The Instigator
sadolite
Pro (for)
Losing
37 Points
The Contender
LakevilleNorthJT
Con (against)
Winning
86 Points

Politicians and Environmentalists who say hydrogen will be a cost effective fuel source are lying.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/3/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,699 times Debate No: 4321
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (33)

 

sadolite

Pro

It is a fact that Hydrogen will not be a cost effective alternative to gasoline to power cars and trucks for at least 50 to 100 years. Politicians like Arnold Swartchenegger are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on something that is a complete boondoggle and a waste of time. I provide the sources below to explain in detail how hydrogen is made and stored along with all of the limitations that go with hydrogen.
I have but one rule in this debate if you accept. You can not dismiss these sources using politics or some other reason that has nothing to do with the substance of the information. I will accept any source from anywhere, I will use the scientific method to the best of my ability and compare your sources to mine and explain in my own words why I believe your sources, if any, are flawed if they contradict the information in my sources.

http://www.energybulletin.net...
http://www.mindfully.org...
http://www.dotynmr.com...
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

I negate the topic of debate presented by my opponent. I will now explain how the wording of the resolution makes it impossible to vote pro.

Before I start, I would like to define a word which I fell is very important to this debate.

Merriam Webster dictionary defines lie as making an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

This means that to win this round, my opponent must show that every single politician and enviromentalist in the world who says hydrogen will be a cost effective fuel source is lying. (making an untrue statement with intent to deceive.
)

I contend that many politicians and enviromentalists actually believe that hydrogen is a cost effective fuel source. They are not lying but rather are simply just wrong. Thus I win this round because I have show that these enviromentalists and politicions are not mistaken but are just simply wrong.

"I have but one rule in this debate if you accept. You can not dismiss these sources using politics or some other reason that has nothing to do with the substance of the information."

I will not dismiss these sources because they are true.

http://www.energybulletin.net......
http://www.mindfully.org......
http://www.dotynmr.com......

I am merely saying that these politivians and enviromentalists are not lying but are rather just simply wrong. Even if fyou dismiss this argument, my opponent cannot show that every single politician and/or environmentalist is lying. Until he fulfills his burden of proof by showing this, I win the round on this point as well.

Thanks
Debate Round No. 1
sadolite

Pro

Looks like I'll have to try again. Do me a favor don't respond to my debates. You are a very tiresome person I forfeit this debate to. I want to debate the viability of hydrogen. My opponent already new that and still persists in debating language samantics. Is there a way I can block this jerk from my debates.
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

I will now respond to my opponents arguments.

"Looks like I'll have to try again."

My opponent does not explain what he will have to try again.

"Do me a favor don't respond to my debates."

I can respond to whichever debates I like. If you don't like my arguments, word the resolution so that I can't make these arguments.

"You are a very tiresome person I forfeit this debate to."

HE FORFEITS. MY OPPONENT FORFEITS AND THUS I HAVE WON THIS ROUND.

"I want to debate the viability of hydrogen."

OK.

" My opponent already new that and still persists in debating language samantics."

I am exploiting a weakness of my opponent in order to win this round. That is what good debaters do.

"Is there a way I can block this jerk from my debates."

No, you are being very rude. How about just having a nice debate.

MY OPPONENT CONCEDES AND THUS I WIN.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Sadolite is a true debater, what I mean by true is that he doesn't use semantics to sway away from facts and information. I respect that, I now understand what it feels likes to have a zero percentage win ratio, doesn't feel very good. This debate site is excellent, the only problem is the few people who make multiple accounts and vote against you.
:D
Thanks Sadolite, keep submitting your views, I respect that.

-Alexander
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
sadolite does take a lot of losses based solely on his positions; let's not fool ourselves into thinking that there is anyone voting based on debating skills here. It doesn't help that he isn't very nice to his opponents, but that doesn't bother me any (personally I enjoy the sarcastic attacks)... I think he deserves a better win percentage for his arguments, and we should be thanking him for giving us the opposite side of the debate and sticking it out (even if it is out of spite), as someone in his position could very well be inclined to just stop coming on here... Considering we are mostly pro-environment on this site I am very thankful that sadolite stays here to give me a reason to debate things that I like debating with people who have sharply different views.
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
My goal is not to win or loose. It is to try and understand why people think the way they do when faced with information that contradicts what they believe. It is very fascinating to me to see what methods they use to reject it even when in some cases the evidence is so factual it is as sure as gravity existing. Take this subject for example. There are people who believe hydrogen is a viable energy source but it is not. Why would someone still believe it is when every bit of evidence suggests that it is not. Lake knows this. that is why he chooses the most tedious and boring form of debate style there is, semantics. Nobody learns anything from this type of debate style.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Unfortunately, you are correct. Many people on this site vote off of the title. But if that's true, why do you engage in such risky debates, if you're pretty much destined to lose?
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
DrA you are right about the win loss thing and that is what most people on this site worry or think about. I like this site because it gives a better view of why people think what the think about things based on the data available to them. Debate sites are intellectual in nature. The overwhelming majority of intellectual thinking people are liberal and are drawn towards the academics. That is why schools and universities are almost completely comprised of people who are liberal in their thinking. I lose all the time because I choose to debate subjects that rub their fur the wrong way. There are far more liberal thinking people on this sit than conservative, probably by a factor of 10 to one. The title of the debate is what most people vote on more than any substance in the debate.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Sure. But at the end of the day, all people see is that win-loss ratio. In all seriousness, and not to be ad hominum, but if substance is so important, why don't you ever win your debates? Do they not contain substance, or are we all just that deluded?

You should re post this debate, this was an unfortunate defeat...

No substance
:D

-Alexander
Posted by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
DrA, it's not winning and losing it's the substance that counts.
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Sadolite,
If I were you, I'd just create a new account. Your a pretty good debater, but you keep getting unlucky.
Posted by LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
It's fine basketballbeast. Let him say what he wants too.
Posted by basketballbeast7 8 years ago
basketballbeast7
That's what that dude should tell you...lol.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:06 
Vote Placed by TxsRngr 8 years ago
TxsRngr
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 LakevilleNorthJT 8 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 8 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
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 Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
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:34 
Vote Placed by sadolite 8 years ago
sadolite
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by emman101 8 years ago
emman101
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lawyer_in_training 8 years ago
lawyer_in_training
sadoliteLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30