The Instigator
JaPak
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
Marine-Contender
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The US federal government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the US

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  
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: 9/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,369 times Debate No: 5276
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (6)

 

JaPak

Pro

Should we or shouldn't we?

If we go forth with incentives to increase plans of alternative energy not only will we help our economy and our environment prosper, but we advance technologically and scout new ways to support our need for energy.

On the other hand the cost is always a hindrance and finding ways to finance is hefty. Also who's to say that the general populace will follow...

Actually in all honesty, I'm asking for the sake of my Policy case, so if anyone INTELLIGIBLE here can answer please do so.
Marine-Contender

Con

okay i am a cxer from louisiana and i beleive that not only can since we cannot make anyone created alternative energies the only possible way to get anything productive done is to allow the government to give incentives to companies. But if we do this, then more companies will want the same things the other companies have gotten, only making it a blood bath for incentives ending in the global decline in energies since if the companies dont get what they want then they will stop producing or looking for alternatives.
Debate Round No. 1
JaPak

Pro

Umm... Not to sound utterly rude, but what you said wasn't exactly in any way coherent... I didn't exactly comprehend what your aim was at.

In all honesty I see it both ways, but I am a supporter of finding aternatives for new energy and a growing independance for our country. The issue is how much trouble will it be for our country?

Also how are we in any way going to regualte this throughout the nation? There are people who don't really give a damn and they're only living for today. In the state of Missouri we are only allowed to put out TWO trashbags out on the day of trash day and we have recycling bins to help with the decrease of trash. The only reason why they even bother recycling or decreasing their trash is because they are forced to or else they'll pay a fine. Others still don't care about how much trash they put out because they can always put extra trash in a dumpster somewhere.

Does anyone else understand my predicament?
Marine-Contender

Con

Marine-Contender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
JaPak

Pro

So...
Well...
Odd...

I still need more information.
I expected more from this, but oh well.
Marine-Contender

Con

Marine-Contender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
JaPak

Pro

JaPak forfeited this round.
Marine-Contender

Con

Marine-Contender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
JaPak

Pro

JaPak forfeited this round.
Marine-Contender

Con

Marine-Contender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Johnicle 9 years ago
Johnicle
If you would have had it in Policy Format I might have debated you but it's tough to disagree with the general term of energy. sorry.
Posted by JTSmith 9 years ago
JTSmith
We definitly should.
I think most people would agree.
Yes, finding alternative energy sources will be expensive but, in the long run, cheaper. With the amount of money that we will save from purchasing oil from foreign countries. To achieve our energy independence will be expensive, but when its achieved, the price of energy will be signifigantly cheaper
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 2 years ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: lol, this was terrible. FF
Vote Placed by dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by sadolite 3 years ago
sadolite
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: I understood what con was saying. He is saying that if you are going to pick winners and losers in the energy market by not giving money to company A but giving it to company B is unfair. This of course will lead to law suits and all invested money will be squandered in legal battles. The govt can not pick winners and losers. It can award contracts which is fair. But just handing money to companies with no result requirement is insane. Convincing argument goes to con, all the rest go to pro.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: same. Con FF first
Vote Placed by Oromagi 4 years ago
Oromagi
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: Worthless debate but cons arg was incoherent
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
JaPakMarine-ContenderTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Fail debate, as it held no interest for neither instigator or contender.