Electric cars are better then gas cars
I am a great advocate of green energy and of alternative fuels and believe that more research should be done into the field of electric. However, I took your debate as your first statement gave the impression that electric cars are better than petrol or gas based cars now, without speculation over future advancements, which I think is not the case.
Before I move on to the body of my argument against the motion in latter rounds, I would first like to response to the statements of s14tharsh in his opening.
- 'Cheaper per mile fuel and maintenance wise'
While electric cars are cheaper per mile for fuel, overall electric cars are still more expensive to run than their conventional counterparts, in fact the total 'cost of ownership, which includes the upfront price and running coasts such as fuel and insurance – of electric vehicles is currently around £5000 more than petrol and diesel cars' . Not only is an electric car more expensive to run, but the depreciation of its value is also far greater than it's alternatives:
Depreciation by fuel type 
Fuel type/average retained value after three years:
Petrol/electric hybrid 45.3%
- 'Electricity is a renewable resource and doesn't cost much to use'
I think I addressed the cost of electric cars in the previous paragraph so I won't go over that again, however the statement that Electricity is a renewable resource I find quite naïve.
In fact the percentage of energy for US consumption, rather than generation, that comes from renewable sources reaches only 10% 
- 'Electric cars now have the ability to get decent range miles and match cars per fill up.'
Electric cars are gradually gaining quicker charge times and longer range miles – but currently, they still don't compare. 'Most electric vehicles can only go about 100–200 miles before recharging gasoline vehicles can go over 300 miles before refuelling. Fully recharging the battery pack can take 4 to 8 hours. Even a "quick charge" to 80% capacity can take 30 min.'  I think you'll agree that this is not really a 'match'.
 Influences on the Low Carbon Car Market 2020–2030 - http://www.lowcvp.org.uk... on the Low Carbon Car Market from 2020-2030 - Final Report 010811_pdf.pdf
 United states environmental protection agency - http://www.epa.gov...
First, they may cost more but i stand by my statement of "electric cars cost less maintenance wise." Yes, they do cost a lot, but their over all expenses are lower if not equal to that of a combustion engine vehicle. If you buy a combustion engine vehicle and a electric car at the same price you will save a lot more on the electric car fuel and parts wise. Now here is my counter :)
The most obvious advantage of electric car batteries is that they don't produce the pollution associated with internal combustion engines. However, they still have environmental costs. The electricity used to recharge electric car batteries has to come from somewhere, and right now, most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. Of course, this produces pollution. But how does the pollution produced by burning fossil fuels to recharge electric car batteries compare to the pollution produced by internal combustion engines? According to the Electric Vehicle Association of Canada, or EVAC, even electric vehicles recharged from coal-powered electric generators cut carbon emission roughly in half. Electric cars recharged from cleaner forms of electrical power generation, such as hydro-power and nuclear plants, can reduce carbon emissions to less than one percent of those currently produced by internal combustion engines. So, even in the worst case scenario, cars operated by electric vehicles batteries are cleaner than gas-powered cars. your move buddy. :D
sighted from wiki, forbes, EVAC
Thanks, I just love it how you reject a peer reviewed academic study because you reckon it can't be that bad, although, that's probably my fault as I didn't realise the link I sited didn't work; sorry, here it is for you to read http://www.ecoconnect.org.uk... :). Notice how it supports my point and confirms that electric cars are currently more expensive than regular ones, even though it was commissioned by the low carbon vehicle partnership, whom wanted to prove the opposite. Quite a contrast from your source of Electric Vehicle Association of Canada, who lead with the nice unbiased catchphrase of 'Convert to electric propulsion!' Indeed it would be handy for you to share with us the study from which this is from, I couldn't find it anywhere.
The environmental viability fallacy.
Perhaps the most extensive study ever done on the environmental electric cars was conducted by the The Norwegian University of Science and Technology , whose research shows that whilst converting to electric vehicles would offer, assuming that all of the cars have an extra long life, a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (Contrary to the cutting of 'carbon emission roughly in half' which you purport), this would be however, from an ecology perspective, proverbially jumping from the frying pan into the fire. This is because 'Electric Vehicles exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater Eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts'. In fact the environmental effect that a conversion to electric would have with current technology, would have a far greater ecologically damaging affect to our environment than global warming.
Key Facts about Dioxins in relation to human toxicity 
'- Dioxins are a group of chemically-related compounds that are persistent environmental pollutants (POPs)
- Dioxins are found throughout the world in the environment and they accumulate in the food chain, mainly in the fatty tissue of animals.
- More than 90% of human exposure is through food, mainly meat and dairy products, fish and shellfish. Many national authorities have programmes in place to monitor the food supply.
- Dioxins are highly toxic and can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, interfere with hormones and also cause cancer.
- Due to the omnipresence of dioxins, all people have background exposure, which is not expected to affect human health. However, due to the highly toxic potential, efforts need to be undertaken to reduce current background exposure.
-Prevention or reduction of human exposure is best done via source-directed measures, i.e. strict control of industrial processes to reduce formation of dioxins.'
The vast amounts of dioxins that would be released into the atmosphere, should everyone drive an electric car, would be disastrous with the consequences of this toxin reaching to levels in which humans would be affected.
If you don't care about animals dying or global food chains breaking down due to freshwater Eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication and human toxicity; and your equally indifferent about massive boosts to world human reproductive problems, developmental problems,immune system issues, and skyrocketing cancer levels, then perhaps you care about the metal depletion impacts. Metal depletion sounds better than it is; research indicates that even the full extraction of metals from the Earth's crust and extensive recycling may not be enough to meet metal demands in the future. This is such a concern in the production of current electric cars that if the billion cars that exist in the world today  were to be matched and replaced by electric vehicles, the world would face a metal depletion crises, that's why even the idea of the production of that many electric cars is self-defeating as eventually their production would have to be halted, in order to divert resources to necessary industries. The electric car of today is the cause of its own demise. Many of these issues are not considered or come to mind when talking about electric cars simply because they are not huge, global issues that we hear about everyday, but they are very substancial in the production of the electric car; fortunately not enough of them are produced in order to make a damaging impact to world at the moment, but the effects are very real, and should we cary out production on a massive scale, the effect would truly be devestating.
Not only that but the carbon emissions case for electric vehicles is also misleading, indeed 'An assumption of 100,000km per car decreases the benefit of electric vehicles to results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle.' 
 http://www.who.int... - World Health Organisation
Research into the dire effects of eutrophication:
NB – Here is another Forbes article which reads with the headline 'Electric Cars Are An Extraordinarily Bad Idea' http://www.forbes.com...
s14tharsh forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|