The Instigator
Russia
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
Bricheze
Pro (for)
Winning
25 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+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
Bricheze
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,544 times Debate No: 6465
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (6)

 

Russia

Con

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."

The first round doesn't count and is only for rules.

The Rules:
1. Public Forum type debate, therefore no CP, Kritics, etc
2. Provide evidence for claims and explain things that are not simple concepts
3. Please accept with the PF rules in mind, a violation = losing.

Thanks and Good Luck!
Bricheze

Pro

Rules: I don't know what a 'kritic' is? And I disagree with the rules. It shouldn't mean an automatic loss if I 'violate' the rules, if anything it should mean minus a few points in conductivity! The voters can decide everything else.

Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is caused by our release of Carbon Dioxide. One of the main releases of CO2 comes from our vehicles. Whether or not you believe in Global Warming, you should realize it is a risk and it is to large of a risk for us to do nothing about it. And not releasing these harmful gases into the atmosphere is something needed immediately if not sooner.

Really why shouldn't we use alternative fuels:

1. Decrease the demand of oil

-less expensive

2. We will run out of fossil fuels eventually

-not reusable
-will replenish in a million or so years
-the demand is increasing at an ever increasing rate, more people using oil = less oil for everyone

3. Global Warming

-we should take action against it whether or not you think it is real
Debate Round No. 1
Russia

Con

Ok... Um if don't agree with rules why have you accepted challenge? I'm currently debating PF and really would like to get some practice, not someone who does not agree to the rules. Vote CON of the bat since Pro doesn't even agree to the rules.
Secondly, Pro violated the rules already, she has made arguments in the first round which I specifically said, not to be debated...

ONTO PRO'S ARGUMENTS

To all of my opponent's arguments I say "No Evidence!" Therefore she doesn't get a single contention and Con win, if she brings any other evidence later on, it should be disregarded since, it will leave me with less time to argue it which is totally abusive.

1. If we're to not use oil then the prices won't matter to us will they? What is the impact? None?

Secondly China is about surpass USA in oil usage and doesn't want to change their source of energy, therefore you don't solve prices, and you don't solve prices because you only mandating a change in US not the world market.

Our foreign policy won't change, we still have allies dependant on oil

Evidence:
"Oil sells at a global price, the U.S. can't be insulated"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov...

"Turn- Focusing on energy *independence* undermines investment in new energy sources"
http://downloads.connectlive.com...

"Independence wouldn't change our foreign policy since our allies would still be dependent"
http://www.cfr.org...

"Power-Sector Emissions Of China To Top U.S."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

"India and China opposes mandatory reductions"
Dow Jones Energy Service, December 12, 2007

2. "We will run out of fossil fuels eventually" When? Really? What is the impact of it and where is the evidence for it once more?

Are you aware that new reserves are coming and more will come, do you realize the extent of oil that is in Russia?

"New reserves coming online"
http://www.commondreams.org...

"Higher prices stimulate conservation, solving demand issues"
http://www.domain-b.com...

3. So you don't have evidence, and by saying "whether or not you think it is real" means that you're not sure yourself. Once more what is the impact? If none, then why bother?

"IPCC doesn't demonstrate a scientific consensus in favor of warming"
Daily Telegraph, August 31, 2008,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

WHY THE PLAN IS BAD

"Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks
and accelerating global warming"
http://ecoworldly.com......

"Ethanol production increases air pollution"
http://redorbit.com......

"Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers"
http://www.iied.org......

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?

Also, why should the goevernment mandate? Why not tax breaks and incentives?

Look at all of those negative things about the alternative fuels, is it really the solution? Unfortunately, not. The negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects.

VOTE CON

At the end of this debate, Con wins because Con is the only one with any evidence, explanation, impact analysis etc.
Bricheze

Pro

"Ok... Um if don't agree with rules why have you accepted challenge?"

You didn't say 'do not accept if you do not agree to the rules.'

"I'm currently debating PF and really would like to get some practice, not someone who does not agree to the rules. Vote CON of the bat since Pro doesn't even agree to the rules."

Stop telling the voters whom to vote for. You look really stupid when you do it.

"Secondly, Pro violated the rules already, she has made arguments in the first round which I specifically said, not to be debated..."

What?

ONTO PRO'S ARGUMENTS

"To all of my opponent's arguments I say "No Evidence!" Therefore she doesn't get a single contention and Con win, if she brings any other evidence later on, it should be disregarded since, it will leave me with less time to argue it which is totally abusive."

It was just the first round, you still have plenty of time to react. My evidence is just as good in this round the next and the last. I don't use evidence in the first round because I put forth very blunt arguments. I show it later on though. Not only that, but YOU didn't use evidence in the first round. Does that mean your evidence from now on doesn't count?

"1. If we're to not use oil then the prices won't matter to us will they? What is the impact? None?"

Not using oil on our cars, does not mean we will stop using it altogether. We use oil to manufacture goods, make food, etc.

" you don't solve prices because you only mandating a change in US not the world market."

So we are still the one's using the most oil, just because china is "about to" surpass us doesn't mean they will or have. And if we are still close to the majority, cutting down our usage on the oil will save CO2 and lower the demand, effectively lowering the price.

"Our foreign policy won't change, we still have allies dependant on oil"

So, if we show them it is possible to survive, or even prosper without the use of oil, then they will consider cutting down on the usage of fossil fuels.

"Are you aware that new reserves are coming and more will come, do you realize the extent of oil that is in Russia?"

Are you aware that we have no idea how many oil reserves we have? We could have enough to last us thousands of years, or maybe just under 200. With demand going up as more countries afford oil, do you really want to be totally reliant on it, less harmful and more resilient renewable sources to use?

"3. So you don't have evidence, and by saying "whether or not you think it is real" means that you're not sure yourself. Once more what is the impact? If none, then why bother?"

I didn't say I wasn't sure, I said you might not be. Let's look at it this way:

It is real and we do something about it: Outcome = A semi-good result (Some possible economic harm and harm from already caused side-effects)
It isn't real and we do something about it: Outcome = A semi-good result (Some possible economic harm)
It isn't real and we don't do something about it: Outcome = A good result (Nothing happens)
It is real and we DON'T do something about it: Outcome = REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD. (political, environmental, social, and economic collapse, public health is severely reduced)

"WHY THE PLAN IS BAD"

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

Did you think about the ways we retrieve oil and how negative it is? It is much more harmful then agriculture. What about other renewable sources, water vapor or energy for example?

"Ethanol production increases air pollution"

Ethanol isn't a green house gas, and isn't that harmful.

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

It is bound to happen eventually, stopping the production of much needed goods isn't going to prevent it. In fact, I AM a small-scale farmer. It has impacted my lifestyle, but not over-effectively, or anything.

"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?"

We might not be, laws can be changed you know. And we aren't ready, I never once said they were perfect.

"Also, why should the government mandate? Why not tax breaks and incentives?"

Because it is important to stop. That's the same thing as asking: Why do we mandate murder being against the law, instead of just rewarding people every year they don't kill someone.

"Look at all of those negative things about the alternative fuels, is it really the solution?"

I looked at them, they are part of the solution. Not close to enough, but every bit helps.

"Unfortunately, not. The negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects."

I disagree.

Pro's SOURCES: Age of Consequences, Stern Report, Science Daily, Manpollo, PBI Leadership Camp, Kevin Burke, Robert Buchanan, my puppy-dog, Bricheze, and The Impacts of a Warming Arctic

"VOTE CON"

Do you know how desperate it makes you look to tell people to vote for 'con'?

"At the end of this debate, Con wins because Con is the only one with any evidence, explanation, impact analysis etc."

You should vote for me because I have two ferrets. *Nods head and smiles*
Debate Round No. 2
Russia

Con

I take that you are not a debater, correct?
The rules are laid so that the opponent who chooses to debate me will agree with the rules, that was not a framework that could be debated, just a simple lay out of the basic PF debate rules, under which I'd like to a have a debate.
You see the problem arises when one person debates in one manner and the other in another, confusion arises and the debate loses its value.

As a debater, it's a good idea to explain to the judge why you win.

Look, you should have read the rules, I'll let that one slip because I can't really stop this debate.

What are you talking about? How old are you? Forget about it, look you had no evidence to support your claims therefore none of your arguments went through; secondly as I have explained the first round is just for people to see what they will debate, aka PF. And no you can't bring evidence in the last speech since I will not be able to respond to it, which makes it unfair, and the judge will be compelled to vote on fairness

So we will still be dependent on oil, therefore you don't solve oil dependency, thank you.

Ok, again where do you have an evidence to warrant any of your claims about lowering CO2 and stuff? Are you aware that the plan will increase CO2? Probably not, but I will get to that later in my speech.

"China & India will dramatically surpass U.S. energy consumption"
Minqi Li, Department of Economics, University of Utah, November 2007, "Peak oil, the rise of China
and India, and the global energy crisis.(Report). ." Journal of Contemporary Asia. 449(23).

How are you getting all of you claims? They are simply naive, first of all you claim that oil prices will go down, then why should the countries change if they will have cheaper oil? Then if there will be a miracle, what is your time frame? 100 years? Finally, the costs, you do realize that to have alternative fuels, will cost more?

200 years? Great, but our current technology is not good, even a lover of this type of plan, whom I have just debated agrees, his answer is let us basically wait and see if we improve our technology. Lets wait that time, we're sure that we can last for 100 years with the current plants, so with more coming online that is no reason why we should convert to something that is uneconomical.

So you don't even know if GW is not real? I have 32, 000 scientists opposing it, and the few that don't oppose it, ignore the facts
"32,000 scientists deny the human-CO2 claim"
http://www.freep.com...

PLAN BAD

We have safe ways of drilling, the places we drill at are wastelands and no net harm is done, some of the biggest CO2 drivers are deforestation and methane.

Hydro, wind, and solar not realistic sources for hydrogen
Michael K. Heiman is a professor of environmental studies and geography at Dickinson College in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Environment. Washington: Oct 2007. Vol. 49, Iss. 8; pg. 10, 16 pgs

Growing more corn for biofuels in the U.S. means soy is grown in Brazil, increasing Amazon
deforestation
Business and the Environment, March 2008, p. 14 "Bio fuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More
than Oil"

These "small-scale farmers" are the majority who will get poorer because of you're plan. And how old are you? What, 15-16? Do you provide food for your family to live? No you don't. If you were you wouldn't be online.

"We might not be" good, then your plan fails, Con wins, did you even read the resolution?
I don't say the alternative fuels are perfect either, I say if they are good enough for us to pass this plan then why not mandate it earlier?

Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins.

You might disagree that the negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects, but what is your rational?

CONCEDED ARGUMENTS: (NO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THEREFORE MY EVIDENCE STANDS SUPERIOR)

"Ethanol production increases air pollution"
http://redorbit.com.........

"Higher prices stimulate conservation, solving demand issues"
http://www.domain-b.com......

"Turn- Focusing on energy *independence* undermines investment in new energy sources"
http://downloads.connectlive.com......

More evidence to support my claims

"Ethanol produces a net loss of energy"
"U.S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation"
"Corn ethanol production triggers water shortages, soil erosion, and pesticide use"
http://redorbit.com...
ml

"Corn ethanol will double greenhouse gases"
Nation's Health, April 2008, p. 12

At the end of this debate, ask yourself:
Will the plan truly make a difference, or will it just give a false sense of security?
Is Pro warranted better for her claims, or is Con the one with best supproted claims?

Since the answer to the above questions is the letter of two, I urge you to vote Con

As for your sources, um yeah I m going to Google "my puppy-dog" and look up at some pets... Maybe you could be just a little more specific?

CON!!!

Vote Con, as there is at this point no other choice.
Bricheze

Pro

"I take that you are not a debater, correct?"

No I am, just because I don't like to follow rules that I shouldn't have to follow, it doesn't change the fact that I have an account on debate.org. Look, if the voters think I don't have adequate sources, let them vote that I do not under that one point of the 7 they have to vote on. I shouldn't lose the entire debate because of one point, and you shouldn't be allowed to 'mandate' the amount of sources I have. If anything it's good that I don't have enough of my so-called evidence, that way you can score at least one of the seven points.

"As a debater, it's a good idea to explain to the judge why you win."

This isn't a PF debate, it is an online one.

"Look, you should have read the rules, I'll let that one slip because I can't really stop this debate."

I read the rules, and I followed most of them. Simple because I didn't agree with them all; that makes me a horrible debater, an automatic loser, and an idiot that has never had a debate before?

"What are you talking about?"

The debate subject is alternative fuels, and I mainly stuck to talking about your arguments....

"Forget about it, look you had no evidence to support your claims therefore none of your arguments went through;"

I showed my logic and my sources. And even if I didn't have evidence, that is still only 1/7th of the debate points. Just because you say I lose 1/7th of the debate, does not mean an automatic loss for the rest of the points.

" secondly as I have explained the first round is just for people to see what they will debate, aka PF. And no you can't bring evidence in the last speech since I will not be able to respond to it, which makes it unfair, and the judge will be compelled to vote on fairness"

Yes, you can respond to it, and you could of responded to it! You just simply chose not to, in those words above you could have easily made a rebuttal to my arguments, but instead you simply made one towards me? And you call ME the bad debater...

"So we will still be dependent on oil, therefore you don't solve oil dependency, thank you."

No we won't, we will still USE oil, be we will no longer be so dependent on it, that other countries can control us with it or that we are willing to destroy the environment to use it.

"Ok, again where do you have an evidence to warrant any of your claims about lowering CO2 and stuff? Are you aware that the plan will increase CO2? Probably not, but I will get to that later in my speech."

Are you aware that your just talking and talking, but still not yet to make any good points or use any logic? I'm sure you have adequately destroyed my character for the voters--can we move on already?

"China & India will dramatically surpass U.S. energy consumption"
Minqi Li, Department of Economics, University of Utah, November 2007, "Peak oil, the rise of China
and India, and the global energy crisis.(Report). ." Journal of Contemporary Asia. 449(23)."

Okay fine, let's say China could surpass us in oil usage, that still doesn't matter. That's just like when children say 'My brother was allowed to hit Johnny, therefore I am allowed to hit Johnny." Except switch out Johnny with the Environment, switch out hit with dangerously increasing CO2 levels, switch out brother with China, and yourself with the USA. And another thing, decreasing the hits, decreases the pain to Johnny, or, using my metaphor the Earth.

"How are you getting all of you claims?"

Well I visited the Artic this fall, spent a week their talking to the top scientists in the world, I own my own non-profit organization that works to combat global warming, I have spent countless hours researching not only science, but the scientists who discovered the findings credibility.... I've done some stuff to research this. Please do not assume.

"They are simply naive,"

Once again, I think you have destroyed my character enough now, can we move on?

"First of all you claim that oil prices will go down, then why should the countries change if they will have cheaper oil?"

Because they will have already changed? They will notice the fact that the price went down more so here?

*My opponent goes on to say things that do not have anything to do with our 2040 time limit*

"So you don't even know if GW is not real? I have 32, 000 scientists opposing it, and the few that don't oppose it, ignore the facts"

That is just such a stupid thing to say. I love how unaware so many people are these days. First off, none of those scientists had a large reputation to uphold. If global warming turns out to be real, it isn't going to destroy their career, unlike how if it doesn't turn out to be real, it will destroy the scientists careers who are backing global warming.

"We have safe ways of drilling, the places we drill at are wastelands and no net harm is done, some of the biggest CO2 drivers are deforestation and methane."

The drilling wasn't what I was talking about (although there are over 80 recorded oil spills a day) I was talking about the CO2 released from oil.

"Bio fuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More than Oil"

Let's just look up your sources, are they even credible? Just because some online story says it, it does not mean it is real. That's like saying everything you hear on the news is even close to the truth! The media is trying to get your attention, and you are falling for it.

"These "small-scale farmers" are the majority who will get poorer because of you're plan. And how old are you? What, 15-16? Do you provide food for your family to live? No you don't. If you were you wouldn't be online."

What? People whom work for a living can't go online, well that sucks.... Back to the debate, what does this prove?

"I don't say the alternative fuels are perfect either, I say if they are good enough for us to pass this plan then why not mandate it earlier?"

Because people like you are saying it is bad, and slowing down the process.

"Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins."

Once again your TELLING people who wins? Seriously?

You might disagree that the negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects, but what is your rational?

*List of reports with nice sounding quotes*

A list of reports doesn't prove anything. You proving me wrong proves something. All you have done so far is copy and paste quotes, attack my character/credibility, and completely ignore all of my evidence, sources, and arguments. Have you even responded to one of my arguments? No. I'm not sure if you know what a debate is, but it's purpose is for me to say something and for you to counter it, not for me to say something you to say 'your stupid, naive, and have no real evidence' (even though I have a list of sources right in front of your face...)

"At the end of this debate, ask yourself:"

"Will the plan truly make a difference, or will it just give a false sense of security?"

As I said before alternative fuels are not meant as even close to a single solution, but we must do everything we possibly can, and they are part of the solution.

"Is Pro warranted better for her claims, or is Con the one with best supproted claims?"

Also remember, is Con coming up with real research or is he (or she?) just copying and pasting quotes, and refusing to defend them when Pro makes points against them?

"Since the answer to the above questions is the letter of two, I urge you to vote Con"

Once again, this looks like a desperate tactic to receive votes, I hope it works out for you.

"As for your sources, um yeah I m going to Google "my puppy-dog" and look up at some pets... Maybe you could be just a little more specific?"

I put that in as a joke, some people enjoy laughing, even on debate sites.

Let me just make this clear, all my opponent has done is: Copied and pasted quotes from non-credible sources, attacked
Debate Round No. 3
Russia

Con

When I said that you are not a debater, I meant that you don't debate on a debate team, otherwise you wouldn't make some of your remarks.

Without evidence nothing is warranted, or valid

I no it's online debate, but when you accept challenges, and there are rules, if you don't agree, then don't accept, because you're only going to do me worse, by having me school you. And you should explain to judge why you win, in any of the debates, -,-

Where are your sources? You have not provided any, and because you don't have sources your arguments are not warranted, you can't claim some of the arguments you've made, unless you're an expert in those fields. Sure on the voting panel there is one point for that, but, there the other points are dependent on that one point, such as the "who made more convincing arguments", look at it this way, if you say that countries will follow our move, then you have to have evidence that supports that claim, you are not qualified to make those suggestions, however if you have evidence it's another story.

I do not understand you, even after reading that line 2 times, look, the rules, omg I'm not even going to talk about them, you're just a kid with whom I do not want to deal with.

***?!?!? You are telling me that countries are controlling us, you're telling me that we won't be dependent, yet we still will use oil, and you're telling me we're destroying the environment, yet you have ZERO evidence, its same as me saying that alternative fuels cause mutations in the environment, now sure that's maybe possible, but without evidence it's just an unwarranted claim. omg, I'm going to have a heart attack in my school...
-
"China & India will dramatically surpass U.S. energy consumption"
Minqi Li, Department of Economics, University of Utah, November 2007, "Peak oil, the rise of China
and India, and the global energy crisis.(Report). ." Journal of Contemporary Asia. 449(23)."

Ok this conceded claim means that the other countries will balance out the CO2 not produced by USA and that means that there will be no positive impact, and these countries don't want to switch their oil use.
---
Ok... scientist... I looked at your profile, well you are lying about your age and all that stuff...
And I have answered your Global Warming with 32,000 scientists, I'm pretty sure they know better than you.
Thirdly, her "credentials" are only able to warrant some of the GW claims therefore that is not enough of evidence.
---
"They are simply naive,"

"Once again, I think you have destroyed my character enough now, can we move on?" Once more I'm destroying your claims not you...-,-
---
"First of all you claim that oil prices will go down, then why should the countries change if they will have cheaper oil?"

"Because they will have already changed? They will notice the fact that the price went down more so here?"

What, no, have you even looked at the resolution?
"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."

The resolution does not call for anyone but US to change! Again are you a political scientist? God, if you are then please edit your profile to at least say some truth about you...

Again I have specific evidence proving those countries don't want to change.

---
STUPID???? What reputation do you have? (Ok, this is going to be a schooling round)
GLOBAL WARMING

The earth has been cooling, not warming
Sydney Morning Herald, 11-7, 8, http://www.smh.com.au...-
truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html
Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a
slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past
decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply. As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told
his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than
before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures
have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts,
not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on
what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure,
interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are
clear.

No consensus in favor of climate change
Hanover Post (Ontario), September 19, 2008, p. A6

NASA has inflated surface temperature trends
Patriot-News, March 4, 2008, p. A9

GAME OVER ON THE GLOBAL WARMING, I HAVE WAY MORE BUT I DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE MY TOP CARDS
----
U.S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation
Fred Magdoff is professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in
Burlington, adjunct professor of crops and soils at Cornell University, 2008, Monthly Review, July
August,
http://redorbit.com...
ml
Media???? Yeah they are really wrong, yet you have nothing to disprove my claim with. -,- here is the one of the numerous evidences I have to justify Media not to be biased
http://media.www.the-standard.org...

This is a harm to the plan, omg, remember the plan which you are pro for? that plan has many harms and that is how Con wins, this is just another harm that plan does, people will get poorer not richer because of biofuels.
---
"Because people like you are saying it is bad, and slowing down the process."

OMGGGGGG, do you understand what I am debating here? It does not seem so, because if you would have, then you would understand that you have to prove the plan to be good, however, you say that me protesting this plan is not good, the problem is in that you do not prove why the alternative fuels are good after 3 rounds already. You see, it is also because of the people like "me" that we question the acceptability of attacking people with nuclear weapons, now is attacking people with nuclear weapons good? No, it is not. Same as this plan.
---
""Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins.""

"Once again your TELLING people who wins? Seriously?"

This is giving a heart attack..... look, please tell me how your answer has actually answered my claim? IT HAS NOT!!!!!
--
"You proving me wrong proves something." YES IT DOES AND IT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT.
"All you have done so far is copy and paste quotes, attack my character/credibility, and completely ignore all of my evidence, sources, and arguments." WHAT EVIDENCES? SOURCES? AND YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE EITHER UNWARRANTED OR PLAIN NAIVE. (NOTICE I'M NOT CALLING HER NAIVE I'M CALLING HER ARGUMENT, YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
I have countered all of your claims, I have proved the plan wrong, and yes the plan is the sole reason for this debate, thanks for ruining it for me.

"As I said before alternative fuels are not meant as even close to a single solution, but we must do everything we possibly can, and they are part of the solution."
As long as I prove its not a solution I win period. I'm not debating anything but the plan I stood to negate.

Desperate? It's how you debate -,-
Copy pasted sources? the quoted stuff is summary and then there is link -,- ; most of which u conceded
You putting a bunch of things as your sources doesn't mean anyone can find them, does, it?
I have made valid point which my opponent has no clue how to answer and at this point it a clear cut, Con win
VOTE CON
Bricheze

Pro

"Without evidence nothing is warranted, or valid"

I showed you my sources, and I showed you my logic. Most of my responses were logical or for something I researched a few weeks ago and no longer have a copy of. But I still showed you the thought line. And unless if you react to my arguments and say 'this is completely lacking in ANY evidence because...' then your main argument is invalid.

"And you should explain to judge why you win, in any of the debates,"

No you should let the judge decide for himself, why you should win, or give him an idea, not TELL him that you win.

"Where are your sources?"

Well, to quote from my early argument: "Pro's SOURCES: Age of Consequences, Stern Report, Science Daily, Manpollo, PBI Leadership Camp, Kevin Burke, Robert Buchanan, my puppy-dog, Bricheze, and The Impacts of a Warming Arctic

"you can't claim some of the arguments you've made, unless you're an expert in those fields."

I am, I have worked in the arctic, I understand global warming. I also work on a farm, I understand bio fuels. I am also a biology major, I understand the eco-system.

"however if you have evidence it's another story."

My evidence was logic, we are the leaders of the world. And if we do well after changing to alternative fuels, others will follow our example. If others feel this is true, they will agree with me and vote for me on most convincing arguments, if not they might vote for you. But, you are not the judge, you do not have the right to warrant the ultimate decision of all other voters.

"You are telling me that countries are controlling us,"

No that they have the ability to control us. What if the middle east just decided to stop selling us oil?

"you're telling me that we won't be dependent, yet we still will use oil,"

I might use alcohol recreationally, but I am not dependent on it as an alcoholic. (BTW this is a metaphor)

"and you're telling me we're destroying the environment, yet you have ZERO evidence,"

Do you know what NAS and AAAS is? They are some of the top and most prestigious scientific groups in the world. Here are some quotes that can simply help with my debate. Since this isn't and AGW debate I don't have enough space to get to much into it:

"The longer we wait to tackle climate the change, the harder and more expensive the task will be."

-AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change

"…delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur greater cost."

-NAS Joint Science Academies Statement.

"Ok this conceded claim means that the other countries will balance out the CO2 not produced by USA and that means that there will be no positive impact, and these countries don't want to switch their oil use."

Actually, have you heard of Kyoto? They want to start without us.

"Ok... scientist..."

Just like you I am student, a very VERY hands on student. I never claimed to be a scientist.

"And I have answered your Global Warming with 32,000 scientists, I'm pretty sure they know better than you."

Are you talking about the ones that are dead, or the 31'960 that aren't climatologists? How about the ones that don't exist? Perhaps the several that have very low degrees or no degrees at all?

Actually notable scientific groups that concede to global warming include these:

* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

(http://environment.about.com...)

"Thirdly, her "credentials" are only able to warrant some of the GW claims therefore that is not enough of evidence."

You've said it yourself, logic is a fine type of evidence.

"Once more I'm destroying your claims not you...-,-"

You've spent much more time talking about me, rather then my arguments. You ignored at least 80% of them. BTW they weren't even new evidence, they were all rebuttals to your arguments, therefore even by your standards you don't have a right to ignore them.

"The resolution does not call for anyone but US to change!"

But very likely it will cause change in other countries.

"Again are you a political scientist?"

I've studied political sciences, but I am studying a major in the environment.

"Again I have specific evidence proving those countries don't want to change."

154 of them want to, as seen in the Kyoto Protocol.

(http://savetheplanet.co.nz...)

"STUPID???? What reputation do you have?"

Not me, the scientist that support global warming have a large reputation to uphold.Also, you just called ME stupid, not my argument. (refer to my list above)

For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply. As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told
his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than
before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures
have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling.

"GAME OVER ON THE GLOBAL WARMING, I HAVE WAY MORE BUT I DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE MY TOP CARDS"

We should have a debate on global warming after this. I would 'school' you.

"U.S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation"

And oil consumption has triggered global warming, which has triggered the infestation pine bark beetles, which is killing trees at an alarming rate--much worse then biofuels do. Not only that, but what about oil spills? On average there are 80 a day!

"Media???? Yeah they are really wrong, yet you have nothing to disprove my claim with. -,- here is the one of the numerous evidences I have to justify Media not to be biased"

Lol, he is saying we should trust everything the media tells us... that just proves my point. Unless if you actually believe him! (What's really funny, is that the report about the media comes from the media, I'm sure the report it's self wasn't biased...)

"the problem is in that you do not prove why the alternative fuels are good after 3 rounds already."

It's hard for me to prove anything when you ignore my arguments, and refuse to refute them.

"This is giving a heart attack..... look, please tell me how your answer has actually answered my claim?"

There wasn't a claim there, well either then your claim that yu have won on technicalities.

" YES IT DOES AND IT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT."

You haven't proved me wrong, you have ignored me and added more and more argument and discrediting assumptions of myself from you.

"WHAT EVIDENCES? SOURCES?"

Well the souces I had listed, and the evidence I explained during the debate..

"AND YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE EITHER UNWARRANTED OR PLAIN NAIVE."

You still have to respond to them, otherwise what is the point of having a debate? Let me explain this again, I say something your refute it, not I say something and you call it 'naive.'

"I have countered all of your claims, I have proved the plan wrong, and yes the plan is the sole reason for this debate, thanks for ruining it for me."

When did you refute my arguments? I must of missed it... I got caught up in you yelling at me for having 'naive arguments' that weren't worth your time.

"You putting a bunch of things as your sources doesn't mean anyone can find them, does, it?"

...

For some reason it is deleting my last paragraph, even though I still have 500 characters remaining. If you don't mind I am going to paste it in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 4
Russia

Con

No my opponent has clearly shown no adequate evidence and I trust that people already seen that.

Again that's how debaters debate, so don't give me that.
---
Evidence

Alright first of all if you "Google" your "evidence" the only source I actually found is Age of Consequences, which is post dated by my 2008 evidences therefore prefer Con's evidence. Secondly your opinion is defaulted to bias since you can say whatever will benefit you. All of the other sources, are inadequate, like Science Daily, what am supposed to research for you, for the specific links?
---
Global Warming

Yes, and I have worked in Antarctic, where it is freezing instead of melting. Are you ignorant of the facts or are you just reluctant to lose? There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem. The temperatures are also shown to be decreasing in the time when we use lots of cars. Finally, your experts assume instead of having facts and it has become a politically party. These fact prove global warming is not real and do not accept any late evidence by Pro since she has held out 4 rounds without showing evidence and since this is last round Con won't have the ability to answer the arguments and it is unfair therefore should be discounted.

No matter what your scientific groups say, I win on two facts, one I have facts disproving GW and two I have evidence disproving your groups. (Smack down)

Global temperatures decreasing
National Post, October 20, 2008,
http://network.nationalpost.com...-
warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

Daily Telegraph, August 31, 2008,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists
who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world
temperatures are rising disastrously... It is not so much a scientific
as a political organization. Its brief has never been to look dispassionately at all the evidence for
man-made global warming: it has always taken this as an accepted fact.
---
FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHERS

Yes, logic, you can somehow predict how people will think and what they want to do.-,- You have yet to prove that they will want to, you have not therefore this claim is not warranted. And don't tell me in the next round you've studied politics in your college. Again it is you, and nobody who votes knows that you are not biased, plus you don't warrant your own claims, no wait, its your belief, well if voter will agree to "unwarranted beliefs" the here is my belief, the GW is just a scare tactic that scientists use in order so that we change our use f oil, they do benefit because they make discoveries, therefore they have motive, now wow that's a good claim.
---
COUNTRIES CONTROL US

Yes they really do, where is your evidence? Why would they? How could they? We have #1 Military in the world, no one can do anything against US, the only thing would be suicide, but the problem is in that these types of conflict are extremely unlikely, Mandelbaum 99, the major conflicts are obsolete, because of treaties, more democracies, people aren't stupid, and the costs of major war have risen and benefits have gone down. And no Iraq is not qualified as a major conflict.
---
NO SOLVENCY OTHER COUNTRIES WILL PRODUCE CO2
No I haven't heard of Kyoto, but I believe its in Japan, and I also believe that I'm arguing that India and China those countries that will produce more CO2 and are producing more CO2 will not want to change, one of the recent factors for China, CNBC, Russia's Risky Investment, I believe, is that China has been giving Russian's top oil companies cash to stay afloat and in return, more oil baby for the CHINA LAND!!! (Chinese) "Yey us"
---
Back to GW
Scientists just join the �€œconsensus�€� to protect their reputations and Climate skeptics deliberately ignored
Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, Denver Post, December 26, 2006,

As of for the 32,000 scientist link, I sincerely apologize if the link has not worked, it hasn't for me, in any case I have provided another link
http://www.americanthinker.com...
"Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science.""

Logic is fine if its a logical argument, yet yours are not, you need proof of the politics and GW etc

As for your first evidence of which I can finally debate, is not credentialed, I do give you those societies, but as my previously explained evidence carefully points out, your guys are assuming Global Warming they are not basing things on facts. And as for NASA, it has over inflated their surface temperature trends, March 4th 2008, and their own data shows a period of at least 7-10 years of global cooling. Again I have facts you and your sources are not being truthful. And no I am not a conspirator, it is ironic how only a year ago I used to destroy my opposition on the GW issue, the thing was that I was just out debating them and the more I know the more it becomes clear that GW is not the way it is portrayed by your scientists.
---
Yes, no it's not very likely, and I have evidence on India and China, the two giants who matter the most. The evidence is in the above rounds.
OMG, who are you??? Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume)
---
Kyoto Protocol

Thank you very much for the evidence, that is exactly what I like and actually need, first of all it doesn't say they want to, it just says they are a member of that agreement or something, there is no mandate therefore no reason for countries to change
I have studied that evidence and occurred to me that most of the countries have not put any commitment and aren't intending to do anything. Also here is a close evaluation ( I love that evidence, although it's not great if closely investigated, I'm going to twist it so much during my debates to help the Soft power argument :) ):
1. Among the top CO2 emitters, China which doesn't want do anything, and doesn't want to join, Russia, which doesn't do anything although is a member, and USA, which is thinking about joining the group for a long time, to put it nicely, most of the member in that Kyoto agreement don't do anything about their CO2. And if you put your policy in place you will be cutting trees down irrigating the land and all of which produce more CO2, cross apply all my cards, her own website and http://www.spiegel.de...
---
"you just called ME stupid"
No I didn't, and as everyone who reads this debate realizes by now, you're just trying to make me look mean, by lying about what I say.

As for your global warming answer, You have conceded my cards all of my arguments which destroy any of your possible arguments, a silence in a debate speaks louder than words.
--
Media
She concedes my answer b/c she has no answer, I win again.
--
PLAN
1. Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins
2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!!
3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won;t have choice to argue them and they're abusiv
Bricheze

Pro

Fine, you want evidence? (Otherwise known as quotes from media stories and random reports that have no credibility) I can give you ‘evidence' I know how to use google! Look all you do is this:

"Corn-based fuel is bad"

(http://randomlink.com...)

For that style of debate you should at least do something like this: (I am using my arguments)

Who says they have to be corn-based it is any and all alternatives, a good alternative is biodiesel, which is recycled:

"Instead of requiring new resources like its corn-based cousin, biodiesel can be made from the millions of gallons of cooking oil that are discarded by restaurants, cafeterias and households each year."

(http://www.cbsnews.com...)

We could also use PHEVs, because although not a perfect solution, removing oil based cars off the market immediately (to buy us some time) and selling PHEVs would help while we come up with better solutions. Plus if we find a way to make green energy, the cars will immediately become green as well:

"The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewable. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower"

(http://www.calcars.org...)

On to the debate:

See my opponent has neglected to mention the fact there are other alternative fuels then just biofuels. While it is true that some biofuels can have negative impacts on the environment, there are many more developed and undeveloped alternatively powered vehicles that could be used. Solar power, hydrogen, etc.

The way you are debating is just giving quotes from random stories, saying they are fact, and comparing them with mine (if I had any ‘quotes' but all I had was ‘logic' which just isn't worth your time) while not defending the quotes with any of your own logic. So let's just compare quotes now from other people, and not really argue back and forth. We'll just let some random people we don't even know do the leg-work, while we just type a few words into google and have our arguments finished. In fact, what if we just chose two people to debate for us, two ‘experts' count as good evidence, don't they?

Is that what debating is to you? Just pasting quotes from other people and comparing them with quotes I paste from other people?

Because I thought it was writing quotes from yourself and arguing about them with your opponent.

Evidence isn't just good sounding quotes from random sources, evidence is showing why those quotes are true, and evidence is showing people why you are right. Debating isn't copying and pasting, it is philosophical discussion and you seriously appear to lack in the discussion and opinionated areas.

"There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem."

Just like I said only 40 of them are climatologists. Not only that but several died before the petition even came into existence. And even more don't exist in the first place. And that's your solid evidence? Really? You should check your sources before you rely on them so heavily. What's interesting is that the sources you used have turned out to completely be false. Perhaps a lot of your sources could be just as false.

(http://www.sourcewatch.org...)

"far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists""

Actually, IPCC had over 300'000 conceding scientists, and most of them were actually studying things like Climatology and knew stuff about global warming before just signing a petition online.

"Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume)"

Anyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist, actually 16, I can send you a copy of my non-profit's license, it has my name on it as a director and president, yes that is a course you are required to take, I took college level last year, not all types, but I understand the basics.

1.Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins

Actually, biodiesel, electric, hyrdrogen, are all still very plausible alternative fuels.

2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!!

Why do people tell me I have conceded? Perhaps I haven't explained my argument clearly enough yet, but when did I concede? I am still arguing here, and your telling them I agree with you... Kyoto, green electricity development, more research into hydrogen cells, and btw, you just added new evidence, the plan you never argued plan before, therefore I am allowed to add new evidence into this as well.

3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won't have choice to argue them and they're abusive

You just abused it, I have the same rights, why are you allowed to add new evidence and I'm not? This is the last round for both of us and I don't have enough room to respond to new evidence.

All that con did this entire time was repeatedly paste quotes from unreliable sources. It might be evidence, but not very good evidence. Not until the very end did con officially start attacking my arguments and not my character, and failed pretty miserably at that as well. To tell you the truth I don't care whom you vote for, this was just a funny debate for me, because con was officially the most ignorant buffoon I have ever talked to in my life. And buffoons can say some pretty funny stuff sometimes!

Think of it as a metaphor, he slinged poop at my face throughout the entire debate, and then finally grew smart and decided to sling it at my words, and in the very end, tried to keep me from having enough space to react.

So really, I could care less whom you vote for, I just hope you think this debate was as much of a crack up as I did. Like we could really trust the media's take on something to be completely true and unbiased, just look at what they said about Barrak Obama, HAH!
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rageAgainstTheDebate 7 years ago
rageAgainstTheDebate
Bricheze is clearly hypocritical, claiming that her opponent is attacking her the entire round. That kind of judgemental attitude does exactly what she is accusing him of. CON FTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia
I have done enough research on the topic to see that the facts go against the GW. And as for a debate, maybe later because I'm too busy to have another debate on top of all the stuff I have.
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
Could you have a scientific debate on the subject? Where you try and prove that the 'sun' is doing it or something? I don't feel like having a debate like we just had on global warming, but if you want to have a scietnific one, that would be an interesting debate. Especially since you probably haven't done any scientific research, you've just said 'people support my conclusion, therefore I am right'
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia
Earnestly, these scientists who say GW is real base it from assumption, most of their facts that come out are proven wrong within 6 years, and they are doing it to get funds for their researches. You see, because they need government's support for their research they are trying to persuade it, it's all a political organization. NASA has overinflated their pictures so that takes care of NASA and even British agree that they can't really prove GW. And as for 32,000 scientists, your explanation of them is truly not exactly right, first of all half of them hold PHDs which is way more then when the whole GW craze started. Even your (scientists' who say GW is caused by humans) graphs are wrong, according to them we should have a problem already. The temperatures rose from the "Little Ice Age" (1800s) by a fraction of a Fahrenheit). Again the "facts" don't support GW.

I also love how you actually make some arguments in your last speech. By the way Solar Power is NOT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, and the Hydrogen is THE WORST POSSIBLE ALT FUEL OF ALL OF THEM.

And nice job lying of how I added new arguments... -.-
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
lol and 32'000 scientists was a total waste of my time. As I said before, they were either non-existent, dead before the Oregan Petition was signed, or not in a field of science to be able to count as credible Global Warming evaluaters.
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia
300,000 IPCC scientists is a lie!!!!
Bricheze you're being ignorant and inconsiderate, where do you draw your facts from? Your imagination?
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia
Three key points:
1. You are both from the same city, same state, and of same age, friends? Without a doubt. -.-
2. MagicalSmoke, all of the voting arguments Bricheze made were answered as well as enough arguments to bury her. She has failed to prove the plan will solve and didn't not contest my arguments of how it fail. The simple thing I have to prove to win is to show that she doesn't improve status quo. It does not matter whatsoever whether she win on GW, she loses on the grounds that the plan doesn't improve things. Besides, she didn't prove GW exists, independent of your beliefs Con wins.
3. Evidence? I like how Bricheze get awa with the fact that her only evidence that I could possibly attack is in the last speech... perhaps she was to afraid to contest it? Regardless, I know who truly won and it's all that matters.
Posted by MagicalSmoke 7 years ago
MagicalSmoke
Bricheze is right. Just because there is a link that doesn't mean it is factual evidence. And you ignored several of her arguments she had evidence for. All points bricheze.
Posted by Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
That is all you have though, is quotes. You have gone through the internet, collected quotes, and then just pasted them over and over again. You haven't refuted my arguments, just restated the ones I was originally refuting, you haven't showed any of your own logic or opinion, and truly it's been very bland reading your debate. It just seems like you think you can collect opinions from media stories, call them fact, and then not have to defend them, and continue to restate them over and over again.... while instead of actually refuting my arguments, simply saying 'your wrong because you don't have evidence' while my evidence is pure logic (from working in many of the areas discussed or research done in the past) or comes from one of the many sources I list.
Posted by Russia 7 years ago
Russia
Yeah I had the same problem numerous times, and don't even tell me that i just qoute, I know this topic better than most people already, and this round is not a good round since you have no true arguments, so don't even start.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by skyker 7 years ago
skyker
RussiaBrichezeTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by JesusFreak 7 years ago
JesusFreak
RussiaBrichezeTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by Metz 7 years ago
Metz
RussiaBrichezeTied
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:25 
Vote Placed by CHS 7 years ago
CHS
RussiaBrichezeTied
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 MagicalSmoke 7 years ago
MagicalSmoke
RussiaBrichezeTied
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 Bricheze 7 years ago
Bricheze
RussiaBrichezeTied
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