The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
the_banjo_sender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 11/14/2015 Category: Cars
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 490 times Debate No: 82551
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Full resolution: The internal combustion engine in motor vehicle should be banned, with the exception of emergency service vehicles and people with a legit excuse like living in rural Alaska.

This is a normative resolution.

"Internal Combustion The ­principle behind any reciprocating internal combustion engine: If you put a tiny amount of high-energy fuel (like gasoline) in a small, enclosed space and ignite it, an incredible amount of energy is released in the form of expanding gas. "[1].

I Pro will contend for the resolution.
Con against the resolution.

Links
1. http://auto.howstuffworks.com...

the_banjo_sender

Con

While possibly a good idea in theory, there is no way it would ever work in reality.

The word "banned" is far to vague. Does this mean that any vehicle that runs off of a combustion engine is now illegal? Or simply that car makers will not be allowed to put combustion engines in their cars in the future?

Obviously, recalling the 2.5 million cars in the United States is ridiculously implausible, so, assuming you mean the latter, this too would be far too difficult. The oil industry is enormous, and if we remove its main source of income, thousands of jobs would be lost. Also, electric cars, the only realistic alternative, are very unreliable and require charging ports, which in of themselves would stack thousands of dollars upon the US economy.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"While possibly a good idea in theory, there is no way it would ever work in reality. Con

Bare assertion.

"The word "banned" is far to vague. Does this mean that any vehicle that runs off of a combustion engine is now illegal? Or simply that car makers will not be allowed to put combustion engines in their cars in the future?" Con

There was no time-frame in the resolution. Therefore, a reasonable time-frame should be assumed. For instance, if the combustion engine was to be banned by law, there would be a three year delay for manufacturing of combustion engines and ten year for existing engines. In other words if congress passed this law today, manufacturers would have three years to adjust and users ten. Similar to phasing out incandescent light bulbs.

"The incandescent light bulb has been around since the late 1800s, but the venerable technology"s dominance seems just about over. On January 1, 2014, in keeping with a law passed by Congress in 2007, the old familiar tungsten-filament 40- and 60-watt incandescent light bulbs can no longer be manufactured in the U.S., because they don"t meet federal energy-efficiency standards." [2]

Note the resolution is not about what constitutes a reasonable amount of transition time, this is about whether or not the internal combustion engine should be banned or not.

"Obviously, recalling the 2.5 million cars in the United States is ridiculously implausible, so, assuming you mean the latter, this too would be far too difficult." Con

No recalls, instead cars would be converted to electric cars. Since ten or so years would be allowed for transition time many people wouldn't want to keep their old car anyways. "Basically, electric conversion involves removing the entire internal combustion engine from a vehicle, installing an electric motor in its place, and also adding a large bank of batteries. A conversion will cost you about $6000 in parts, and about $1000-$3000 for batteries and installation." [3].

"The oil industry is enormous, and if we remove its main source of income, thousands of jobs would be lost." Con

True, but we shouldn't put jobs over human life. Besides that's part of the reason there would be a reasonable transition period. "A new study has linked car exhaust fumes to autism.

Researchers at the University of Southern California found that exposure to air pollution in a child's early years may be associated with an increased risk of autism." [4].

"Air pollution 'kills 7 million people a year' "[5].

Would Con really put the jobs of oil workers above 7 million human lives?

"Also, electric cars, the only realistic alternative, are very unreliable and require charging ports, which in of themselves would stack thousands of dollars upon the US economy." Con

Bare assertion. There are plenty of alternative modes of transportation. Trains, buses, bicycles, walking, and the electric car. Pro contends that electric car are reliable. [6]. In the documentary who Killed the Electric car many positive testimonies are given to the reliability of the EV1 an electric car. Thus Pro has given proof that electric cars are reliable.

"The EV1 was a marvel of engineering, absolutely the best electric vehicle anyone had ever seen. Built by GM to comply with California's zero-emissions-vehicle mandate, the EV1 was quick, fun, and reliable. "[7]

In the same article "battery technology at the time was nowhere near ready to replace the piston-powered engine. " [7]
Which isn't true as seen in [6] the battery had plenty of range. Most people simply don't drive that far each day. "The national average, one-way daily commute is 25.5 minutes" [8].

"The NiMH EV1 had an EPA certified range of 140 miles on a charge; none of the EV1 lessees complained about the range. So if the customer wants the car, despite what someone else says, why not sell it to them?" [9].

If the commute average is 25.5 minutes and the EV1 has a range of 140 miles a person would have to travel at about 280 miles per hour to run out of charge within 25.5 minutes. 140 miles is plenty of range for the vast majority.

Building charging ports would create jobs and boost the economy.

Summary, the internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned. The combustion engine could be phased out slowly like incandescent light bulbs. Air pollution causes deaths and possibly autism. Electric cars are reliable and then are plenty of other modes of transportation. Finally building of charging posts would create jobs boosting the economy.

Links
2. http://energyblog.nationalgeographic.com...
3. http://www.treehugger.com...
4. http://www.globalpost.com...
5. http://www.theguardian.com...
6. http://www.imdb.com...
7. http://content.time.com...
8. http://www.usatoday.com...
9. http://www.ev1.org...
the_banjo_sender

Con

Other vague issues:
Pro supplied evidence that 7 million people die due to pollution. While apparently true, what they did not mention was that the same piece of evidence said that most of these deaths were in Asia and due to wood or coal stoves, not vehicular motors. I personally assumed that this resolution would only pass in The United States, but if we introduce it world wide, the negative effects would be catastrophic, or at least very inconveniencing. World wide economy will stagger: car trade is one of the larger international commercial product. What about airplanes? While technically jet engines, they also burn fuel. Electric motors are not yet near powerful enough to fly planes. What do we do about this?

In regards to the section concerning the conversion from combustion based to electric based cars, the evidence was supplied from a "treehugger.com" Despite the reassuring name, this source gives a hillbilly DIY explanation of how to convert your car. If you think that the National Highway Administration is going to let a DIY motor fly in this day and age, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaking.

In terms of the oil job market, it is approximated that there are 5 to 6 million people in the oil industry. Assuming that half of them lose their jobs because of this resolution, it is certainly a force to be reckoned with. 3.5 million people out of a job.
That's like the whole city of Los Angeles unemployed.

Pro claims that EV1, a fairly common electric car, is said to be perfectly reliable, but he got this information off of the EV1 website. I dare say bias is a fairly realistic possibility, don't you?

Pretty much all car manufacturers make combustion-based cars. Practically every auto mechanic is trained in only combustion based cars. If we ban combustion engines, there will be huge numbers of problems, resulting in far greater damage than the comparatively small issue of car pollution.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Con has yet to provide any outside sources. Con does bring up one interesting point, is a plane a motor vehicle since some planes do use the internal combustion engin?. Bah Con got me, Pro didn't think of airplanes as a motor vehicle nor as planes using the internal combustion engine. Well played. The resolution isn't perfect. Pro still contends that the resolution would do more good than harm. Even if Pro never meant for airplane's engine's to be banned.

Just shows just how hard it is to make a resolution perfect.

Claim: Pro contends that Con cannot reject this resolution based upon this singular flaw.

Warrant: "8. The Nirvana Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when you reject a partial solution because it is not perfect. Obamacare doesn"t cover all Americans, but it does get most insured. It would be a Nirvana Fallacy to say, "because it doesn"t cover all Americans, it should be rejected." A partial fix is better than no fix; something is almost always better than nothing." [1].

Impact: Despite being imperfect the resolution would still save lives.

Claim: Outdoor air pollution causes millions of deaths.

Warrant "WHO estimated that there were about 4.3 million deaths in 2012 caused by indoor air pollution, mostly people cooking inside using wood and coal stoves in Asia. WHO said there were about 3.7 million deaths from outdoor air pollution in 2012, of which nearly 90% were in developing countries." [2].

Impact: Outdoor air pollution kills many. Car exhaust causes some of this outdoor air pollution.

"I personally assumed that this resolution would only pass in The United States" Con

Since no location was mentioned worldwide was assumed. Pro will make the resolution more detailed in the next debate.

"If you think that the National Highway Administration is going to let a DIY motor fly in this day and age, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaking." Con

The National Highway administration should encourage such changes.

"In terms of the oil job market, it is approximated that there are 5 to 6 million people in the oil industry. Assuming that half of them lose their jobs because of this resolution, it is certainly a force to be reckoned with. 3.5 million people out of a job." Con

The change doesn't have to be overnight, can be staggered. Can't compare jobs lost to live lost.

"Pro claims that EV1, a fairly common electric car, is said to be perfectly reliable, but he got this information off of the EV1 website. I dare say bias is a fairly realistic possibility, don't you?" Con

The EV1 isn't the only electric car "We decided to try an experiment: A trip to our friends in Del Mar, a distance of about 140 miles. With a range of about 70-100 miles" [3]. As you can see the range of electric cars varies but most get at least 70 miles per charge. That's ample range.

Here's more sources with the 140 mile per charge on the EV1.

"later models featured an Ovonics NiMH battery rated at 77 Ah with 343 volts. Cars with the lead-acid pack had a range of 80 to 100 miles, while the NiMH cars could travel between 100 and 140 miles between charges."[4].

"
The optional nickel-metal-hydride battery will increase the range of the EV1 to 140 miles from about 90 miles.

" [5].

"Pretty much all car manufacturers make combustion-based cars." Con

The status quo is not self justifying.

"If we ban combustion engines, there will be huge numbers of problems, resulting in far greater damage than the comparatively small issue of car pollution." Con

The changeover will have to happen sooner or later. Remember global climate change is a threat, and the internal combustion engine creates Co2. Jobs would be created as alternatives to the internal combustion engine arrive. Somebody would have to repair those cars.

Links
1. https://docs.google.com...
2. http://www.theguardian.com...
3. http://www.plugincars.com...
4. http://electricandhybridcars.com...
5. http://www.autonews.com...
the_banjo_sender

Con

the_banjo_sender forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by the_banjo_sender 1 year ago
the_banjo_sender
Terribly sorry to skip out on this incredibly interesting and robust debate, but, as it turns out, some Texan hotels feel as though they have a moral obligation to charge inane amounts of credits for a simple internet connection.

Tootles!
No votes have been placed for this debate.