By 2040, the FG should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in US be powered by alt fuels

I take that you are not a debater, correct? The rules are laid so that the opponent who chooses to debate me will agree with the rules, that was not a framework that could be debated, just a simple lay out of the basic PF debate rules, under which I'd like to a have a debate. You see the problem arises when one person debates in one manner and the other in another, confusion arises and the debate loses its value. As a debater, it's a good idea to explain to the judge why you win. Look, you should have read the rules, I'll let that one slip because I can't really stop this debate. What are you talking about? How old are you? Forget about it, look you had no evidence to support your claims therefore none of your arguments went through; secondly as I have explained the first round is just for people to see what they will debate, aka PF. And no you can't bring evidence in the last speech since I will not be able to respond to it, which makes it unfair, and the judge will be compelled to vote on fairness So we will still be dependent on oil, therefore you don't solve oil dependency, thank you. Ok, again where do you have an evidence to warrant any of your claims about lowering CO2 and stuff? Are you aware that the plan will increase CO2? Probably not, but I will get to that later in my speech. "China & India will dramatically surpass U. S. energy consumption" Minqi Li, Department of Economics, University of Utah, November 2007, "Peak oil, the rise of China and India, and the global energy crisis. (Report). . " Journal of Contemporary Asia. 449(23). How are you getting all of you claims? They are simply naive, first of all you claim that oil prices will go down, then why should the countries change if they will have cheaper oil? Then if there will be a miracle, what is your time frame? 100 years? Finally, the costs, you do realize that to have alternative fuels, will cost more? 200 years? Great, but our current technology is not good, even a lover of this type of plan, whom I have just debated agrees, his answer is let us basically wait and see if we improve our technology. Lets wait that time, we're sure that we can last for 100 years with the current plants, so with more coming online that is no reason why we should convert to something that is uneconomical. So you don't even know if GW is not real? I have 32, 000 scientists opposing it, and the few that don't oppose it, ignore the facts "32,000 scientists deny the human-CO2 claim" . http://www.freep.com... PLAN BAD We have safe ways of drilling, the places we drill at are wastelands and no net harm is done, some of the biggest CO2 drivers are deforestation and methane. Hydro, wind, and solar not realistic sources for hydrogen Michael K. Heiman is a professor of environmental studies and geography at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Environment. Washington: Oct 2007. Vol. 49, Iss. 8; pg. 10, 16 pgs Growing more corn for biofuels in the U. S. means soy is grown in Brazil, increasing Amazon deforestation Business and the Environment, March 2008, p. 14 "Bio fuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More than Oil" These "small-scale farmers" are the majority who will get poorer because of you're plan. And how old are you? What, 15-16? Do you provide food for your family to live? No you don't. If you were you wouldn't be online. "We might not be" good, then your plan fails, Con wins, did you even read the resolution? I don't say the alternative fuels are perfect either, I say if they are good enough for us to pass this plan then why not mandate it earlier? Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins. You might disagree that the negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects, but what is your rational? CONCEDED ARGUMENTS: (NO EVIDENCE TO DISPROVE THEREFORE MY EVIDENCE STANDS SUPERIOR) "Ethanol production increases air pollution" . http://redorbit.com......... "Higher prices stimulate conservation, solving demand issues" . http://www.domain-b.com...... "Turn- Focusing on energy *independence* undermines investment in new energy sources" . http://downloads.connectlive.com...... More evidence to support my claims "Ethanol produces a net loss of energy" "U. S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation" "Corn ethanol production triggers water shortages, soil erosion, and pesticide use" . http://redorbit.com... ml "Corn ethanol will double greenhouse gases" Nation's Health, April 2008, p. 12 At the end of this debate, ask yourself: Will the plan truly make a difference, or will it just give a false sense of security? Is Pro warranted better for her claims, or is Con the one with best supproted claims? Since the answer to the above questions is the letter of two, I urge you to vote Con As for your sources, um yeah I m going to Google "my puppy-dog" and look up at some pets. .. Maybe you could be just a little more specific? CON! !!