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

Government: Are you ready America? America: Aye-aye, government! Government (etc. ) I can't hear you. America: AYE-AYE GOVERNMENT! Government: Oh…what could kill our economy today? America: Oil dependency! Government: What do we need to solve for it? America: An alternative fuel mandate! Government: If new cars that don't run on gas be something you wish… America: Alternative fuel mandate! Government: Then this we will certainly dish! America: Alternative fuel mandate! All: Alternative fuel mandate! Alternative fuel mandate! Alternative fuel mandate! Government: Alternative fuel mandaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate! For organizational purposes, I will first defend my case and then attack my opponents: For the first attack on my oil dependency contention, my opponent uses the following train of logic: 1 Fuels will have to be shipped and turned into fuels using processes that release carbon dioxide 2. Thus, overall we lose energy 3 Thus alt. fuels cost more than oil First of all, oil also has "to be shipped and turned into fuels using processes that release carbon dioxide". So this does not make alt fuels worse than oil. Secondly, how does releasing carbon dioxide mean that alt fuels have a net energy loss? This does not make any sense. Until my opponent can prove that somehow the shipping and converting costs less for alt fuels and that points 1 & 2 are related, this attack fails. Furthermore, the whole reason that oil dependency is bad is not necessarily the cost of it but the fact that the fact that this can be changed by OPEC on whim. Regardless of what it may cost to process the oil, they can make it higher or cheaper as they like. My opponent then claims that I mention something along the lines of peak oil and that we are going to run out. This is a straw-man fallacy as the argument as NOTHING to do with peak oil. Finally, my opponent states that cars and light trucks make up only 60 % of oil consumption. Nevertheless, the mandate would still reduce oil dependency (even if it is not totally wiped out). So, this does this doesn't negate my argument. My opponent states to counter my second point that the switch "will be an economical liability". The thing is, as my second point states, this is EXACTLY why the mandate is good. It provides the alternative fuels industry with the distinction of being one of the very few industries that are guaranteed to not only survive, but to grow. So really, this helps my second point Opponents' case: My opponent first repeats his assertion that overall, alt fuels produce more carbon dioxide. However, even if you accept every single piece of evidence he has put in this debate (I will get to that shortly), none of it actually proves that the overall use of alt fuels will produce carbon dioxide. Evidence: One will notice my opponent has dropped every piece of evidence he posted in his case with exception to the Crutzen paper. Thus, everything else should be ignored simply on the basis of being dropped. As far as the Crutzen paper goes, my opponent states that if land use is considered, there is no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, he offers no evidence to this claim. As providing evidence for claims is one of the rule that he stated had to be followed, this cannot be taken into account in the debate. My opponent then accepts my definition and then tries to use it to justify his abusive interpretation. He states that since there are only seven alt fuels, I only have to defend seven. However, as I stated last round, there are infinite, impractical possibilities within each alternative fuel such as "using U. S. citizens' bodies for fuel (biomass), or attempting to build a machine that can access other dimensions so that we can search for other plants to use as bio-fuels". Under Con's interpretation, I would have to defend these and an infinite amount of other impractical suggestions. Furthermore, please extend the writer's/framer's intent point that he dropped that completely nullifies his rationalization for his interpretation. So, the fact that no fuel-specific evidence (including the Crutzen paper) should be accepted still stands My opponent then continues to state that the resolution predicts that "we will have bio-fuels that work great by 2040". Yet nowhere in the resolution does it state this. Please extend that I only have to defend alt fuels in general and that the mandate only has to be passed in 2040, with the due date at any point. My opponent's next statement is "No, because it says "by 2040" it means that the latest is 2040, if we mandate the latest to be earlier that will solve faster. " To me, this really does not make sense. I ask my opponent to perhaps rephrase it a different way and explain how it is relevant to this debate. Note: this DOES NOT count as dropping it. I am simply confused. My opponent then talks about the government and fuel standards in an attempt to justify that government interference is always bad. However, this does not take into account what people are buying. If the consumer wants more types of trucks and SUVs, which get less mpg, then companies are going to make more types of trucks/SUVs hence lowering the average fuel economy of new vehicles. Hence, this fails to prove that the lowering of fuel efficiency is the government's fault. Moreover, my opponent does not show how the creation of antitrust laws was bad, leaving it as a positive example and disproving his own point. My opponent continues on, stating that the mandate will hurts us economically. However, as my second point proves, the mandate will encourage investment in the economy (specifically the alt fuels industry) and will actually HELP us economically. My opponent then asserts that "if we're going to pass things now, it will make new changes not possible if we find a better solution. " First off, I fail to see how passing this mandate would make future changes impossible. For example, if we find that a better solution is to not buy cars, this mandate does not prevent this. Second, this is invalid as this is essentially saying we should not do anything ever, just in case we find a better solution. Finally, we do not have to pass it now, just by 2040, as the resolution states. My opponent concludes with two questions: "Will it [the mandate] help or will it only assuage our fears? Will it solve or will it not? " However, he fails to mention what the mandate is supposed to help/solve.