The Instigator
ScarletGhost4396
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
OberHerr
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
ScarletGhost4396
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/30/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,348 times Debate No: 19570
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

ScarletGhost4396

Pro

This round is for acceptance only.
OberHerr

Con

I accept this debate and await my opponent's argument.
Debate Round No. 1
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge, and I stand on the PRO. Before continuing, I would like to point out that the ban on incandescent light bulbs refers to the clause in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that bans incandescent light bulbs without a 25% increase in efficiency from production, importation, and marketing. For the following reasons, I affirm the resolution:

Contention 1: The light bulb ban is environmentally safer.
With an increase in efficiency requirement of the light bulbs, we will provide lighting that requires less energy and releases less CO2 into the atmosphere that contributes to global warming and ocean acidification.

Contention 2: The ban does not harm people.
The ban does not ban the complete sale of all light bulbs, only low-efficiency incandescents that give off less light, meaning that people will acquire more quality in their lighting with less energy expended, meaning that the right of the people to make their own selections of light bulbs will not be harmed. Of course, there are alternative, more environmentally-safe light bulbs, including CFLs and LEDs in production as well. In addition, the right to regulate commerce is existant in the Constitution, meaning that government is not over-extending its rights.

Sources:
"The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect." The Discovery of Global Warming. Feb. 2011. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://www.aip.org...;.

"Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) - FrequentlyAsked Questions." Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. United States Department of Energy. Web. 03 Dec. 2011. <http://cdiac.ornl.gov...;.

"Ocean Acidification Due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." The Royal Society (2005). Stanford University, June 2005. Web. 3 Dec. 2011. <http://dge.stanford.edu...;.


OberHerr

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for sending me this debate, and wish him good luck!

I will not be countering my opponents main argument so far and here is why: I completely understand that this ban will save energy, and, though I personally do not believe in Man-Made Global Warming, I understand it will help the environment, at least in energy saved. I do not disagreed with these things.

What I do disagree with is the government telling a company that it can or cannot do something, simply because it would be more efficient, or would help prevent something that is not entirely proven to be happening. Farmers also send up a lot of dust and other harmful things while they are planting/harvesting. Should we say they must change their approach to these things simply because it would either A) Help others be more efficient. or B) Help prevent an unproven theory.

I'm sorry i am on VERY limited time and I can not argue more. I will finish in the next round.
Debate Round No. 2
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Rebuttal against my case:
I would like to begin this round by obviously pointing out that my opponent had no time to actually rebut my case, but sort of make a case of his own, so for the time being, we can just extend my case across the flow. However, the solitary contention that should remain extended for the entirety of the debate should be Contention 1 because my opponent clearly stated himself that he agrees that this ban, albeit he is not entirely certain of the existence of global warming, is environmentally supportive at some level because it reduces energy required in order to power homes. Therefore, he agrees with the main point of Contention 1.

Rebuttal against my opponent's case:
The only thing my opponent has said in his case is that he is just not supportive of the idea of government regulating business for the hinderance of global warming, which he claims not to be entirely proven. The main points that I would have to rebut in my opponent's case are the two ideas about government standing out of regulation and the validity of the idea of global warming. I rebut my opponent's case:

Rebuttal 1: To regulate or not to regulate? That is the question that has pitted government against each other. What we have here is not just an argument about light bulbs, but a years-old question that has divided fiscal liberals and conservatives in the American nation. Are the conservatives right when they say that we need less government regulation on business so that they can thrive, or are the liberals right when they say that we need more government regulation on business so that the society as a whole can thrive? What's the answer? If you learn about economics and begin to understand it, you will realize that actually both are right. To have successful firms and plentiful business in the private sector, you cannot have too much regulation, and to lower the costs of society both explicit and implicit as a result of careless actions of the private sector, America requires sufficient regulation, and this includes environmental programs that sufficiently bring down pollution rates and energy expenses. Under the conditions when costs to society are added to the private costs of industry for production, we have what many know as a market failure, and one of the responsibilities of government is to provide regulation in order to bring those costs down and ensure the security of the American nation. The bottom line is that regulation at some level is needed by the part of government in order to maintain the security of the market.

Rebuttal 2: Should I even argue this point? I could tell the judges about all of the supplemental evidence provided in my original case statement (which my opponent has not rebutted yet), in addition to the general (I believe) 94% consensus amongst scientists that global warming is evident and fully true as well as the evidence of the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, the increase of temperature on the polar ice caps, causing them to melt. However, even if my opponent somehow proves that global warming is the most flawed, baseless, and completely useless theory on the face of the planet, he still agrees that this ban is environmentally efficient. He concedes to the main idea of my Contention 1, meaning that it only betters my case for this round.

So, based on all of this, the judges should already be thinking about putting their cursors on my side of the debate ballot because my opponent not only failed to rebut the entirety of my case, but also conceded to 1 of my 2 points and completely acknowledges that the environment will be sustained with this measure. I will await my opponent's rebuttal for the rest of my case. Vote PRO.
OberHerr

Con

To begin I would like to apologize for taking so long. Was busy, and needed to educate myself a little more on this subject.

I would also like to ask my opponent to not vote for this debate. That is all

Now to finish my argument.

Brightness: I'm not sure if I am the only one, but for me, they tend to hurt my eyes quite bit. I understand this seems minor, but since a good deal of our lives revolve around lamps, this is a big problem. I understand people have differing opinions on how they like these bulbs, and I have no problem with that. The problem I do have is now I am being forced by the government, to constantly have a headache, because companies are required to make these bulbs and these alone.

Hazards: I hope my opponent knows that these bulbs also carry toxic mercury, meaning if they break, you have toxic waste all over the floor.

As this article states: "Toxic mercury in CFLs are downplayed, while breakage creates a dangerous environment. Bulbs are burning out faster than expected; don't fit in some fixtures; often grow dimmer over time; will not operate at low temperatures; emit high percentage of UV; shouldn't be tossed in the trash. (American Thinker; April 19, 2011)"

This definitely dampers the complete superiority they are portrayed to have over incandescent bulbs doesn't it?

http://peswiki.com...

REBUTTAL

However, the solitary contention that should remain extended for the entirety of the debate should be Contention 1 because my opponent clearly stated himself that he agrees that this ban, albeit he is not entirely certain of the existence of global warming, is environmentally supportive at some level because it reduces energy required in order to power homes. Therefore, he agrees with the main point of Contention 1.


I know Global Warming exists(Or did exist), what I don't believe is it is man-made. As for Contention 1, I agreed it saves energy, and is more environmentally efficient in that respect. What I do not agree with it being environmentally safer is what I have posted above: the mercury. It's a toxic waste accident just waiting to happen. What would happen if a large load of these were shattered across the ground, during say a semi accident? I would be far worse than if incandescent bulbs were, I can tell you that.

Rebuttal 1: To regulate or not to regulate? That is the question that has pitted government against each other. What we have here is not just an argument about light bulbs, but a years-old question that has divided fiscal liberals and conservatives in the American nation. Are the conservatives right when they say that we need less government regulation on business so that they can thrive, or are the liberals right when they say that we need more government regulation on business so that the society as a whole can thrive? What's the answer? If you learn about economics and begin to understand it, you will realize that actually both are right. To have successful firms and plentiful business in the private sector, you cannot have too much regulation, and to lower the costs of society both explicit and implicit as a result of careless actions of the private sector, America requires sufficient regulation, and this includes environmental programs that sufficiently bring down pollution rates and energy expenses. Under the conditions when costs to society are added to the private costs of industry for production, we have what many know as a market failure, and one of the responsibilities of government is to provide regulation in order to bring those costs down and ensure the security of the American nation. The bottom line is that regulation at some level is needed by the part of government in order to maintain the security of the market.

Yes, so how does regulating these bulbs help the economy? All it does is cost companies more to update their factories, so they can produce these bulbs. It also costs more to make them, meaning the price goes up (Which anyone who has compared the prices can attest to). I understand that they save money for the person who buys them, but it still costs more to the company to make them, and since people will buy they less, they lose even more money. Essentially, it does little, if nothing to help the economy, nor freedom.

Rebuttal 2: Should I even argue this point? I could tell the judges about all of the supplemental evidence provided in my original case statement (which my opponent has not rebutted yet), in addition to the general (I believe) 94% consensus amongst scientists that global warming is evident and fully true as well as the evidence of the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, the increase of temperature on the polar ice caps, causing them to melt. However, even if my opponent somehow proves that global warming is the most flawed, baseless, and completely useless theory on the face of the planet, he still agrees that this ban is environmentally efficient. He concedes to the main idea of my Contention 1, meaning that it only betters my case for this round.

Well, what you believe means very little to facts. And, if my opponent can find me a VERY reliable poll, that finds 94% of scientists believing in Man-Made Global Warming, then I will concede. But this debate is not on Global Warming, it is on incandescent light bulbs, or more specifically the ban on them. So far, the only argument my opponent has is that they are more efficient, and environmentally friendly. Once again, I ask why are we being forced to be efficient? If they were so wonderful, why does the government have to force companies to produce them, instead of incandescent bulbs? I personally don't want the government to tell me what to buy, and that is exactly what they are doing here. And were does it stop? Will we son be forced to buy only "smart-cars"?

So I guess it comes down to which do you prefer: Protection from a much debated, and unproven theory or freedom?
Debate Round No. 3
ScarletGhost4396

Pro

Rebuttal against opponent's case:

Rebuttal 1:
The first point that I would like to emphasize on is actually the second one my opponent makes about the environmental hazards of CFL bulbs. Based on the fact that my opponent centers his entire case around CFL bulbs shows that he has no clear understanding of the resolution, most particularly the legislation being debated. As I explained before, the actual ban doesn't get rid of all incandescent light bulbs, but simply raises the standards on them so that they can be 25% more efficient than before. No one is replacing these bulbs. No one is getting rid of them completely, so for my opponent to simply focus this entire debate on CFL bulbs is extratopical, at best. Further, even if we were talking about replacing all bulbs, he speaks as if there are no measures taken in order to properly dispose of the bulbs and recycle them and no other alternatives to CFLs that are equally environmentally friendly, which is not true considering LED bulbs that are similar in brightness.

Rebuttal 2: Moving on to his first point: even if we were talking about replacing all incandescents, I find it almost laughable that my opponent compares the problems of America using up too much energy, trampling over the environment, and accelerating global warming (I will address this point in a moment) to getting headaches from these light bulbs. The question comes to if we can really compare impacts to the environment and eventually the welfare of the American citizenry to simple headaches. It just seems to be frivolous, at best to talk about the headaches.

Addressing my opponent's rebuttals

Counterargument 1: You can ignore my opponent's argument about mercury considering that the alternatives are not what we're focusing on, but the actual action of increasing standards on regular incandescent bulbs, meaning that incandescent bulbs are not going to taken off the market. I make a brief mention of CFL and LED bulbs in my original argument, but it was more of a side note noting that consumers have alternatives and substitute items in order to save them energy and reduce the amount CO2 entering the atmosphere rather than a main argument considering that I was still focusing on the idea that incandescents will still be provided and have more quality than before, meaning that consumers will get more for their money. If my opponent really wants to go into talking about the hazards of CFL bulbs, there are ways in order to do clean up if breakage occurs, and there are ways of actually recycling the bulbs in order to prevent or mitigate damage to the environment. This all, however, doesn't deviate from the fact that at some level, my opponent still agrees with my Contention 1 because he admits that the ban would aid to the environment at some level, in this case reducing the amount of energy expenditures in the household.

Counterargument 2: The fact that my opponent is asking about how this regulation could possibly help the economy shows that he doesn't have a very clear understanding of economics. Anything that brings costs to society (known as negative externalities) is known as a market failure, and it is officially the government's job to fix them in order to bring the market back to equilibrium. In this case, the costs in questions are the massive expenditures in the amount of energy used in homes and the increase to CO2 emissions that will inevitably lead to the contributions of global warming, which are all negative to the protection of the environment that we humans make our home. These costs are implicit and explicit considering the damage to the environment and the amount of money we must then allocate in order to solve for the problems that result from these negative effects to the environment. This is where regulation becomes important for the market. In any case, if the ban continues, some companies that are left behind will increase their profits in addition to requiring companies to increase competition, a requisite for a capitalistic market.

Counterargument 3: My opponent fails to acknowledge any of the evidence that I have provided about global warming and the evidnece there is in order to show how it can be affected by human elements. He provides no sorts of counterexamples nor contrary evidence about global warming. All he does is say that he doesn't think it exists, despite the evidence I have provided from the very beginning. This news article http://articles.cnn.com... others reports the general consensus in the scientific community about global warming, to supplement the evidence already provided. Global warming is an issue we must discuss considering that it was one of the reasons why this legislation was passed in the first place.

Reasons for Voting PRO: So the reasons why the judges will vote PRO in this debate is because my opponent hasn't really argued against anything I said other than how regulation is required for the economy and the existence of global warming. He agrees that this will help the environment at some level and doesn't dispute the idea about how this will help the consumers in providing better products. He argues about how this is all an infringement on freedom even though incandescent light bulbs are still going to be provided, in addition to the fact that freedom should only exist if it doesn't violate the freedoms of others, which is exactly what will occur if we continue to destroy our environment and lower the quality of life for all the citizenry. His argument about headaches is frivolous, and his argument about mercury is extratopical because it focuses only on CFL bulbs and its problems when incandescents are not being banned completely, and it is not very well grounded considering the idea that there are ways in order to recyle these bulbs and manage the mercury therein if breakage occurs. My analysis on the economics shows to be much stronger considering that this is all based on actual study of economics, and my definition of what encompasses a market failure is accurate enough. My argument goes almost completely extended, and my evidence has been more sound than my opponent's. Thus, the judges should vote PRO.

http://www.epa.gov...
http://www.epa.gov...
OberHerr

Con

OberHerr forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
ahh, darn it! Thought I had mor time. Oh well Pro you put up a good argument, and I think you deserve to win.
Posted by OberHerr 5 years ago
OberHerr
Just wondering, why did you send this debate to me? Kinda curious.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
ScarletGhost4396OberHerrTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: most of pros arguments weren't refuted well. The arguments like contention wise where = but pro had better rebuttals so more of her arguments stood at the end, but con could have won, but he didn't...next time. Sorry for voting against you Ober. ANd the FF didn't help you. Sorry for the redo vote, but she had more credible sources overall.