The Instigator
z1
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points

US Government should ban gas cars

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 4 votes the winner is...
z1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2014 Category: Cars
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,579 times Debate No: 65519
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

z1

Con

I believe that if the US banned gas powered cars, you would be absolutely destroying the US economy. First of all, the average electric car can only travel 40 to 100 miles on each full charge, whereas a gas car can travel 370-400 miles on a full tank. Another thing to think about is how electric cars are not too advanced yet.

http://www.ebay.com...

http://askville.amazon.com...

Second of all, very many oil companies would go out of business, causing an absolute crash of the US economy. A very large amount of people work for oil and gas companies, even a lot of gas stations could go out of business. Many other companies would hurt from this, seeing that most-all semi trucks run off of diesel gasoline, and we all know that semi trucks carry goods needed for many stores/companies.

Thank you, and please respond respectfully. Good luck.
9spaceking

Pro

Oh, puh-leaze. Cars aren't the only thing powered by gas. No oil company would go out of business.
Debate Round No. 1
z1

Con

Dear con, many oil companies would go out of business. Of course cars aren't the only thing that runs on gas, but cars are a huge factor of main oil companies. In just the US alone, there are around 210 million licensed drivers in the US alone. Imagine how much oil companies rely on all of the gasoline powered cars.

Source: http://www.ask.com...

Thank you.
9spaceking

Pro

But oil cars release CO2 pollution

source: http://planetsave.com...

Which leads to Global Warming, which is terrible for human kind, AND melts the ice caps, which can lead to polar bears and penguins having nowhere to live in the North or South poles!
s://www2.ucar.edu...; alt="" width="769" height="398" />
source: https://www2.ucar.edu...


source: http://sitemaker.umich.edu...
source: http://www.sodahead.com...


source: http://water.me.vccs.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
z1

Con

Scientists have actually researched that global warming is a hoax, and believe the world may be cooling. Of course, that is a whole different argument. Also, there are gasoline cars that are more gas efficient.

People depend on gasoline powered cars. Gas cars can act as a way of transportation, and a delivery system. Gasoline cars are also way cheaper then electric cars or airplanes. Gas cars also can go almost anywhere too. Also, what about all of those car companies that sell only gas cars?

Dear voters, please vote con. Thank you.
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent has not cited any of those so called "researches". As for gas being cheaper than electric, bikes are far cheaper, and even motorcycles are cheaper. They can also reach almost anywhere.

Vote pro.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by pyevchik 2 years ago
pyevchik
Electricity comes from non renewable resources for the most part. So if gas cars were banned electric cars would still use fossil fuel electricity(since Americas primary energy source is fossil fuels), increasing Co2 levels even higher since they are less efficient than gas cars.
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
You do know that this "Global warming" is just the earths warming period.
The Earth has warming and cooling periods.
haha, I cant wait until they start talking about "global cooling".
Posted by z1 2 years ago
z1
Just realized it, I accidently put "dear con" instead of "dear pro". oh well lol
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
Dear Pro, how do you suggest we convey ourselves freely? In bags of wind maybe? Ever flied upon a jet?
Me never.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
well, when I first skimmed over it I was like "ha, noob take wrong position", then I was like "waiiiiiiiiiiittttttttt a second..." This is deadly devil's advocate, so yeah, it's very risky. The only way I could win this is thru ff.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
He's probably counting on the high likelihood of a forfeit.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Ugh, just for that one round, Pro should loose the debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
We should ban the government and start over.
Posted by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
Key flaw in con's case is the word "yet." Pro need only outline a timetable, and why at that assumed point an actual ban would make sense (which con could then argue why a ban would be warranted, when they are dying out anyway). Granted, anyone arguing such for a time outside the life expectancy of the human race, I will almost certainly vote against.

If they want to be daring, they could argue they should have been banned back in the leaded gasoline murder days.

Another small factor, is the resolution specifies cars in particular, not automobiles in general.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
I'm curious to see what arguments Pro would make...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
z19spacekingTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Banning gas cars would wreck the economy so hard.
Vote Placed by TK57 2 years ago
TK57
z19spacekingTied
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:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Con could of had better conduct
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
z19spacekingTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments are not refuted with viable sources but just OPINIONS.
Vote Placed by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
z19spacekingTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Puh-leaze is not a word, and even though I understand the context, the use of mockery is just another tool of tyrants.