Electric cars should be adopted, while limiting gas-powered cars
My 1AC will focus on stock issues, which are signposted. This debate format may look foreign to some, but it is a commonly used system in the U.S. for highschool/college classroom debates.
I look forward to clear and organized debate, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
I wish you great luck in what I hope will be a good debate.
I wish to clarify that as per normal, Pro, bearing the burden of proof, must first prove that whatever issue he/she may find in the Status Quo is an issue and secondly that his model will solve the issue, while not being a detriment to the SQ.
I as Con will rebut Pro's points.
Thanks and good luck
The constant use of fossil fuels to power internal combustion engines for means of transportation will only end in economic burdens, environmental maltreatment, and many negative effects of personal health, such as lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, asthma, and diabetes.
Harm 1.Fossil fuels contribute to pollution
Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, when burned, lead nearly immediately to damaging impacts on local environments. When left unchecked, the use of fossil fuels spread to national, and eventually, global environments.
Environment And Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle Exhaust, 2006, www.ehhi.org/reports/exhaust/summary.shtml
"Vehicle emissions contribute to air pollution generated from the combustion of fossil fuels from many other sources, including the burning of coal and oil in power plants, incinerators, home heating oil, and construction equipment. The combustion of gas and diesel fuels produce greenhouse gases that are contributing to local, regional and global climatic changes."
Inherency #1: The use of gas-powered cars is heavily implemented into the current system. Large automotive corporations would be reluctant to transition, thus stunting an electric vehicle market.
The implementation of electric-powered vehicles means an effective cutback, and if pursued strongly enough, an entire extinction, of tailpipe emissions. Cars powered by motors produce zero emissions, while internal combustion engines continue to contaminate the global environment.
U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE)
"EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions, and PHEVs produce no tailpipe emissions when in all-electric mode."
Harm 2.Gas-powered vehicles are significantly less efficient than electric vehicles
Although new technology, electric vehicles surpass internal combustion engines in energy consumption significantly. The Honda CR-Z is currently rated the best miles per gallon vehicle- for gasoline-powered cars. In fact, it"s 10th, following the eight electric cars before it, which all exceed 100mpg (excluding the hybrid Prius at 42 mpg).
U.S. Department of Energy, "Benefits and Consideration of Electricity as a Vehicle Fuel", Jan. 02, 2015, http://www. Afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_benefits.html (DoE)
"Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge) and kilowatt-hours (kWh) per 100 miles are common metrics. Depending on how they're driven, today's light-duty EVs (or PHEVs in electric mode) can exceed 100 mpge and can drive 100 miles consuming only 25-40 kWh."
For example, the Tesla Model S, a standard setting, electric vehicle, has an 85 kWh battery. On average, it costs $10.25 to charge from dead to full. A conventional vehicle, depending on gas prices, takes anywhere from $25-50 to fill up. In its absolute worst conditions (subzero temperatures, air conditioning on highest setting, constant acceleration, and city driving, one can still expect 240 miles on a single charge. As far as efficiency, electric cars travel further, on less energy.
Tesla Motors, "Go Electric: Your Questions Answered ", 2015, http://my.teslamotors.com...
"Efficiency is thought of in terms of range: more efficient cars can drive farther on a gallon of gas or a kWh of electricity. The Tesla powertrain is more efficient at using energy than a combustion engine. Only about 2025% of the energy stored in gas actually turns the wheels. A Tesla is about three times more efficient."
Inherency #2: The general public is not educated well enough on the harmful effects of the burning of fossil fuels. The scientific awareness of the populous is incomplete and unclear
Inherency #3: The general view of electric cars is negative. Most people deem them "spineless" and "weak" because of their lack of aggressive engine power.
Harm 3.Gas powered cars contribute massively to human health concerns.
The burning of gas for transportation is not only killing the environment, but us, as humans, as well. The inhalation of carbon dioxide is scientifically linked to countless life-threatening diseases which can, and as scientists are founding out, are, linked to emissions exiting the tailpipe.
Environment and Human Health, Inc., The Harmful Effects of Vehicle, http://www.ehhi.org...
"Scientific experts now believe the nation faces an epidemic of illnesses that are caused by air pollution. These illnesses include cardiovascular disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, and diabetes."
I will post further arguments in later rounds, but this is my opening set.
I congratulate my opponent on a wonderful argument.
While both sides agree fossil fuels pollute the environment, an issue which carries serious effect, electric cars are far more detrimental to the SQ not beneficial thus must not be adopted.
My opponents main points consisted of the following
(1)Gas powered cars are the cause of pollution
(2)Gas powered cars cause harm to humans
(3)Electric powered cars are not adopted due to a view that they are spineless and weak
Pro believes gas powered cars cause pollution. Correct. What my opponent has neglected to say is that electric cars cause far more pollution. In an electric cars average lifetime of 15 years, it produces 149% of the pollution of gasoline cars.
This is mainly due to the source of electricity powering the car. Coal. Coal is used for 91% of Australia's power, 86% of India along with countless other countries. Coal is far more dangerous for both humans and the environment with higher outputs of harmful substances.
It is also due to the extreme production cost to the environment of making the car.
Gas powered cars cause harm to humans. Again true. Yet as seen in my argument above, electric cars are far more detrimental to the health of human beings. In fact 86 more pollution related deaths are caused by electric cars than gas cars. It is clear to see that electric cars are not the green machines of myth but in reality are far less beneficial than gas cars.
My opposition here has fallen for a stereotype that people want strong, powerful cars. This just isn't true. We are in the 21st not the 20th century, thus the average individual is not going to choose a car on how macho it is, but instead on the value for money and personal needs requirements.
My opposition has failed to prove that his model, electric powered cars should be adopted, is more beneficial to the Status Quo, thus it must not be implemented.
Opponent's first point: Electric cars ultimately get their electricity from coal
Falling use of coal:
Speaking generally, my opponent, despite producing numbers, assumes that coal is the node of electricity powering the cars. While in some area, this may be true, but it is not a universal truth, as my opponent suggests. I noticed that my opponent seem to point out the countries with the highest coal use in the world, ignoring a large majority of European and North American countries with much lower coal production, which really is where these electric cars will target. America, with a 23% (and declining) use of coal, is completely ignored (1). Europe and its declining use of coal is also overlooked. According to recent surveys, " The EU has seen its historic rise in energy use reversed through a combination of energy efficiency, structural changes in the economy and rising prices. Its use of fossil fuels is starting to fall, with coal use in particular down by two-fifths since 1990. And energy from renewables has tripled" (2). Since my opponent's second point depends on his first, and I just refuted his first, his second point is now voided.
Since my previous body was on the falling use of coal, I feel it necessary to segregate it from my next body, which will focus on the rising use of renewables, which would be the source powering the electric transportation system I propose. However, I would like to address his third argument before I propose new points.
My opponent's 3rd point: People do not want aggressive, powerful cars, as I suggested as a reason on why the electric market is not increasing as fast as it ought to.
Response: My opponent bluntly stated "My opposition here has fallen for a stereotype that people want strong, powerful cars. This just isn't true. We are in the 21st not the 20th century". My opponent failed to produce any numbers, surveys, studies, or cites confirming that the general public is less interested in powerful cars. Simply saying that live in the 21st century does not poise itself as a legitimate argument. Since my opponent failed to support his statement, I will support my refute:
- Ford Mustangs (powerful, aggressive cars) sales are through the roof
- The Chevy Camaro is making a huge comeback
These points go along with my statement that the general public is not educated enough on the how's and why's of electric transportation.
First, for the audience and for clarification, I would like to provide a brief definition of 'renewable energy' that Oxford provides:
energy from a source that is not depleted when used, such as wind or solar power:
"the environmental benefits of renewable energy"
1. Use of Renewables rising: For the first time in history, in 2014, the global economy grew by 3%, while stalling its global output of pollution (1). To go along with that, recent studies have revealed China's growing ability to produce, retain, and use hydroelectric power (2). The U.S. government assert the superiority of electric vehicles and domestic renewable energy (3).
So what does this have to do with electric transportation? Well, for one, it shows milestones of progress in the scientific community to achieve more efficient uses of clean, renewable energy. This energy can then be used to power EVs (electric vehicles) nationally, and eventually, globally.
My opponent mentions the use of coal in developing countries. Since I have addressed his coal concern, I will now address the other side of the argument he failed to defend against- development in countries.
2. What gases do for development in countries
India, popularly known as one of the most polluted nations on the planet, has also seen increasing dependence on diesel/gas imports (1). The environment of India is rapidly declining (2), causing massive concern for the health of the nation. If you look at the trends, one can easily see that as gas/diesel dependence rises, environmental integrity decreases. They move in correlation with one another. Now, my opponent already acknowledges that oil causes declines in environment, but I wished to assert my argument with more vigor and evidence. What my true point of this, ultimately, is the prospect of job creation in the renewable energy business.
3. STEM creation in renewable energies/electric vehicles
Present: Currently, oil rig workers make an average of 32,132.00$/year. This is far below the poverty line, which ranges from 45,000-50,000$ in most states (1). It is rated by many as one of the worst jobs in America, highlighted by the psychological and physical exhaustion of the workers.
Prospect: An adoption of an EV society will help boost STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) related careers.
Looking at salary and pay, as I did for a large populous employed by the oil industry, the electrical field far surpasses the oil-producing field. I will use an electrical engineer, the largest component to EVs, as my basis. The bottom 10% of electrical engineers make, on average, $56,156.00 annually. The bottom 25% makes $60,277.00. The median of the ranges makes $68,804.00 a year. The top 75% make $70,037.00, while the top 90% make $74,802.00 (1). Not once in any of these salaries did the worker dip below the poverty line. These salaries provide comfortable living for the worker and their family. Electrical engineers often carry degrees, ranging from an Associates to a Doctoral, while oil rig workers commonly do not, and some don't even graduate from high school. The only requirements for an oil rig worker consists of a First Aid Certificate, H2S Alive Certificate, and a standard Driver's License.
Since we do have two more rounds, I will stop here. More arguments will be posed when necessary. I congratulate my opponent on good debates so far, and I look forward to the progression of the debate.
However, here are some questions pointed at my opponent I wish to throw into the arena:
-What does humanity do when the oil reserves start to dry up?
-Why should the U.S. force itself militarily into the Middle East (ex: Persian Gulf War) for oil, rather than creating safe, economically driving jobs domestically?
If my opponent chooses to answer these questions, she/he can do so in an informal method. Evidence and citations would be awesome, but not needed.
"If aliens did visit us, I'd be embarrassed to tell them we still dig up fossil fuels from the ground as a source of energy."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
A wonderful job by my opponent.
Just a tip: Remember to state your model in your first argument. I created a reasonably fair model, but there are other who will not act in this way.
Great job though!
I will start off the final round by defending my points and attacking my opponent's section labeled "key issues". My response will go without evidence, as I am just restating what I said earlier in a response-type format (which I did back up with evidence).
Key Issues Response:
(a) My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation. He focuses on things like nuclear fission, calling it detrimental, underlined and italized for unneeded emphasis, when in reality, the environmental danger is not there. Contrary to the popular movies in which the protagonists turn green and fish growing a third eye, which my opponent seems to picture when he talks of nuclear energy,, nuclear power plants are federally regulated to maintain a clean, environmentally safe ecosystem and workplace.
(b) Although I did not provide a 'when' (which is implied in the title of the debate as now, despite my opponent taking it upon his own courtesy to warp the time frame), I did provide a 'where'. In round 3, I specifically stated:
"I noticed that my opponent seem to point out the countries with the highest coal use in the world, ignoring a large majority of European and North American countries with much lower coal production, which really is where these electric cars will target."
To provide a brief explanation, I stated that my plan targeted those living in North America and Europe initially. This halts my opponent's advances about high coal productions in India and China.
My opponent seemed to take my statistics showing Ford Mustangs/Chevy Camaros' sales as the only type of muscle car that is increasing. Since he seemed to attack my point with an article about the average Australian (nowhere in it did I find anything about cars, and again is outside of my target market), I will present a new, loosely-based argument in the form of a question: If people do not want powerful cars, then why is a V-8 the standard, and not a perfectly functional V-4?
First, my opponent, stating "my opponent stated several times that the general public is not educated about electric cars". I stated it once. Not several times with underline. Once. And, like his point about his "walk in suburbia", there is not evidence for it. It is a general truth. I challenge anyone to ask a friend on how electric cars work, their advantages, or any of the sort. Nearly no one will know.
4. (Also attacking his Key Argument #1)
First, my opponent lacks the understanding of purchasing a vehicle. He stated that engineers, making #68,804.00 on average, could not afford a $40,000 car. My opponent seems to think that when purchasing a car, you go with a pile of cash to cover every last penny. He seems to have forgotten about payment plans, leases, etc. which are standards in the automotive business.
Second, my opponent mentioned a tax on the poor. No where in my argument did I say anything about taxes. Nowhere. If he refers to the federal tax cuts that EV owners get, then I will go over that quickly. Every state in the U.S. (it varies) gives out state tax cuts to people buying EVs. This ranges from $3,500 in a state like Iowa, to $7,500 in a state like Oregon, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, California, and more. The minimum starts at $3,500, and the max is $7,500. That is a whole lot of money off of a "$40,000" car (which includes about two electric cars, being Tesla S' and the e-Golf, a large majority of EVs being below $40,000, examples being the Chevy Bolt, Chevy Volt, and Tesla Model 3).
(The First Part)
My opponent states "it is impossible to drive most electric cars more than 60 miles a day". This is an utter falsehood. There quite literally is not a single electric vehicle on the market that can't drive 60 miles in one run. The Tesla Model S, actually, can drive approximately 300 miles, not including its Supercharger, which can charge half the battery in under 20 minutes, adding another 150 miles on. The Chevy Volt has had drivers reported in driving nearly 1,000 miles on a single charge. Yes, you read it right, 1,000 miles. The lowest I can find and have personally experienced was the Volkswagen e-Golf, which is at a lower-end 85 mile range.
My opponent goes over the basis that it takes 20 hours to charge an electric vehicle off a 120V outlet, which is somewhat true. I will discuss the "extra-cost 240V" in a moment. Let's pretend that we do actually use the obsolete outlet, the 120V. My opponent states that it takes 20 hours to completely charge a "High-end NIssan Leaf" (funny, that he uses a high end model in a study in which would help him, but then turns around and says that EVs are too expensive). In saying this, he assumes that one will actually charge that car every night! As I stated with range earlier, plugging in every night is a bit excessive, as most electric cars can go 4-6 days on an average commute without a charge. Let's use 4 days, my lower number, as the basis for this. 20 hours, divided across 4 nights, is 5 hours a night. So realistically, if one were to plug in every night, like my opponent emphasizes, it would only take 5 hours at a time, not 20. Concerning the 240V, my response is that is a cheap installation (in the places that oddly don't already have it). A 240V input plug installation can range from 200-400 USD across states (if you couldn't do the easy fix on your own for free). My main argument: take the 200-400 USD out of the seven and a half thousand dollars you saved on tax cuts by buying the car in the first place!
That finishes my response to my opponent's main arguments. Since this was a lengthy debate, I will present my last final, big argument, and provide a bit of thought concerning my opponent's contradiction in round 3 (which I mentioned in the beginning of round 4).
This argument is presented on the basis that gas-cars continued to be used, and the possible consequences.
Contention #1: The economy can not afford to be dependent on foreign oil (My point)
(Why is this so?)
(a) Society continues to run on gas-powered cars. Since this is the current system, this requires no evidence.
(b) America's gas powered cars depend on foreign oil
" Looking again at 2008, the United States imported around 9.8 million barrels of crude oil per day from other countries [source: U.S. Energy Information Administration], and that comes out to a whopping 3.5 billion barrels per year!"
(c) The countries/organizations America gets its oil from are politically unstable
" In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department"s Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable." These nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria."
(d) American dependence on politically unstable countries/organizations may lead to economic devastation, as it did in 1973 with the oil crisis
" Since 1973, non-OPEC oil production has doubled, in tune with the doubling in size of the world economy over the same period. However, while OPEC has engaged in many wild, short-term production expansions and contractions to manipulate the market, overall OPEC production has barely increased over the past third of a century despite the fact that they are sitting on top of 80 percent of the world's oil reserves " including all the most accessible oil reserves. This shows that they have had a long-term policy of limiting production in order to increases prices. As economic growth in China and India increases worldwide demand, the OPEC policy of strangling production is threatening to send the U.S. economy into a depression."
(e) Economic detestation leads to negative impacts. I'm hoping no one needs evidence for this.
Conclusion: As long as America uses foreign oil to support its economy, it will forever remain dependent and insecure of other world powers.
One last thing: I would like to now point out the contradictions my opponent made in round 3 that I have mentioned a few times.
In short: My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now.
Why is this a contradiction? Well, mainly, because of how economic demand works. If there isn't a market for something, the R&D (research and development) doesn't get funded. If the R&D doesn't get funded, it is obvious that the technology will never become better.
How does it connect? My opponent agrees that electric cars will be the superior mode to transportation in the future, but, obviously, his entire side is arguing against currently supporting a market of EVs. Do you see the contradiction? His encouragement to avoid EVs hurts the companies making EVs. If companies making EVs don't make money, they will fail.
So what does that mean? This means that when the supposed, mysterious day in the future that my opponent describes arrives, the research into electric transportation would be near-to-nothing. This would ultimately cause a breakdown of how society functions as the oil fields dry up.
How do we fix that? We put the money, time, effort, and market into EVs. We encourage renewables to take larger forms in society, so when that day comes in which the oil is gone, society will be able to make the shift rather easily, rather than coming to its knees. My opponent putting off research and innovation for the future seems, at least to me, quite lazy and irresponsible toward humanity
I would like to open with a thank-you for my opponent, due to their participation in this wonderful debate.
It was a great job by them and I wish him/her the best of luck.
My opposition today, has based his/her arguments on fallacies, fallacies that cannot be supported. Most of his/her rebuttals are a straw man fallacy, he/she has continuously misinterpreted what I stated to make it easier to attack.
Pro has failed to give his model(plan) yet has failed to hold true to the fair model I later provided.
I would like to first point out Pro's sentence "My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now." This is a lie. I do not refuse to support research. I believe research is the, early implementation. I do not take kindly to blatant untruths.
My opposition has no valid reasoning that his/her model present an overall benefit not detriment to our society, thus we cannot implement electric cars while limiting gas powered ones now.
Points of contention
1. Right now electric cars are more detrimental to the environment
My opposition stated "My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation". This is not his point. Pro committed his first straw man fallacy here. The point, as can be seen in his first argument was that electric cars are less detrimental to the environment.
Pro stated in his first argument how gasoline powered cars are detrimental to the environment. This is true and in my first argument I agreed with it. I however provided statistics proving that electric cars are far more detrimental as they are mostly powered by coal.
Pro then stated in his second argument that:
(a) Coal is used less and less. This is again true, but the model is supposed to be implemented now. This means that electric cars are still far more detrimental to our environment
(b) Not all countries use coal for most of their power. I countered this with statistics illustrating how 2nd world and 3rd world countries use coal and how they contain most of the worlds population. I furthered this point by pointing out the harms of alternation energy sources for those countries that don't use coal. The alternate sources of power were mainly nuclear fission and natural gas energy.
In his/her third argument used a "Simpsons" episode to illustrate his point of nuclear fission is clean. Let us be logical, a simpsons episode is not fact, my opposition in fact provided no research to prove that nuclear fission was fine for the environment. Fission uses 5% of the enriched Uranium with 95% being waste. This waste is buried in the ground. How is this not detrimental to the environment?
My opposition has thus failed to prove that electric cars are, as of right now not more detrimental to the environment, therefore I win that clash
Most can be found in my arguments.
2. Electric cars are more detrimental to people
This point closely follows the first. As I won that is is clear to see that electric cars are more detrimental to people. I provide evidence highlight how electric cars cause 85 more pollution related deaths than gasoline powered cars, contrary to no evidence from Pro.
Most can be found in my arguments.
3. The whether electric cars are held back by the general public's supposed desire for muscle cars and their lack of education
This is not the truth. The average citizen does not want a powerful car.
Pro firstly provided statistics show how Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros are making a comeback. My opposition has sadly deceived the audience here. The titles of the to pages of his research?
(a) "Ford Mustang sales leap ahead of other sporty cars"
(b) "2016 Camaro bulks up in muscle car sales race"
Pro states that V8's are standard, as seen in the source, this is a falsity
The opposition discounted my evidence that people are reasonable educated about electric cars as it is general knowledge. He the proceeded to provide his/her own general statement and set exceedingly high criteria. This is completely ridiculous.
The oppositions illegitimate research means his statement that people want muscle cars is a fallacy. The opposite has failed to provide any relative and legitimate research while I have provided a conductible experiment, therefore I clearly won this argument.
4. Whether or not people could afford it
My opposition has come out swinging with the fallacy Ad hominem.
(a) He states that people don't have to have all the money when buying a car so a person payed $60, 000 a year could easily afford it. This is not the truth. While people can take out loans there are many limitations. One could not simply take out a $40, 000 loan for a $40,000 car. Pro also discounts people in poverty. 90% of people below the poverty line rely on welfare. Once on welfare, one cannot take out a loan.
(b) Pro says that he/she never mentioned anything about a tax on those that don't buy an electric car. What he also didn't state was a model, a key duty of Pro. I fairly provide the model incorporation the standard time frame, now, and a tax as it is one of the only limitations that crosses socio-economic status'. As Pro failed to provide a model, the duty fell to me, therefore their is a tax forced upon people, especially weaken those defenseless people below the poverty line.
A Pro failed to provide any evidence. His/her arguments are fallacious as proven above. Therefore the clash falls to me.
5. Whether electric cars currently have the capabilities to go on the road.
Pro has come up with some unsupported, wonderful statistics. They have no support and are untrue.
(a) Pro refutes without evidence that most electric cars cannot drive more than 60 miles per day. Pro has provided nothing to my actual statistics. What my opposition has stated is wrong and unsupported.
(b) My opponents second point of this issue relies on the first. With no evidence to evidence, the second point is therefore irrelevant.
Pro has clearly lost this clash due to his/her lack of evidence. He statements are false are this means electric cars are not yet implementable.
The oppositions final argument is irrelevant due to the sudden need for power that will arise if the Globe was suddenly to switch to electric cars. The power must come from somewhere, the power will come from all the excess oil.
Pro has failed to provide a model, a significant dereliction of duty. I based a fair model of the motion of the debate. Thus the time frame was the standard now and the limit, a tax.
This debate boiled down to whether is was or wasn't viable to implement electric cars now. Pro said yes while con, me, pushed for more research before implementation.
Right now electric cars are far more detrimental to both the environment and health of people. Implementing them would be very damaging to those in poverty. Finally they are not ready for the road.
Ladies and Gentlemen, research is a must before we can implement electric cars, we must develop electric cars and alternate power sources to one and for rid humanity of the terrible monster that is pollution!