Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

Rebuttal against opponent's case:Rebuttal 1: The first point that I would like to emphasize on is actually the second one my opponent makes about the environmental hazards of CFL bulbs. Based on the fact that my opponent centers his entire case around CFL bulbs shows that he has no clear understanding of the resolution, most particularly the legislation being debated. As I explained before, the actual ban doesn't get rid of all incandescent light bulbs, but simply raises the standards on them so that they can be 25% more efficient than before. No one is replacing these bulbs. No one is getting rid of them completely, so for my opponent to simply focus this entire debate on CFL bulbs is extratopical, at best. Further, even if we were talking about replacing all bulbs, he speaks as if there are no measures taken in order to properly dispose of the bulbs and recycle them and no other alternatives to CFLs that are equally environmentally friendly, which is not true considering LED bulbs that are similar in brightness.Rebuttal 2: Moving on to his first point: even if we were talking about replacing all incandescents, I find it almost laughable that my opponent compares the problems of America using up too much energy, trampling over the environment, and accelerating global warming (I will address this point in a moment) to getting headaches from these light bulbs. The question comes to if we can really compare impacts to the environment and eventually the welfare of the American citizenry to simple headaches. It just seems to be frivolous, at best to talk about the headaches.Addressing my opponent's rebuttalsCounterargument 1: You can ignore my opponent's argument about mercury considering that the alternatives are not what we're focusing on, but the actual action of increasing standards on regular incandescent bulbs, meaning that incandescent bulbs are not going to taken off the market. I make a brief mention of CFL and LED bulbs in my original argument, but it was more of a side note noting that consumers have alternatives and substitute items in order to save them energy and reduce the amount CO2 entering the atmosphere rather than a main argument considering that I was still focusing on the idea that incandescents will still be provided and have more quality than before, meaning that consumers will get more for their money. If my opponent really wants to go into talking about the hazards of CFL bulbs, there are ways in order to do clean up if breakage occurs, and there are ways of actually recycling the bulbs in order to prevent or mitigate damage to the environment. This all, however, doesn't deviate from the fact that at some level, my opponent still agrees with my Contention 1 because he admits that the ban would aid to the environment at some level, in this case reducing the amount of energy expenditures in the household. Counterargument 2: The fact that my opponent is asking about how this regulation could possibly help the economy shows that he doesn't have a very clear understanding of economics. Anything that brings costs to society (known as negative externalities) is known as a market failure, and it is officially the government's job to fix them in order to bring the market back to equilibrium. In this case, the costs in questions are the massive expenditures in the amount of energy used in homes and the increase to CO2 emissions that will inevitably lead to the contributions of global warming, which are all negative to the protection of the environment that we humans make our home. These costs are implicit and explicit considering the damage to the environment and the amount of money we must then allocate in order to solve for the problems that result from these negative effects to the environment. This is where regulation becomes important for the market. In any case, if the ban continues, some companies that are left behind will increase their profits in addition to requiring companies to increase competition, a requisite for a capitalistic market. Counterargument 3: My opponent fails to acknowledge any of the evidence that I have provided about global warming and the evidnece there is in order to show how it can be affected by human elements. He provides no sorts of counterexamples nor contrary evidence about global warming. All he does is say that he doesn't think it exists, despite the evidence I have provided from the very beginning. This news article http://articles.cnn.com... others reports the general consensus in the scientific community about global warming, to supplement the evidence already provided. Global warming is an issue we must discuss considering that it was one of the reasons why this legislation was passed in the first place.Reasons for Voting PRO: So the reasons why the judges will vote PRO in this debate is because my opponent hasn't really argued against anything I said other than how regulation is required for the economy and the existence of global warming. He agrees that this will help the environment at some level and doesn't dispute the idea about how this will help the consumers in providing better products. He argues about how this is all an infringement on freedom even though incandescent light bulbs are still going to be provided, in addition to the fact that freedom should only exist if it doesn't violate the freedoms of others, which is exactly what will occur if we continue to destroy our environment and lower the quality of life for all the citizenry. His argument about headaches is frivolous, and his argument about mercury is extratopical because it focuses only on CFL bulbs and its problems when incandescents are not being banned completely, and it is not very well grounded considering the idea that there are ways in order to recyle these bulbs and manage the mercury therein if breakage occurs. My analysis on the economics shows to be much stronger considering that this is all based on actual study of economics, and my definition of what encompasses a market failure is accurate enough. My argument goes almost completely extended, and my evidence has been more sound than my opponent's. Thus, the judges should vote PRO.http://www.epa.gov...http://www.epa.gov...