The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Jan POFO topic

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2009 Category: News
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,191 times Debate No: 6487
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Deon Sanders once said, "I am officially off the Dallas Cowboys bandwagon", the reason why I brought the Cowboys into this debate is one they provide a good example of why we should vote for the negative side, but secondly I just like talking about sports and with that this brings me to the resolution 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. Now that is out of the way, we first need to explain the similarities between the Dallas Cowboys and Alternative fuels. Simply put us being humans are attracted to flashy stuff, that's probably why certain women wear shiny clothes and men too. Therefore the Dallas Cowboys were a flashy team with super star like players but they didn't go to the playoffs, why because they had all flash but no substance. Today my Partner and I will show why alternative fuels are flashy but are not the fuel we need. Today we will first show how alternative fuels are not cost effective. Then examine how government intervention causes more problems than solves them and finally show you why if you are on the alternative fuel bandwagon, you need to get off now.

Contention 1- Alternative fuels are not worth the money
According to Las Vegas Review May 18,2008 "ROAD WARRIOR: No strong alternative to gasoline " , states "Henry Ford built an automobile that ran on ethanol, a form of alcohol produced from corn. The first electric vehicle dates back to the 19th century. The reason these ideas never made it into the mainstream was because none was as efficient as gasoline. Back then, gasoline was the silver bullet.", It has been hundreds of years since these alternative fuels have been around and none of them caught on and who is to say they will catch on some more. Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and their fuels face two central problems. First, they typically suffer from several marketplace disadvantages compared to conventional vehicles running on conventional fuels. Hence, they inevitably require government incentives or mandates to succeed. Second, they typically do not provide cost-effective solutions to major energy and environmental problems, which undermines the policy case for having the government intervened in the marketplace to support them. The government can't force people to buy alternative fuels and these businesses can't stand on there two feet because nobody wants alternative fuels. Terrell Owens a wide receiver of the cowboys has a multi million dollar contract but he hasn't won a championship yet. That is the same thing with alternative fuels we pay a lot and get little in return.

Contention 2-Government intervention is the wrong thing to do
First we need to look at CAF� standards which is a government mandate to make Car Companies build cars a certain way to reduce carbon emissions. According to CBO(Congressional Budget Office) "CAFE INCENTIVES FOR THE SALE OF ALTERNATIVE-FUEL VEHICLES", "The design and the mix of vehicles sold affect calculations of average fuel economy. Automakers can raise the overall fuel economy of the vehicles they sell by altering engine and body design, vehicle size, or performance. Such changes would generally increase the cost of vehicles, with the cost per vehicle of improving fuel economy rising with higher standards for fuel economy. Optionally, automakers may save themselves the cost of some these changes if they can stimulate sales of their more efficient models. Automakers may also save themselves some costs of fuel economy improvements if they take advantage of the CAFE incentives of the AMFA. ", The government set this standards to make car makers make more expensive cars telling them you have to make more efficient cars otherwise you are going to lose money and guess what they lost money. Infact we had to bail them out not too long ago. This policy CAF� is similar to the resolution in that the government is mandating, cars to be a certain way and these alternative fuel cars are expensive, too and telling them they have to come up with a way for them to make money. You can't just make innovation out of air, sometimes things are they way they are. This is the fundamental difference between the aff and the neg Affirmative wants to force automakers into making this expensive cars in the hopes that they can make them cheaper, while the negation which is us, says that the market should do what it does. People are driving less in spite of lower prices. If you vote for the affirmative it would mean that businesses have limited rights and the auto businesses may not have a chance in the US anymore. The perfect example of alternative fuels is Pacman Jones of the Cowboys who was released. He had a anger probelm so they got him a bodyguard, but he got into a fight with the bodyguard. The same thing occurs with alternative fuels, no matter how much you try to force people to be a certain way, they stay that way. You can't force people to buy alternative fuels in the US, and even if you mandate this, petrol vehicles will be available outside the US to be bought and if they are cheaper and more cost effective to go to another country and buy these cars, people will. Which in turn hurt money being spent in our economy.


"Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money." -- Cree Indian Proverb

A.) Your first point is that AFVs are not cost effective, and hence their use should not be government mandated by the year 2040. My primary rebuttal against such a notion is that something does not have to be cost effective in order to be morally just. For instance, if someone donates money to charity, they are losing money in a sense for a better cause. Mandating that legal steps be taken to achieve such a cause (a more healthy environment and the preservation of earth's natural resources) is not a bad idea simply because it may cost us some money.

B.) Now if your issue is that the government has no business telling us what is and isn't right in terms of how we spend our money or behave, you'd have to advocate for the removal of ALL laws, in that instance, as most if not all things are subjective and thus it would be 'wrong' of the government to mandate other/all things of us, i.e. the obeying of traffic laws. Since the earth is a mechanism that we share, many people would choose to invest in the safety and well being of our world. This is no different than the government requiring good or safe behavior/treatment of various public areas.

C.) Yes, it's true, thus far gasoline has been more cost effective than other natural gases. However, if we know anything at all about economics, we know that this doesn't always have to be the case. Consider the cost of a cell phone, for instance, before they were all the rage and everyone and their mother had one. They were once considered luxury items; only the really wealthy could afford them. Now, almost everyone is able to afford a cell phone. This is because of competition in the market place. Likewise, with the mandate of AFVs, people will have no choice but to invest/purchase ethanol or other more eco-friendly fuels. As such, various companies will inevitably start marketing their fuels at a lower cost. This will invoke capitalism at its best: companies competing to put forth better products at lower costs... and in this instance, it will be for a good cause (a safer and healthier environment).

D.) This ideology can be applied to refute your contention regarding the government's role in society and business. Logically, it would make sense that a more eco-friendly car would be a smaller vehicle... and yet automakers are crying that smaller cars would be more expensive? It doesn't add up. This mandate would fuel innovation and allow car makers to create alternative ways at designing fuel efficient vehicles that would be satisfactory to their customers, and simultaneously comply with government standards. Moreover, with concern regarding the cost of gasoline, its correlation to wars being fought in the middle east, global warming and other negative impacts against the environment, progressing toward a new and better standard of energy use and production is imminent. Previously, the world wide web and other internet-related technology is what gave the U.S. a great financial boost and the ability to be a financial competitor in global markets. Now energy technology is the wave of the future, and possibly the salvation of America's flailing and failing economy (with the creation of new jobs, new stock investments, etc.).

E.) My opponent's notion that the U.S. automakers would suffer as a result of such a mandate is a fallacy. Obviously if such regulations were made mandatory in the United States, then Americans would have to buy eco-friendly cars and buying overseas would not be an option. In fact, this might HELP the U.S. auto industry, in the sense that it could possibly eliminate foreign competition and thus keep American dollars on American soil and in American markets. My guess is the rest of the world would probably follow suit and alter their vehicles; this could only be a good thing in terms of the environment. And remember that markets shift to meet supply and demand.

That said, back to CON.
Debate Round No. 1


First off to your point A, your notion is that of being morally just. Since when did a government do something to be morally just and even if you want to go with that, then you have to look at the big picture. Mandating this will be invested millions of dollars and forcing companies to build products that cost too much money and that no one wants. Morally just, how is forcing people companies in the United States morally just. Now you are saying that the means justify the ends and yet one we don't know how big of an impact petrol cars really have. Two the ends are not clear to see. The only thing that we know is that it is unjust to force companies in building expensive vehicles that may cause there businesses to go under.
To you point B, I am not advocating the removal of all laws, but laws do not have to say you have to build cars this way and thats it. Now businesses are not Private Enterprises, they are not government run institutions. Which sounds like Communism. Thus I could say that a vote for the Aff is a vote for Communism.

To your point C, sure the Cell Phone is a success story, but we have had power cell cars and ethanoal since Henry Ford was making the model T and yet they have not taken off. There are certain things which we may strive for , but never live up to there potential. Comparing a cell phone success to a car being effiecient is a stretch when you have no evidence that they are moving in the right direction and you can't mandate innovation. If that was true then Cancer and AIDs would not exist anymore. Cancer by the way has been reported since biblical times. They haven't solved that. The only cancer in this debate is the government bringing down companies who need to make products within there means.
Point D-Doesn't make since, example a average regular petrol car costs 10,000 chevy cobalt. The average cost of a electric car from Tesla is 100,000 dollars with a waiting list. Hybrids cost 30,000 to 50,000 on average. Now hum, doesn't make since, you are really incompetent to assume that the companies just want to make trucks. Auto companmies now are having to build vehicles that are cheap for people like cobalts and SUV's and trucks will become luxury vehicles.
Point E- Fallacy, the topic says buying cars in the US. You can easily buy a car overseas and it doesn't say they are mandating all cars to be alternative fuels either. You are just jumping to conclusions, because in 2040, there will still be petrol cars on the road. Just if you wanted a new car, they would be alternative fuel in 2040.

1. If the US wanted to mandate something to be morally just or protect the planet, then why don't they improve public transportation rather than consumer products. Honestly energy efficient trains are proven, while alternative fuels are not and it would be better than waking up in 2040 when people are still driving petrol cars, that are used, because they don't have money to buy alternative fuel cars. Or there may be not auto comapnies in the US because they can't make business anymore because of all of the government regulations and thus money leaves American businesses. I just doesn't work.
Second I will strech across all my offense which alt. fuels are not cost efficient and of course Government should not mandate companies to bankruptcy which happened already with the CAFE standards. Too much government regulation os this type hurts car companies. Finally of course the AFF has not offense so they really have nothing to say or arguments to say that are backed by evidence. Thus the AFF's case falls because there is no case on the AFF side. Thus you must vote for the neg because the neg actually has a case and is advocating something, other then the Pro who is just arguing, my case and not giving any advantages to voting for his/her side.


Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


bigbass3000 forfeited this round.


Danielle forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bigbass3000 7 years ago
Thanks, I am wondering why no one has taken this topic.
Posted by Metz 7 years ago
Love the Cowboys Link....
No votes have been placed for this debate.