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

"Without evidence nothing is warranted, or valid" I showed you my sources, and I showed you my logic. Most of my responses were logical or for something I researched a few weeks ago and no longer have a copy of. But I still showed you the thought line. And unless if you react to my arguments and say 'this is completely lacking in ANY evidence because...' then your main argument is invalid. "And you should explain to judge why you win, in any of the debates," No you should let the judge decide for himself, why you should win, or give him an idea, not TELL him that you win. "Where are your sources?" Well, to quote from my early argument: "Pro's SOURCES: Age of Consequences, Stern Report, Science Daily, Manpollo, PBI Leadership Camp, Kevin Burke, Robert Buchanan, my puppy-dog, Bricheze, and The Impacts of a Warming Arctic "you can't claim some of the arguments you've made, unless you're an expert in those fields." I am, I have worked in the arctic, I understand global warming. I also work on a farm, I understand bio fuels. I am also a biology major, I understand the eco-system. "however if you have evidence it's another story." My evidence was logic, we are the leaders of the world. And if we do well after changing to alternative fuels, others will follow our example. If others feel this is true, they will agree with me and vote for me on most convincing arguments, if not they might vote for you. But, you are not the judge, you do not have the right to warrant the ultimate decision of all other voters. "You are telling me that countries are controlling us," No that they have the ability to control us. What if the middle east just decided to stop selling us oil? "you're telling me that we won't be dependent, yet we still will use oil," I might use alcohol recreationally, but I am not dependent on it as an alcoholic. (BTW this is a metaphor) "and you're telling me we're destroying the environment, yet you have ZERO evidence," Do you know what NAS and AAAS is? They are some of the top and most prestigious scientific groups in the world. Here are some quotes that can simply help with my debate. Since this isn't and AGW debate I don't have enough space to get to much into it: "The longer we wait to tackle climate the change, the harder and more expensive the task will be." -AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change "…delayed action will increase the risk of adverse environmental effects and will likely incur greater cost." -NAS Joint Science Academies Statement. "Ok this conceded claim means that the other countries will balance out the CO2 not produced by USA and that means that there will be no positive impact, and these countries don't want to switch their oil use." Actually, have you heard of Kyoto? They want to start without us. "Ok... scientist..." Just like you I am student, a very VERY hands on student. I never claimed to be a scientist. "And I have answered your Global Warming with 32,000 scientists, I'm pretty sure they know better than you." Are you talking about the ones that are dead, or the 31'960 that aren't climatologists? How about the ones that don't exist? Perhaps the several that have very low degrees or no degrees at all? Actually notable scientific groups that concede to global warming include these: * National Academy of Sciences (NAS) * National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) * NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) * Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) * The Royal Society of the UK (RS) * Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) (http://environment.about.com...) "Thirdly, her "credentials" are only able to warrant some of the GW claims therefore that is not enough of evidence." You've said it yourself, logic is a fine type of evidence. "Once more I'm destroying your claims not you...-,-" You've spent much more time talking about me, rather then my arguments. You ignored at least 80% of them. BTW they weren't even new evidence, they were all rebuttals to your arguments, therefore even by your standards you don't have a right to ignore them. "The resolution does not call for anyone but US to change!" But very likely it will cause change in other countries. "Again are you a political scientist?" I've studied political sciences, but I am studying a major in the environment. "Again I have specific evidence proving those countries don't want to change." 154 of them want to, as seen in the Kyoto Protocol. (http://savetheplanet.co.nz...) "STUPID???? What reputation do you have?" Not me, the scientist that support global warming have a large reputation to uphold.Also, you just called ME stupid, not my argument. (refer to my list above) For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply. As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. "GAME OVER ON THE GLOBAL WARMING, I HAVE WAY MORE BUT I DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE MY TOP CARDS" We should have a debate on global warming after this. I would 'school' you. "U.S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation" And oil consumption has triggered global warming, which has triggered the infestation pine bark beetles, which is killing trees at an alarming rate--much worse then biofuels do. Not only that, but what about oil spills? On average there are 80 a day! "Media???? Yeah they are really wrong, yet you have nothing to disprove my claim with. -,- here is the one of the numerous evidences I have to justify Media not to be biased" Lol, he is saying we should trust everything the media tells us... that just proves my point. Unless if you actually believe him! (What's really funny, is that the report about the media comes from the media, I'm sure the report it's self wasn't biased...) "the problem is in that you do not prove why the alternative fuels are good after 3 rounds already." It's hard for me to prove anything when you ignore my arguments, and refuse to refute them. "This is giving a heart attack..... look, please tell me how your answer has actually answered my claim?" There wasn't a claim there, well either then your claim that yu have won on technicalities. " YES IT DOES AND IT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT." You haven't proved me wrong, you have ignored me and added more and more argument and discrediting assumptions of myself from you. "WHAT EVIDENCES? SOURCES?" Well the souces I had listed, and the evidence I explained during the debate.. "AND YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE EITHER UNWARRANTED OR PLAIN NAIVE." You still have to respond to them, otherwise what is the point of having a debate? Let me explain this again, I say something your refute it, not I say something and you call it 'naive.' "I have countered all of your claims, I have proved the plan wrong, and yes the plan is the sole reason for this debate, thanks for ruining it for me." When did you refute my arguments? I must of missed it... I got caught up in you yelling at me for having 'naive arguments' that weren't worth your time. "You putting a bunch of things as your sources doesn't mean anyone can find them, does, it?" ... For some reason it is deleting my last paragraph, even though I still have 500 characters remaining. If you don't mind I am going to paste it in the comments section.