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

The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles

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: 3/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,132 times Debate No: 22014
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Resolution states: The United States Federal Government should decrease subsidies of electric vehicles. I will be arguing the Pro side of the argument, that the government should decrease subsidies. Con will be arguing that the government should not decrease subsidies.

This debate will be 3 rounds with a 24 hour, 2,000 character limit per argument. Please refrain from name calling and foul language.


I'd like to first thank my opponent for starting this debate. I will be supporting why the Federal Government should not decrease subsidies of electric vehicles.

My first argument will be the most obvious:

Typical vehicles that use oil to function work by burning fossil fuels. Burning fossil fuels, however, is terrible for the environment and its denizens.

One of the many harms burning fossil fuels brings is particulate matter – tiny particles of burnt fossil fuels that float in the air. This kind of pollution is also known as black carbon pollution. In addition to the visible black particulate matter, there is fine material (less than 2.5 microns) that creates large health problems.

Another by-product of burning fossil fuels is sulfur dioxide. If you do not recognize the chemical, it is one of the key ingredients of acid rain. Other harms from burning fossil fuels include nitrogen oxide pollution and carbon monoxide pollution.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has found that each year, the average car causes over 600 pounds of air pollution. Transportation sources now account for 77% of national total carbon monoxide emissions. Approximately 3.8 grams of volatile organic compounds are emitted by every car every day, even when they are not driven.

Pollution in the air is a serious matter, and by switching to electric vehicles, the amount will decrease significantly. This is more than enough reason for the Federal Government to continue subsidies.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting the debate. First I would like to address a very important point, and then address my opponent's points.

The most important point is funding. Where are we going to get the money to continue subsidies of electric vehicles? Right now we're spending $1.5 trillion a year that we do not have. I will come back to this point shortly.

How do you propose we power these electric vehicles? Nuclear power? Where are we going to get the funding for that? What are we going to do when we have a disaster similar to Japan? Nuclear pollution effectively lasts forever. Carbon, on the other hand, is cycled out of the environment via the carbon cycle.

Right now the #1 form of electricity in the US is coal. I hate to burst your bubble, but the coal powered vehicle is not new technology. We've been using coal to power machines for 250 years. It also burns extremely dirty, and coal pollution is deposited higher into the atmosphere where it has a stronger effect on acid rain. This pollution also remains in the atmosphere longer, as it is not cycled out of the atmosphere as quickly by plants. Gasoline pollution on the other hand is released within a foot of the ground, and is cycled out of the atmosphere much quicker.

It s quite obvious that electric vehicles contribute more dangerous pollution to the environment. The federal government, already $15 trillion in debt, should not be wasting money on technology that is so dangerous to the environment.


I will first focus on my opponent's argument, then continue with my own.

The United States has been in National Debt since the Revolutionary War. Specific numbers can be found in numerous locations. I prefer the following:

Because of such, I believe that it is fair to say that pointing out the National Debt of the government is unrelated to the topic at hand and I will ignore it as I continue with your argument.

The average American drives 15,000 miles a year. One electric car on the market right now is the MINI-E. The amount of energy required to take that vehicle 15,000 miles is minimal. It would be equal to leaving five 100-Watt light bulbs running for a year. With new research and products coming out, that number could, unbelievably, drop even lower. With solar panels and other new ways of capturing and harnessing energy coming into fashion, l believe it is safe to assume that continuing to use oil will harm the environment more than switching to electric vehicles.

To resume with my argument; electric vehicles will also prove to be amazingly cost-worthy to their consumers, requiring less maintenance. Because they do not have to deal with the heat and force generated by an unending series of powerful explosions the way combustion engines do, electric engines do not need oil changes and other regular maintenance that conventional engines need to stay running.
Debate Round No. 2


First I would like to point out that national debt is at record levels, and we have already seen the government of Greece on the verge of collapse due to debt. It is highly relevant to the debate. If the government collapses, there are NO subsidies of electric vehicles. I propose that not only is highly relevant, but it is the most significant portion of this debate. On the current spending rate debt will increase and eventually lead to the collapse of the government, at which point there will be no subsidies. Therefore reduced spending is a protection of subsidies already in place.

How far can the electric vehicle go on a charge? Batteries are a severe limiting factor, making electric vehicles unviable.

Also, cold weather strains batteries. In the population centers of the northeast the extreme winters would render an electric vehicle basically useless. Think how hard it is currently to get your vehicle to keep a charge in cold weather.

The "pollution" cased by burning gasoline is actually a basic element needed for life. The industrial revolution (burning of fossil fuels) enriched the nutrients available to life, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and carbon, effectively doubling the amount of life the earth can support.

Solar energy is not viable. It only lasts for a short part of the day and requires tremendous space for solar panels. The United States cannot produce enough energy from solar and wind energy as it is, much less with increased demand from electric vehicles.

For my final point, I would like to bring to your attention every invention prior to the late 20th century. The Wright Brothers were not government subsidized, the original gasoline engine was not government subsidized. Steal was not government subsidized. The steam engine was not government subsidized. It is quite obvious that government subsidies are not required for technological improvements.


Sigil forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
Don't sweat it. The fiance with dinner trumps debating any day. If mama ain't happy...
Posted by Sigil 4 years ago
Sorry for forfeiting that last Round. My fiance actually came home with sushi supplies with the groceries; on the bright side, whether or not I win or lose this debate, I had a great time making sushi and an amazing dinner. Best of luck to my opponent.
Posted by fishinbub 4 years ago
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
I HATE debates where the instigator picks Con... Just reword it so you're Pro. Exampe: The US Should stop subsidizing electric vehicles.

Then you're Pro...
No votes have been placed for this debate.