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

First I will prove why the resolution should be affirmed, present a plan, then go over whatever he said. The United States finds itself in a time of economic turmoil, environmental destruction, and feeling a decrease in its leadership it once felt so greatly. The common buzzword of this era is "change". President Barack Obama was voted in on the platform of that very thing for one reason, the American public has opened its eyes to the fact America needs to change. Naysayers of this philosophy are finally being looked past, and you have to look past the naysayer of the resolution to bring the lasting change America needs so greatly. Our poor economy, horrible pollution, and decrease in hegemony can all be worked toward solving by passing the plan I am going to present today. I affirm the resolution "By 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels". I offer 3 independent advantages. 1) Oil dependence Bernd Debusmann, a Reuters Staff Writer comments on our Oil Dependence when saying, "the United States has 4 percent of the world's population and uses almost a quarter of its oil... Our economic engine is now 70 percent dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us" 2 Independent impact scenarios can be isolated from this 1. Peak oil- The scientific concenses concludes that Peak oil will happen soon. We all know that oil is not infinite, it will run out one day (most conclude it will peak on the year 2010). When this happens, our economy that is 70 percent dependent on oil, will be immediately shot resulting in an economic collapse. When this happens it is safe to say that the global economy will fail. We can only imagine the chaos that would occur post the worlds economy failing. 2. A country decides to stop sending us oil- Again, this would kill our economy Katherine A. Siggerud says, "Efforts to reduce oil consumption will need to include the transportation sector because transportation in the United States currently accounts for 68 percent of the nation`s oil consumption". It is easy to see that our oil dependence threatens our economy to great levels. The answer is simple, end this oil dependence by switching to alternative fuels. When we can do that we can have a stronger, more independent economy. Pollution The World Health Organization says that over one million people die every year because of air pollution, brought on by our cars. This air pollution will be multiplied when factoring in all the deaths caused by the looming threat of global warming. Fossil fuels emit carbon dioxide, the leading cause of global warming. Sure, you can believe global warming does not exist. You can believe not one country can solve for it. But my plan will not only stop this air pollution, but it will leave no question whether global warming is anthropogenic or not. Hegemony and soft power As of late, the United States of America has somewhat lost its superpower image throughout the world. But being the world leader of transitioning to an alternative fuel will raise our superpower status high, once again. Not only will we be a higher superpower, we will also gain soft power. We can accomplish both by receiving positive feedback because of our efforts to fight global warming (soft power) and hard power (hegemony) in being the world leader on the transition to alternative energy. Hence the plan- The United States federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles sold in the US be powered by alternative fuels by 2040 Plank 1- The USfg will legalize hemp for use as biofuel Plank 2- The USfg will remove all subsidies for corn based biofuels and put that money into hemp farmers Plank 3- The USfg will give tax breaks to auto companies for its efforts toward biofuel based engines and infrastructure The plan solves. When America transitions to an alternative fuel it will eliminate its oil dependence, pollution, and regain its hegemony. If hemp were to be legalized, it would be the best fuel to switch to, and that is the fuel I will defend. Onto what my opponent said- 1. The transition is a HUGE improvement on the status quo- vote for the Aff and you get those 3 huge things done, vote for the neg and the status-quo will work itself out. Unless the neg can prove my plan is BAD, I win this round. Fossil fuels release Co2 into the atmosphere, hemp does it. It actually does the opposite. It is a plant, it does photosynthesis. This takes Co2 from the Air, proving wrong what the neg said is blatantly wrong. He says we should have cars that run on solar, ok? Great job defeating your own resolution. The framers of the resolution meant the debate to be "oil or something else?". Solar power would be "something else" as would hemp. The debate is already over as of this point. When he concedes that change is needed you have no way to vote but for the neg. A vote for the neg symbolizes your change of mindset that favors change. This alone is enough to vote for the neg, before any debate framework brought up by the aff. 2. I am sure any readers of this debate think that this is ridiculous. To stick the opposing side to ANYTHING the aff can think of is completely abusive. If the neg defines horse dung as an alternative fuel, i would have to defend that. Do not look at the negatives interpretation of the resolution, look to mine. I see it as the affirmative being allowed to pick an alternative energy that should be used. In round education is bolstered this way. Any readers of this debate will now learn about hemp and its uses. When this happens, true real world change occurs because now the readers understand how amazing hemp is. By my interpretation we have specialized debate and more in round education because we are not talking about SO MANY different alternative fuels, just talking about the one that is the best. 3. Another ridiculous abusive contention. The wording of the resolution even defeats it "BY 2040". As long as the transition is done by the year 2040 the negative team still wins. Dont let him try and say "my counterplan is for the transition to be done in the year 2041" -First of all this is abusive toward me. As the aff I am tied into only 1 year and as the affirmative team you must look to any advocacies brought up by me before the advocacies of the negative. I am the one making the plan here, I should be favored. -Second. Any arguments made against the solvency of my plan should also be tossed. Sure, he can prove another year is more key. But the bottom line is by voting for my plan you get stuff done, not by voting for the neg. Now. Hemp solvency (you can ask for my sources i guess, you can find them all on the internet though, its all pretty common knowledge to those that support hemp legalization" 1. Hemp has 4 times the cellulose found in corn 2. Hemp revitalizes farmland by putting nutrients into the soil, increasing crop yields on that land 3. Hemp does not use nearly as many pesticides as corn, the current biofuel 4. Hemp will cause for corn to be eaten, not used as fuel. (im actually getting hauled off to Sacramento RIGHT NOW, the benefits of hemp are endless, ill defend ANY arguments against hemp)