The Instigator
vorxxox
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Amphibian
Pro (for)
Winning
20 Points

government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/18/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,442 times Debate No: 6982
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

vorxxox

Con

Hello debate.com. Oops, I mean debate.org. I negate the resolution that the federal government should mandate that by 2040, all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the US must run on alternative fuels.

I have three reasons:

1) Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope.
2) Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this?
3) Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then.

Vote CON
Amphibian

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent debating.

First I will address my opponents three points.

1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope." That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels.

2) "Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this?" This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. Yes any alternative fuel is acceptable so long as it is within the bounds of the law. As for the plan itself there are already many sources of alternative fuels currently available to automakers. Things like hybrid gas electric, ethanol, hydrogen fuel cells, and propane. Alternative fuels are defined by the Michigan State Document Center as anything other that Coal, Petroleum, Natural Gas or Peak Oil.

3) "Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then." It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. This can only be done with firm decisions and a strong governmental role. As for my opponents analogy "That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something." This couldn't be more untrue. It would be true if all the cellular phone suppliers in the U.S. were bankrupt or going under, if they cell phone grid where destroying the environment, if foreign cell phone suppliers were all moving forward and taking business from the United States and if instead of Solar Power you told them to use a whole new form of power and they could decide what it was. If that were the analogy then it would fit pretty well. And I think you will agree that if that were the case a change would need to be made on the part of the cell phone business. There is also the issue my opponent has brought up with timing. First my opponent says "2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope." My opponent then compares the resolution to switch to alternative fuels with some others related to cell phones, "The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones." Imagine if the rest of the world took this approach. What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect.

As for government mandates, they can be repealed if it is necessary. A mandate is merely a direct rule or order. If changes are necessary the government can form a new mandated that make the new adjustments.
Debate Round No. 1
vorxxox

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. Now, for my rebuttal.

"What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect."

BINGO. This resolution uses that kind of thinking. It's based on assuption. Let me say it this way:

What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be USING ALTERNATIVE FUEL CARS, SO WE WONT EVEN NEED OIL. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect

You just argued against yourself.

:)

Uh.... yeah. That sorta nullifies your counterarguments

ie:

"1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope." That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels."

Now, to rebut your other points:

"This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level."

To make such a claim, like it would solve global warming, you have to be specific as far as to WHICH FUEL, and how it would solve global warming. That's the thing, the resolution is too vague.

"It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction."

Well, if the government is going to step in, they shouldn't take a vague, incomplete, half-behinded approach. Making this a mandate, saying 'Oh, we don't like oil, so you companies better come up with something.' And what, we are to assume that every company will agree on something. One group might think hydrogen cars are better, the other group might think propane is. You see, because it's so vague, it doesn't define a STANDARD, and that approach is blind, unorthodox and only invites bad things to happen.

And to make matters worse, the government will MANDATE this. So, we have to assume that 31 years later, all companies will agree on a standard, and infrastructure for the fuel and everything will be ready, and everything will go 100% perfect. WE ARE MANDATING A LAW THAT WON'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL 31 YEARS LATER. You know what would be funny; If we 30 years into it forgot that we did such a thing, and someone reads the law book and goes 'Oh $#!+, next year, all new cars have to be alternative fuel based.' Like I said, and you even agreed and argued yourself:

"If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect"
-Amphibian

:)

Negated
Amphibian

Pro

The difference between the two examples is obvious, your idea was five hundred years in the future and required us to become psychics. My idea is thirty years away and is necessary in order to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, keep the environment safe, stimulate the automotive industry, and stay competitive in a global market. There is absolutely no assumption involved here, these changes are necessary right now.

You have repeatedly argued against yourself, first you say that it is too far in the future, then you say there is not time to accomplish it, what is it?

I have already provided several examples of alternative fuels. The most up and coming of these is hydrogen fuel cell use. This systems on emission is oxygen which we need to survive obviously and also is not a greenhouse gas. Also I already defined alternative fuel so clearly there is a standard set that automakers can follow. I also doubt that everyone is going to forget the mandate over the next thirty years, that idea is simply ridiculous.

When the technology to make this transition already exists why not take these important steps to keep the United States an environmentally, economically, and globally healthy country. To anything else would be a mistake.

Please vote pro.
Debate Round No. 2
vorxxox

Con

i'm out of time, so I advance my arguments.

Vote Con

Thank you
Amphibian

Pro

I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared.

This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation

Please vote in affirmation.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Willoweed 5 years ago
Willoweed
vorxxoxAmphibianTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: yep arugemtns were good
Vote Placed by rageAgainstTheDebate 8 years ago
rageAgainstTheDebate
vorxxoxAmphibianTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by bookwormbill111 8 years ago
bookwormbill111
vorxxoxAmphibianTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
vorxxoxAmphibianTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by vorxxox 8 years ago
vorxxox
vorxxoxAmphibianTied
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:70