plan, (PF January Resolution) it mandates a use of alternative fuels by 2040, why should the government mandate? Well, I don't know, it seems like a better idea would be to go with tax breaks and incentives which is not contested therefore I ought to win. Secondly if we put a mandate, what will happen? Well, the companies will have to start production ASAP with the technologies currently in place witch I prove, fail, therefore the solvency will simply not happen.

3. With my impacts, poorer people, pollution, global warming acceleration, and terrorism due to hydrogen cars, it is simply all too vivid that alternative fuels are not a good idea, and will produce bad impacts.

4. Pro has also failed to prove why 2040 is key therefore the resolution is ambiguous.

5. "30 years should be sufficient time to develop alternative fuel-powered cars"
-No evidence therefore voters should disregard this
-Develop? Last time I check we have already "developed" these cars, yet they are just simply bad as far as things go.

Please vote CON and do not weigh the Pro's last speech against me since, I am not able to respond to it. If he has new arguments, evidences, or analytics.


With thanks to my opponent for continuing this debate, I should like to reply as follows:

1 – Even though I may not be able to prove that there will be significant advances in vehicle technology in the next thirty years, we can infer that there will be by the advances that have been made over the previous thirty years.

2 – Tax breaks are useful but not enough on their own. There will always be a selfish minority of people that are rich enough not to worry about such trifling amounts of money and will insist upon buying V16 Bugatti Veyrons or V8 Ford F-450s that belch huge amounts of toxic gasses into the atmosphere thus polluting the air that we all have to breathe. Although very little investment in environmentally-friendly cars has so far been made by American manufacturers, European and Japanese car companies already have a wide range to choose from, and will no doubt be happy to supply the United States in 2040 should the likes of Ford and GM refuse to develop alternative fuel power-plants.

3 – I didn't address these issues in my last round, so it would be unfair to my opponent to use this round to do so as this would deny him the opportunity to respond so I therefore concede this point.

4 and 5 - A date had to chosen and 2040 was chosen as it gives more than enough time for manufacturers to develop new products.

In conclusion, the need to reduce the amount of pollution that enters our atmosphere is an urgent one and cars are a major source of pollution. It therefore seems reasonable that the motor manufacturing industry should be given a deadline by which they should be producing less polluting vehicles.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia is a very biased debate community, I am not going to do debates on here anymore especially b/c newbies use the arguments I make from this **** website.
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
It's rather amusing how I loose in my debates by exactly 2 votes.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iXetsuei 7 years ago
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:70 
Vote Placed by fresnoinvasion 7 years ago
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 Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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