The Instigator
Russia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SportsGuru
Pro (for)
Winning
26 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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 4 votes the winner is...
SportsGuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2009 Category: Education
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,173 times Debate No: 6466
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (24)
Votes (4)

 

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!
SportsGuru

Pro

Ok, before we begin this debate, I ask that all voters to vote on the merits of the debaters themselves, rather than which side they agree with. I agree to the first two the above stated rules and will not run a plan or any other illegal arguments, and will make sure my opponent is held up to the same standard by making sure that no counter-plans, Kritiks, or any other illegal forms of argumentation are used. I do have a couple questions concerning evidence though; will simple cards be enough to suffice as evidence? Also, if logic is sufficient to prove a claim, is evidence needed? Finally, concerning the third rule, I am confused as to why the punishment for the breaking of one of the rules is an automatic loss of the debate? Would it not make more sense to merely just invalidate that one argument (ex. if a counter-plan involving the post-office is run, and it is pointed out within the debate that it is a counter-plan, the whole argument is ignored) rather than to give an automatic loss? I am sorry if I sound egoistic, pompous, full of myself, etc., but it simply does not make any sense to me. With that, I wish my opponent good luck and hope for a good debate (and that I am not too rusty).
Debate Round No. 1
Russia

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate and good luck.

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.

GENERIC EVIDENCE
"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......
ml

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
http://www.dft.gov.uk......

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 to develop some fuel that will be actually good, our commuting would be cut, since no other car would be allowed to sell and we would not have developed alternative fuel powered vehicles.

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.

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. Sure one fuel might be alright, but the resolution is calling for alternative fuels, so if there is a bad fuel, the plan itself is bad, again i do not mean to abusive, its just the way things appear.

"HYDROGEN VEHICLES WILL BE USED AS MASSIVE BOMBS BY TERRORISTS"
http://www.chem-bioleng.northwestern.edu......

"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?

You see, the government has no reason to mandate a better way would be to provide tax breaks and incentives, instead of pushing it onto people, think about it, whenever the government puts their nose into something, bad things go, (When the government interferes with economic processes, such as vehicle sales)

Also, think about this, if the alternative fuels are good, why then they are not used right now? Perhaps they are not currently able to be economically competent, are they?

Thank you for the debate and good luck!
SportsGuru

Pro

Anyone who has watched Nickelodeon remembers the catch-phrase of Spongebob Squarepants, "I'm ready!" Because I believe America is ready, I urge you to vote Pro on today's resolution, Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new cars and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. My one "definition" for today's debate is a list of what is considered alt fuels by the Department of Energy.

Alternative fuels: Biodiesel, Electricity, Ethanol, Hydrogen, Methanol, Natural Gas, Propane, Biobutanol, Biogas, Biogas to Liquid (BTL), Coal to Liquid (CTL), Fischer-Tropsch Diesel, Gas to Liquids (GTL), Hydrogenation-Derived Renewable Diesel (HDRD), P-Series, Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel

(alt fuels = alternative fuels)
Observation: With the many variations of alt fuels, the fairest interpretation of the resolution is that Pro has to defend the general use of alt fuels. Pro defending one fuel would be illegally running a plan, and Pro having to defend every single fuel is simply unreasonable.

1: Oil Dependency

With what we have seen over the last summer with record high oil prices and the fact that OPEC show no sign of letting the low gas price we see today staying for long, we must realize that that the U.S. needs to find an energy source other than oil. Despite the current low cost of fuel, Market Watch reported on December 19, 2008 that "Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Naimi repeated previous assertions that $75 a barrel was a ‘fair and reasonable' price for oil". This control over the price of oil creates a dangerous instability within the U.S. economy as John S. Duffield, a professor of Political Science at Georgia State University stated, "As long as the United States remains a large oil consumer and as long as the prices of oil and petroleum products are ultimately set on world markets, the U.S. economy will be hobbled by high prices and susceptible to the negative consequences of the oil supply disruptions. Thus the most effective way to reduce the economic costs of oil dependence is to reduce U.S. oil dependence." The solution for this problem can come from the use of alt fuels, as the National Resources Defense Council stated "It is essential to be gin moving beyond oil as the primary energy source for our vehicles." This means we should mandate a switch to alternative energy in order to protect the U.S. economy from the danger of oil dependency.

2: Economic Future

The current economic recession makes investment in any stock or company uncertain. The mandate guarantees that alt fuels will be used and grow in the future. Investors will see this as a sole shelter in a raging storm. The influx of money being poured into alt fuels will help financially bridge the transition to fully using alt fuels.

My opponent's case:

My opponent begins by stating that, all factors considered, alt fuels do not offer a reduction in carbon dioxide. He then cites some "generic evidence". However, even if you accept this evidence, (I will get to that shortly), it does not at all prove his point, just that bio-fuels increases carbon dioxide emissions.

Evidence:

"Bio-fuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks
and accelerating global warming": Clicking on the link goes to a homepage, which does not offer anything that proves this. Even searching the website proves fruitless as shown here. Hence this should not be accepted into the round.

Ethanol production increases air pollution and Crutzen paper: These also link to homepages that offer no such proof. Thus, these should not be accepted.

My opponent then says that the mandate is bad because if we wait until 2040 to develop alt fuels, our transportation would be cut because we will only be able to sell alternative fuel powered cars in 2040, which we obviously would not have because we have waited until 2040 to start development. First off, nowhere is Pro supporting that we wait until 2040 to research alt fuels. This is simply a random statement by Con that has no backing that it will happen. Secondly, the mandate only has to be passed by 2040, meaning that the due date could be in the year 5000 for all we know. The government would certainly give the car companies enough time to fully develop the technology. Finally, the mandate only states that only "new cars and light trucks" need to be powered by alt fuels, meaning that old cars and light trucks and anything that is not classified as either may still be sold and powered by gas.

Going slightly out of order my opponent tries to show that I have to defend every type of alternative fuel because the resolution says "fuels". First, one must consider writer's/framer's intent when evaluating a resolution, and despite statements by my opponent, this is NOT the intent of national committee, the writers and framers of the resolution. If the resolution was left as "by an alternative fuel", this would force Pro to run a plan, which is illegal in Public Forum. Clearly the intent of the committee is to uphold the rules of Public forum, not place Pro with an impossible burden. Secondly, this is clearly abusive. It is quite frankly impossible to justify the infinite amount of possible alt fuels, including those that are impossible. How is it not ludicrous that I would have to justify say, using U.S. citizens' bodies for fuel (biomass), or attempting to build a machine that can access other dimensions so that we can search for other plants to use as bio-fuels? Con could just come up and list a bunch of impossible to fulfill alt fuels and say I have to defend them all, while he only has to prove ONE is bad to win. Clearly, this interpretation not only kills all debate, but is abusive and cannot be held up in this round As stated in my case, the fairest interpretation is Pro defending a general use of alt fuels. This also means that all the evidence presented by Con should not be accepted because I am only advocating alt fuels in general, rather than specific ones such as bio-fuel or hydrogen.

Moving up to the paragraph before, Con says, that I predict that we will have bio-fuels that work great by 2040. First, I never make this prediction. The only possible justification for this is the aforementioned interpretation that I have to defend all fuels, which I have already proven to be wrong. Also, as I have already said, the mandate only has to be passed at 2040, with the due date at any time.

Evidence:

Hydrogen car = Bomb: My opponent has dropped this evidence

Bio-fuels hurt small scale farmer: After a bit of searching, I found the article, but the same article states, "small-scale farmers have been able to increase their access to land to seize opportunities that the biofuels boom brings", so even if you accept this evidence, it negates itself.

Con then questions if we will be ready by 2040, and why we can't do it in 2030. First, whether we are ready are not is irrelevant as it is only the date the mandate is passed. Secondly, if we do it in 2030, that will still be "by 2040", hence supporting the resolution

Con follows this by saying that the government has no reason to mandate, that incentives or tax breaks are better and that government regulation is bad.

First, doing a mandate secures an economic future for alt fuels. Secondly, saying we should do incentives or tax breaks doesn't negate the resolution as these don't prevent the mandate from being passed. In fact, these options can be part of the mandate. Finally, I ask Con to prove his assertion that bad things happen when the government interferes and if the creation of anti-trust laws was bad.

My opponent ends by claiming that alt fuels are not economically competent right now. As I have said before, the state of alt fuels right now is irrelevant and passing the mandate makes alt fuels more economically viable.

So, until next time, please vote Pro; Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Russia

Con

I would I like to thank you for accepting the debate once more and I do apologize for the links not working. Good luck.

Sponge bob!!! America is ready for a real solution that works, not the resolution that will give USA's people a false sense of security.

I accept the definition for the bio fuels.

AT: Observation

The fact that Pro has to defend "all" bio is rather misleading, the core issue at this point is that there are only seven fuels that are recognized by the US government as ready for use, (from Pro's evidence), these are the fuels that will be used after the policy is enacted, therefore, my opponent does have to defend all 7 of them. And no it not unreasonable, there are only 7 cases to be made, we both have a limit to 8K letters and therefore I won't be able to run more than one DA at a time anyway.

* Biodiesel
* Electricity
* Ethanol
* Hydrogen
* Methanol
* Natural Gas
* Propane

1. There are few key flaws in this argument. Firstly, the main argument Pro is trying to get across is that oil costs money, however the problem with the alternative fuels is that they have to be shipped and turned into the fuels with a process that requires the production of CO2. Therefore on the net we lose energy in the whole process, thus it will cost more than the oil. Secondly, the problem with oil prices is that, many things of set it, we still don't have the oil reserves in all of the places, therefore the oil peak argument is flawed, since it counts only the installed oil reserves.

Another key fact is that light vehicles and trucks only account for 60% of oil usage

* https://www.aceee.org...*
Howard Geller

2. That argument is basically saying that its possible to change financially, yes, its is abut it will be an economical liability

MY CASE

1. My point is that there is an increase in CO2, I've posted the same link in "comments". And there is no reduction either, therefore it's not good.

Firs of all, you could have asked me in the comments for it, like you did for the Hydrogen evidence, and again I did post it therefore it should be counted.

What are talking about? It works!!! This site apparently has some issues, but again you could have asked about it in the comments, you do have like 2-3 days might I remind, in a real debate you would have 2-3 minutes maximum.
*http://www.dft.gov.uk...*

Cross apply what I've stated in the beginning observation.

You are not predicting 2040, but the resolution is, therefore you have to justify 2040.

No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster.

The government has been in control of fuel standards and has failed us for 20 years
Steve Chapman, a columnist and Editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune, on April 12, 2007
"The government's fuel economy standards also haven't done much to promote conservation. On average, new vehicles get lower mileage today than they did 20 years ago, thanks to the proliferation to large trucks and SUVs."
This means that because governments' choice to not promote conservation, vehicles have lower mileage today they did 20 years ago.

Because my opponent does not contest that alt fuels are economically competitive now, proves that they are not, and it does matter, because why should we pass some mandate if it will do us worse.

Finally look if we're going to pass things now, it will make new changes not possible if we find a better solution.

At the end of this debate one has to question the implication of the resolution. Will it help or will it only assuage our fears? Will it solve or will it not? Since the answer to both of those questions is the later or two, I urge you to consider voting Con.

Thank you!
SportsGuru

Pro

Government: Are you ready America?

America: Aye-aye, government!

Government (etc.) I can't hear you.

America: AYE-AYE GOVERNMENT!

Government: Oh…what could kill our economy today?

America: Oil dependency!

Government: What do we need to solve for it?

America: An alternative fuel mandate!

Government: If new cars that don't run on gas be something you wish…

America: Alternative fuel mandate!

Government: Then this we will certainly dish!

America: Alternative fuel mandate!

All: Alternative fuel mandate! Alternative fuel mandate! Alternative fuel mandate!

Government: Alternative fuel mandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate!

For organizational purposes, I will first defend my case and then attack my opponents:

For the first attack on my oil dependency contention, my opponent uses the following train of logic:

1 Fuels will have to be shipped and turned into fuels using processes that release carbon dioxide
2. Thus, overall we lose energy
3 Thus alt. fuels cost more than oil

First of all, oil also has "to be shipped and turned into fuels using processes that release carbon dioxide". So this does not make alt fuels worse than oil. Secondly, how does releasing carbon dioxide mean that alt fuels have a net energy loss? This does not make any sense. Until my opponent can prove that somehow the shipping and converting costs less for alt fuels and that points 1 & 2 are related, this attack fails. Furthermore, the whole reason that oil dependency is bad is not necessarily the cost of it but the fact that the fact that this can be changed by OPEC on whim. Regardless of what it may cost to process the oil, they can make it higher or cheaper as they like. My opponent then claims that I mention something along the lines of peak oil and that we are going to run out. This is a straw-man fallacy as the argument as NOTHING to do with peak oil. Finally, my opponent states that cars and light trucks make up only 60 % of oil consumption. Nevertheless, the mandate would still reduce oil dependency (even if it is not totally wiped out). So, this does this doesn't negate my argument.

My opponent states to counter my second point that the switch "will be an economical liability". The thing is, as my second point states, this is EXACTLY why the mandate is good. It provides the alternative fuels industry with the distinction of being one of the very few industries that are guaranteed to not only survive, but to grow. So really, this helps my second point

Opponents' case:

My opponent first repeats his assertion that overall, alt fuels produce more carbon dioxide. However, even if you accept every single piece of evidence he has put in this debate (I will get to that shortly), none of it actually proves that the overall use of alt fuels will produce carbon dioxide.

Evidence:

One will notice my opponent has dropped every piece of evidence he posted in his case with exception to the Crutzen paper. Thus, everything else should be ignored simply on the basis of being dropped. As far as the Crutzen paper goes, my opponent states that if land use is considered, there is no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, he offers no evidence to this claim. As providing evidence for claims is one of the rule that he stated had to be followed, this cannot be taken into account in the debate.

My opponent then accepts my definition and then tries to use it to justify his abusive interpretation. He states that since there are only seven alt fuels, I only have to defend seven. However, as I stated last round, there are infinite, impractical possibilities within each alternative fuel such as "using U.S. citizens' bodies for fuel (biomass), or attempting to build a machine that can access other dimensions so that we can search for other plants to use as bio-fuels". Under Con's interpretation, I would have to defend these and an infinite amount of other impractical suggestions. Furthermore, please extend the writer's/framer's intent point that he dropped that completely nullifies his rationalization for his interpretation. So, the fact that no fuel-specific evidence (including the Crutzen paper) should be accepted still stands

My opponent then continues to state that the resolution predicts that "we will have bio-fuels that work great by 2040". Yet nowhere in the resolution does it state this. Please extend that I only have to defend alt fuels in general and that the mandate only has to be passed in 2040, with the due date at any point.

My opponent's next statement is "No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster."

To me, this really does not make sense. I ask my opponent to perhaps rephrase it a different way and explain how it is relevant to this debate. Note: this DOES NOT count as dropping it. I am simply confused.

My opponent then talks about the government and fuel standards in an attempt to justify that government interference is always bad. However, this does not take into account what people are buying. If the consumer wants more types of trucks and SUVs, which get less mpg, then companies are going to make more types of trucks/SUVs hence lowering the average fuel economy of new vehicles. Hence, this fails to prove that the lowering of fuel efficiency is the government's fault. Moreover, my opponent does not show how the creation of antitrust laws was bad, leaving it as a positive example and disproving his own point.

My opponent continues on, stating that the mandate will hurts us economically. However, as my second point proves, the mandate will encourage investment in the economy (specifically the alt fuels industry) and will actually HELP us economically.

My opponent then asserts that "if we're going to pass things now, it will make new changes not possible if we find a better solution." First off, I fail to see how passing this mandate would make future changes impossible. For example, if we find that a better solution is to not buy cars, this mandate does not prevent this. Second, this is invalid as this is essentially saying we should not do anything ever, just in case we find a better solution. Finally, we do not have to pass it now, just by 2040, as the resolution states.

My opponent concludes with two questions: "Will it [the mandate] help or will it only assuage our fears? Will it solve or will it not?" However, he fails to mention what the mandate is supposed to help/solve. Since the only issue that has been brought up is oil dependency, and I have proved that it helps to solve it, according to Con's justification, you should vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
Russia

Con

I believe Americans are smart, I believe that they will not fall for their fears of the status quo and submit to a Sponge Bob tune, he is a cartoon for crying out loud.

That is incorrect, the facts are that currently the alternative fuels produce more CO2 then they reduce, therefore they won't be a solution to the environment, this takes out most of his advantages.

The evidence for that is below
1. Corn ethanol will double CO2 emissions, Sebastian Mallaby International Economics, February 25, 2008:
If you grow crops to turn into biofuel, you are using land; somewhere in the world, forest or grassland will probably be plowed to make up for the acreage taken out of food production. If you account for the greenhouse gases released by that plowing, fueling cars with corn-based ethanol almost doubles greenhouse gas emissions for every mile drive
2. Shinnar, Professor of Chemical Engineering Richard and Jonathan, & Reconstructing Climate Policy
A Hydrogen economy will cause rapid global warming because of methane increases which outweigh CO2 Decreases
3. 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 "Biofuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More
than Oil"

With that evidence, I would like to point out that deforestation is a major increase in CO2, and when we increase the use of biofuels, we will increase CO2 in that way.

Look, to all of the audience out there, do you really want ot mandate inefficiency? Nobody in their right mind agrees that alternates are good at present, sure they MIGHT get better, but who are we to predict when that happens?

Again I have not dropped any evidence besides, the hydrogen cars used as bombs, and I only did that to avoid giving anyone that awesome evidence. The evidence is in the speeches and in the comments since it Was Not working in the speech for whatever reason.

For Crutzen paper, yes I have offered evidence stop lying, and his argument is plain to any mind, biofuels need land, that land will be irrigated, planted, harvested, and the fuels will have to be processed which all trades away with CO2 reductions the fuels might bring. This is plainly evident, why do you think the industries don't want to change? Do you really think if they can earn higher profits they wouldn't change? Of course they would, the matter is that the alternative fuels aren't the solution.

Look, the resolution opens the floor for any fuel to be used, therefore by proving that some of them are bad, which in reality is more like all of them, I win, which would in real life lead to a different interpretation of the plan. Again I am not being abusive, the plan is being abusive.

Pro has to prove that alt. fuels will be good, they aren't now, the problem is that he can't which makes us question, why should we try and predict.

"
My opponent's next statement is "No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster."

To me, this really does not make sense. I ask my opponent to perhaps rephrase it a different way and explain how it is relevant to this debate. Note: this DOES NOT count as dropping it. I am simply confused.
"
By the quote I am asserting that the plan makes the latest date for conversion to alt. fuels to be 2040. Therefore if we would mandate the date to be 2030, the change would come faster guaranteed. Therefore you would get the bad plan achieve faster.

MANDATES

Look, the government has not improved our emission standards. What choice did consumer have? Either you buy a car or you lose your job... At the end of the day, the big companies were reaping the profit all because of the government's choices... Do we really want to put our future into the hands of someone who has failed us?...

Look, when you create mandate you will give the companies who make alternative fuel powered cars a monopoly, they won't have to compete or anything, because you either buy their car or you essentially lose a job, and settle down like people used to in the dark ages, do we really want to go to those ages?

Sure a mandate is "supposed to help" however it usually does not, now my intention could be to help someone by mandating them not to exercise in hopes to lessen their pain of exerting energy, yet will that "supposed to help" feeling help? No it will not.

OIL DEPENDENCY

(Katherine A. Siggerud, Vehicle Fuel Economy: Reforming Fuel Economy Standards Could Help Reduce Oil Consumption by Cars and Light Trucks, and Other Options Could Complement These Standards August 2, 2007 Statement of, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues; GAO Report GAO-07-92ln)

"Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transpor-tation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation`s oil consumption, and cars and light trucks consume 60 percent of the oil consumed in the transportation sector"

So if you do your math we can only solve for 40.8% of our dependency on oil.

Look if the alternative fuels are so good, then why do we have to mandate them? As my opponent pointed out, the consumer have a choice therefore we don't need a mandate.

At the end of this debate, the greatest issues are that Pro help increase CO2, does not solve for oil dependence, and most importantly, why mandate? Why not tax break and incentives? Why not let the principles of a free market, a democratic market, champion the day?

Vote Con.
SportsGuru

Pro

I will first defend my case and then attack my opponents. Please note that in both cases, it may not necessarily be in the order my opponent lists his arguments, but in an order that I believe makes the most sense. I'll try to keep things clearly marked, but just be aware:

Intro: Although I don't believe my opponent is taking my version of the opening theme for the Spongebob Squarepants show seriously, I would just like to say that its purpose is simply to be an intro that refers back to the metaphor in my case, not what I believe the situation would/should be like.

Oil dependency: My opponent says that such a mandate would solve for only 40.8% of our oil dependency in order to negate my first contention. Notice, nowhere did I state that the mandate would FULLY solve for oil dependency. That fact is quite clear since the mandate doesn't even include all automobiles. Still, considering the danger that oil dependency poses to the economy, a mandate that would solve for close to half of it is certainly worthwhile. So, this rebuttal does not negate my oil dependency contention.

Mandate helps economic future: My opponent drops this argument and therefore agrees with it. Please extend it.

Opponent's case

Since this is one of the most integral parts of this debate, I will begin with what Pro has to defend:

My opponent states "Look, the resolution opens the floor for any fuel to be used, therefore by proving that some of them are bad, which in reality is more like all of them, I win…" First, even if you accept all of the evidence my opponent has presented in this round (I will get to that further down), my opponent has not proven that even half of them are bad, just hydrogen and ethanol. Next, as I stated before, this interpretation's heavily abusive vs Pro. I would have to defend an infinite amount of impractical and impossible fuels while Con only has to commit his effort to attacking ONE fuel. Furthermore as I stated before (and has been dropped by Con), this does not fit writer's/framer's intent and thus can't be used. Finally, let us look at the real world application. If my opponent is correct in the horrible effects of ethanol and hydrogen, why would the government use those fuels? It would certainly make more sense to avoid fuels that have horrible affects. Thus my fair interpretation that has to defend the general use of alt fuels must be upheld in the round. Please extend that none of my opponent's fuel specific evidence can be considered because I only defend the general use of alt fuels.

Evidence

A Crutzen paper

My opponent responds by saying "For Crutzen paper, yes I have offered evidence stop lying, and his argument is plain to any mind…" After explaining Crutzen's argument he ends by saying "why do you think the industries don't want to change? Do you really think if they can earn higher profits they wouldn't change? Of course they would, the matter is that the alternative fuels aren't the solution."

First, although I assure the voters I have not lied, I believe there is a misunderstanding as to what I am saying does not have evidence. What I am saying does not have evidence is what my opponent adds to the Crutzen paper in his first round, specifically "HOWEVER, Crutchen's methodology is flawed, when land use is considered there is no reduction in GHG emissions". THIS is what I am questioning. My opponent offers no proof for claim. For example, let us say, hypothetically, that oil produces 500lbs of carbon dioxide, and bio-fuels produce only 150lbs. For my opponent's statement to be true, he would need evidence that shows that land use would produce and extra 50lbs. No evidence of any kind is provided, so this must fall.

Next, the fact that industries are not changing to alt fuels does NOT mean alt fuels are the solution. It just means that they don't want to. In fact, this is another reason to have the mandate; companies won't do it themselves.

B Evidence from other rounds

It is true that the hydrogen car/bomb evidence was the only one that you formally said you dropped. Yet, this is not the only way to drop evidence/arguments. During a debate , arguments/evidence must be extended. For example, if I made an argument about flying space monkeys and provided evidence for it but never mention it again, it is dropped and is not considered in the final decision of who won the round. This extension can be made either through defending the argument/evidence or simply saying please extend this argument/evidence. One will notice that the only piece of evidence from previous rounds that has been extended to this round (concerning alt fuels) is the Crutzen paper. Thus all evidence from other rounds cannot be accepted because it has been dropped.

C Evidence in this round

First, please extend that fuel specific cannot be accepted in this round because Pro defend only a general usage of alt fuels, not specific ones. Next, even if for whatever reason you accept my opponent's evidence, there is no impact to it. Basically, my opponent tries to show that alt fuels raise carbon dioxide levels, but never shows why this is bad. In fact, considering plants need carbon dioxide to live, wouldn't higher carbon dioxide levels be BETTER for the environment?

Statement I was confused about
My opponent replies with "By the quote I am asserting that the plan makes the latest date for conversion to alt. fuels to be 2040. Therefore if we would mandate the date to be 2030, the change would come faster guaranteed. Therefore you would get the bad plan achieve faster."

First, as I have said before, 2040 is NOT the due date for conversion. It is the due date for when the mandate should be signed into law. So the change would not necessarily come faster. Also, I've also proven that the mandate is not bad. This also negates his statement that "Nobody in their right mind agrees that alternates are good at present, sure they MIGHT get better, but who are we to predict when that happens?" In addition to the fact that it is irrelevant as to whether alt fuels are good presently, the fact that we would have till 2040 to pass the mandate means we would get an accurate picture as to when alt fuels will be more efficient, etc. etc., and make the due date for conversion accordingly. (And, as common sense would dictate, alt fuels will get better as technology progresses.)

Mandates

A Emissions example

My opponent states people had no choice in what they bought (What choice did consumer have? Either you buy a car or you lose your job), thus its the governments fault. However, they DID have a choice in what type of car they bought. If they buy cars with high mpg, it increases demand for those cars and the average mpg for vehicles increases. Visa-versa for lower mpg vehicles. Hence, it is consumer decisions, not the government that caused lower mpg.

B Monopoly

First, I ask my opponent to name the companies that would gain a monopoly because the produce only alt fuel powered cars. Next, it is only NEW cars and light trucks, meaning anything else can be powered by gas. Finally, the current car companies can produce alt fuel cars, preventing a monopoly.

C Doesn't help

I ask my opponent to provide specific evidence for this.

My opponent ends by saying we should have tax incentives or let the free market do it. First, these are both COUNTER-PLANS and should be ignored because of it. Next, as for the tax incentives, there is no reason we can't do both, so this doesn't negate the resolution. As for the free market, as I have proven, a mandate helps to solve economically for the transition and helps the economy, while letting the free market doing it doesn't.

Considering that the mandate will help solve oil dependency and help not only bridge the transition but the economy itself , and that Con has not shown why we should not pass the mandate, I urge you to vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
Russia

Con

No, I don't take Sponge Bob seriously, I actually thought you were about to. :)

Oil Dependency- As I would like to point out, Pro can at best solve for 40% of oil dependency, however, he fails to recognize that we will still be dependent on other countries for alternative fuels.

As I have contested mandates hinder our alt. fuel car industry therefore how can one contest it helps? WWe wasted billions of dollars on the banks who just keep losing it, is that good?

Look, Con has pointed a hole after a hole in Pro's case, at the end put all these together and they just outweigh the Pro's arguments. I have just attacked a few of the Alt. Fuels and hey, last time I check I proved they were wrong.

As I have said my evidence for Crutzen paper is either in comments or in one of the links. Also my opponent does not provide evidence that with the land usage variable the CO2 is reduced, therefore Con proves that nothing good is happening.

"the fact that industries are not changing to alt fuels does NOT mean alt fuels are the solution"
As far I understand that sentence = alt. fuels aren't the solution, I concede. Thank you.

Why would one not want to change where one can profit? It is because the alt. fuels are bad now, therefore you mandate an inefficiency and no you can't predict we will solve by 2040. that's Menand 2005

Look, unlike in a real debate, EVERYTHING is written. I just have to cross apply my agr. and as long as you don't have contradicting evidence, why bother pasting the link? as you have said yourself, 8000 character limit is bad!!!

CO2 Monster

As my opponent clearly concedes, alt. fuels increase CO2, now why is that bad? I don't know, perhaps pollution? How about the increase in GW? Sure one can argue that humans didn't cause GW, but all concede that we help accelerate GW. And Global Warming = bad times. By saying bad times I mean, the meltdown of the ice caps, do you realize what this causes, this cause the stop of the current in the Atlantic that will make Europe free, and as for Pakistan, their water supply will die out and they will be forced to Nuclear attack people for it. My evidence is Discovery, and CNBC.com

FUELS STATUS QUO

Pro says alt. fuels are good. Evidence? No! Now one might say well Con has not showed much evidecne on thsi matter either, so you can disregard both arguments, HOWEVER before you do, ask yourself "Why don't we use fuels now? And if we do, then why mandate and risk the collapse of the free market principles that are helping us right now?"

Mandates

Alright, Con presents evidence of what Government had done, does Pro? No. And the consumers have tried to get high MPG, but the best cars are expensive and not good even with its claim. Sure they say they have better mpg, but the problem is, is that the good mpg is bad in itself, therefore the government screws us up, just look at the bailout, BILLIONS went to the banks, and what happened, I don't know, the fact is that know one does... And is the situation better? last time I checked, economy was bad to say it politely.

"new" means
"not of long duration; having just (or relatively recently) come into being or been made or acquired or discovered;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Therefore the unbought cars have to run on alt. fuels. therefore its costly.

I don't know the exact companies, and don't have time to research, however take a not that whenever you give someone special rights such as having the ability to make product that everyone has to buy, corruption results which will contribute to monopoly. However, despite all this, the core issue is that Pro screws up everything by having a mandate which goes against the principle of free market. In free market people, consumers help companies grow, and currently 24% of the cars sold last year were on alternative fuels which mean Pro is not solving, its best case scenario is that they help, however the mandates are not good and cause downfalls which are only fixed by free market American market. wikipedia.com I know it's not the best site, but they do have the statistic for cars sold and statistics are not make up lies.

No these are NOT Counter plans. These are the thing stat my opponent has to prove wrong and he hasn't. Who championed Russian mandated market (USSR) or USA? USA did, what did China use to grow their economy? CAPITALISTIC FREE MARKET. How did our economy grow? From free market. History prove that free market solves and mandates fail. therefore I urge you to vote Con.

Vote Con! :)
SportsGuru

Pro

SportsGuru forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I read all the rounds but the last one. Don't tell me I voted unfairly. You lost. Get over it.
Posted by Russia 8 years ago
Russia
The votes decoded:
1- SortsGuru
2. Bricheze
3-4. Guru's or Bricheze's friends
Posted by Russia 8 years ago
Russia
Bricheze

You're just a little, pissed off at me girl who got crushed and is trying to get revenge. Grow up kid, you're going against the champ... and u lose ... owned :) crushed muahahaha
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
I didn't even read the last round. I was convinced before then that pro deserved to win.
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
@ Bricheze

It is your decision whether or not you weigh the last round, and if so how much you weigh it. I will respond to Russia's post (if need be) about my lack of time after the voting period is over so that voters are not swayed by arguments in the comments section. My point was simply that, when the dropped round is weighed, I ask that you consider the cause of it being dropped was time issues, not me being overwhelmed by Russia's argumentation.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Are we just supposed to negate the last round? Because even if I did, this would still be all points pro.
Posted by Russia 8 years ago
Russia
Dude, I haven't logged onto the website for a while, but the last time I did, you were online and had time to write a speech, so don't give me that B.S. And don't tell me you were busy, because I was taking finals while rebutting your speeches and I still got all As besides English. Why should anyone vote Con if you conceded the round? The only people who'll vote Con are your friends and you.
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
To voters:

The lack of a final round is not a symptom of not being able to rebutt Con. I simply did not have enough time (debate tournament) to finish the rebuttal. I am not going to post a rebuttal in the commment section, but I ask that the dropped round does not count against me. Please vote Pro.
Posted by Russia 8 years ago
Russia
No one likes them. :)
Posted by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
AARGH! I am sorry if anything seems disjointed or jumbled. I once again must curse the bane of a 8,000 character limit that has been impressed on debate.org (Sorry for being over dramatic, I am just slightly frustrated.)
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
RussiaSportsGuruTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
RussiaSportsGuruTied
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 SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
RussiaSportsGuruTied
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 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 weremord 8 years ago
weremord
RussiaSportsGuruTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05