Electric cars should be adopted, while limiting gas-powered cars

A quick scan over my opponent's arguments can show you the contradictions in it. I will start off the final round by defending my points and attacking my opponent's section labeled "key issues". My response will go without evidence, as I am just restating what I said earlier in a response-type format (which I did back up with evidence). Key Issues Response: 1. (a) My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation. He focuses on things like nuclear fission, calling it detrimental, underlined and italized for unneeded emphasis, when in reality, the environmental danger is not there. Contrary to the popular movies in which the protagonists turn green and fish growing a third eye, which my opponent seems to picture when he talks of nuclear energy,, nuclear power plants are federally regulated to maintain a clean, environmentally safe ecosystem and workplace. (b) Although I did not provide a 'when' (which is implied in the title of the debate as now, despite my opponent taking it upon his own courtesy to warp the time frame), I did provide a 'where'. In round 3, I specifically stated: "I noticed that my opponent seem to point out the countries with the highest coal use in the world, ignoring a large majority of European and North American countries with much lower coal production, which really is where these electric cars will target." To provide a brief explanation, I stated that my plan targeted those living in North America and Europe initially. This halts my opponent's advances about high coal productions in India and China. 2. My opponent seemed to take my statistics showing Ford Mustangs/Chevy Camaros' sales as the only type of muscle car that is increasing. Since he seemed to attack my point with an article about the average Australian (nowhere in it did I find anything about cars, and again is outside of my target market), I will present a new, loosely-based argument in the form of a question: If people do not want powerful cars, then why is a V-8 the standard, and not a perfectly functional V-4? 3. First, my opponent, stating "my opponent stated several times that the general public is not educated about electric cars". I stated it once. Not several times with underline. Once. And, like his point about his "walk in suburbia", there is not evidence for it. It is a general truth. I challenge anyone to ask a friend on how electric cars work, their advantages, or any of the sort. Nearly no one will know. 4. (Also attacking his Key Argument #1) First, my opponent lacks the understanding of purchasing a vehicle. He stated that engineers, making #68,804.00 on average, could not afford a $40,000 car. My opponent seems to think that when purchasing a car, you go with a pile of cash to cover every last penny. He seems to have forgotten about payment plans, leases, etc. which are standards in the automotive business. Second, my opponent mentioned a tax on the poor. No where in my argument did I say anything about taxes. Nowhere. If he refers to the federal tax cuts that EV owners get, then I will go over that quickly. Every state in the U.S. (it varies) gives out state tax cuts to people buying EVs. This ranges from $3,500 in a state like Iowa, to $7,500 in a state like Oregon, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, California, and more. The minimum starts at $3,500, and the max is $7,500. That is a whole lot of money off of a "$40,000" car (which includes about two electric cars, being Tesla S' and the e-Golf, a large majority of EVs being below $40,000, examples being the Chevy Bolt, Chevy Volt, and Tesla Model 3). 2. (The First Part) My opponent states "it is impossible to drive most electric cars more than 60 miles a day". This is an utter falsehood. There quite literally is not a single electric vehicle on the market that can't drive 60 miles in one run. The Tesla Model S, actually, can drive approximately 300 miles, not including its Supercharger, which can charge half the battery in under 20 minutes, adding another 150 miles on. The Chevy Volt has had drivers reported in driving nearly 1,000 miles on a single charge. Yes, you read it right, 1,000 miles. The lowest I can find and have personally experienced was the Volkswagen e-Golf, which is at a lower-end 85 mile range. (Second Part) My opponent goes over the basis that it takes 20 hours to charge an electric vehicle off a 120V outlet, which is somewhat true. I will discuss the "extra-cost 240V" in a moment. Let's pretend that we do actually use the obsolete outlet, the 120V. My opponent states that it takes 20 hours to completely charge a "High-end NIssan Leaf" (funny, that he uses a high end model in a study in which would help him, but then turns around and says that EVs are too expensive). In saying this, he assumes that one will actually charge that car every night! As I stated with range earlier, plugging in every night is a bit excessive, as most electric cars can go 4-6 days on an average commute without a charge. Let's use 4 days, my lower number, as the basis for this. 20 hours, divided across 4 nights, is 5 hours a night. So realistically, if one were to plug in every night, like my opponent emphasizes, it would only take 5 hours at a time, not 20. Concerning the 240V, my response is that is a cheap installation (in the places that oddly don't already have it). A 240V input plug installation can range from 200-400 USD across states (if you couldn't do the easy fix on your own for free). My main argument: take the 200-400 USD out of the seven and a half thousand dollars you saved on tax cuts by buying the car in the first place! That finishes my response to my opponent's main arguments. Since this was a lengthy debate, I will present my last final, big argument, and provide a bit of thought concerning my opponent's contradiction in round 3 (which I mentioned in the beginning of round 4). This argument is presented on the basis that gas-cars continued to be used, and the possible consequences. Contention #1: The economy can not afford to be dependent on foreign oil (My point) (Why is this so?) (a) Society continues to run on gas-powered cars. Since this is the current system, this requires no evidence. (b) America's gas powered cars depend on foreign oil http://science.howstuffworks.com... " Looking again at 2008, the United States imported around 9.8 million barrels of crude oil per day from other countries [source: U.S. Energy Information Administration], and that comes out to a whopping 3.5 billion barrels per year!" (c) The countries/organizations America gets its oil from are politically unstable https://www.americanprogress.org... " In 2008 the United States imported oil from 10 countries currently on the State Department"s Travel Warning List, which lists countries that have "long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable." These nations include Algeria, Chad, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria." (d) American dependence on politically unstable countries/organizations may lead to economic devastation, as it did in 1973 with the oil crisis http://www.defenddemocracy.org... " Since 1973, non-OPEC oil production has doubled, in tune with the doubling in size of the world economy over the same period. However, while OPEC has engaged in many wild, short-term production expansions and contractions to manipulate the market, overall OPEC production has barely increased over the past third of a century despite the fact that they are sitting on top of 80 percent of the world's oil reserves " including all the most accessible oil reserves. This shows that they have had a long-term policy of limiting production in order to increases prices. As economic growth in China and India increases worldwide demand, the OPEC policy of strangling production is threatening to send the U.S. economy into a depression." (e) Economic detestation leads to negative impacts. I'm hoping no one needs evidence for this. Conclusion: As long as America uses foreign oil to support its economy, it will forever remain dependent and insecure of other world powers. One last thing: I would like to now point out the contradictions my opponent made in round 3 that I have mentioned a few times. In short: My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now. Why is this a contradiction? Well, mainly, because of how economic demand works. If there isn't a market for something, the R&D (research and development) doesn't get funded. If the R&D doesn't get funded, it is obvious that the technology will never become better. How does it connect? My opponent agrees that electric cars will be the superior mode to transportation in the future, but, obviously, his entire side is arguing against currently supporting a market of EVs. Do you see the contradiction? His encouragement to avoid EVs hurts the companies making EVs. If companies making EVs don't make money, they will fail. So what does that mean? This means that when the supposed, mysterious day in the future that my opponent describes arrives, the research into electric transportation would be near-to-nothing. This would ultimately cause a breakdown of how society functions as the oil fields dry up. How do we fix that? We put the money, time, effort, and market into EVs. We encourage renewables to take larger forms in society, so when that day comes in which the oil is gone, society will be able to make the shift rather easily, rather than coming to its knees. My opponent putting off research and innovation for the future seems, at least to me, quite lazy and irresponsible toward humanity