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

Ok. Short and sweet. 1. Non-responsive. You think you can answer any "bad thing" by saying its like a monkey throwing a dart. You cant, you have argue oil dependence. You didnt, You conceded me solving it by not answering it. You need to stop saying "you dont solve" and actually explain it for once. I have explained why I solve, he didn't answer theres no way to look but aff. 2. New argument- whatever, its not hard to answer. You conceded that 70 percent of the economy is dependent on oil and that 68 percent of that comes from cars. We cut down the US oil dependence to something less than 20 percent. You also conceded peak oil and that another country can cut us off on the oil that we get. We save the US economy. That means the country WE live in will be safe. What am I supposed to do about China? Nothing. The resolution calls for me to pass this plan in America. i do that. China can solve their own problems but my plan will also help china. You also conceded that when the US economy goes down, the worlds will and that means china is screwed too. Who will buy all the good from China if the US economy is shot? No one, and Chinas will be effected as well. They can transition to alt energy on their own also. 3. They will transition on their own. US leadership solves, they see the US do it and they will too. 4. Hemp doesnt. The only reason ethanol raises food prices now is because ethanol is made from corn. That means corn is not being eaten, and is driving up food prices. Not all ethanol is corn also. Sugar cane, switchgrass, and hemp can all be used. You cant stick me with just corn, because America will see its bad to use corn for biofuels and will switch to one of the 3 alternatives. This fits your framework as well, Im using "alternative "fuel(S)" 5. Make your answers after I say them. The bottom line is that you present no evidence otherwise or even choose to answer what I said. Sure, it can be in 2040. What you must look at is that oil WILL run out one day. It is imperative that we are ready for when it runs out. The monkey card does not help you here. Unless you were able to prove that oil is infinite, theres a reason to vote aff. And you didn't. Judges, vote aff to be ready for when oil runs out, or another country cuts us off. He drops the second completely. Russia can cripple our economy being that we get a lot of oil from them. And so can the Middle East. Once again, these are dropped. You have to understand that dependence is bad, dependence on anything is bad. But when our economy, transportation, and overall wellbeing of our country is dependent on one thing, we must fix that. And we do that with the aff and transitioning to alternative fuels. 6. He says peak oil is false- Dont post an entire article for everyone to read. Take out quotes that you want is to see. Ill just answer the tag, im sure thats what the article is about. - Oil will run out. Again. Thats the point. Our economy is tied up on something that will run out one day. When it happens doesnt really matter, it will happen. - "Wars are more likely to trigger the impacts"- Ok. Im sure the readers are seeing how the neg kills himself here. If we get into one of these "wars" that are "more likely" to occur, our economy fails. This alone is reason to vote for me. Believing in peak oil no longer even matters when he concedes that a war can kill our economy because our system is so dependent on oil. 5. Yea, your link didnt work for me and im not sure if its just my computer or what. Either way, the argument is irrelevant. Who cares if oil is at a global price, when we have alternative fuels that wont even matter. Im not sure where youre going with this but i can guarantee its no reason to vote me down. 6. Youre not even making arguments. You just say "i want to be able to make them" and never do. So I really dont care at this point. I thought you seemed intelligent and as if you could debate theory, but i guess not. You dont even understand "education" What im saying is that if you run all of these specific solvency attacks to all of these different types of alternative energy we get no depth in the debate. So people reading would learn nothing. But you didnt do that, so I am not winning theory debate. I was protecting myself against potential abuse, and there was no abuse. Theory debate is a wash, I fall into your framework. And am winning it. - Ok. You didnt run the abusive case, but there was the potential. I was merely protecting myself. Its no reason to freak out. - (A2 next 2 subpoints) I explained already how the free market system will not accept a crop that takes the land for food. There are good alternative energies out there that have only positive effects, those are the ones that will be used. You expect to win the debate by saying "corn ethanol" is bad and not acknowledge the rest of the types of alternative energy at all. My fuels will come from South America apparently. This makes no sense and has no logic behind it. There are fuels, such as hemp when legalized, that can be grown on American soil. Switchgrass can also be grown on American soil now without legalizing anything. There are plenty. Im not too sure if my opponent had some type of anxiety attack or what. But he believes that hydrogen cars will be blown up by Mexican terrorists or something or another... Then he goes back to that one card he keeps talking about saying that his predictions are as good as mine. These are new arguments and should not be looked at, but for the sake of leaving no doubt in his mind that he lost, ill just finish it off. http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com... (this source should actually work) Furthermore, the following excerpt from a recent SearchChicago article (http://searchchicago.suntimes.com...) discusses GM's effort to make their high-pressure hydrogen tanks safe: "The idea is to make the tanks virtually indestructible. During testing, the tanks have been shot and dropped out of airplanes among other things to ensure overall safety." The article also talks about how there is so little hydrogen in the tanks, and it will dilute quickly so that the hydrogen is hardly flammable. Hydrogen is flammable, but its so light it will dilute so quickly into the air it will not catch fire. So this just shows how Hydrogen fuel cannot by used as a terrorist weapon. Global Warming Thank you for presenting evidence, a positive change in your strategy. I will just fall back on what I said last time, the debate over Climate change might not ever end. But if it is true the magnitude of the impacts are huge. It would be best to leave no doubt in our minds. Even if you believe it is fake and theres no reason to solve for it, it is no reason to vote me down. He has to standing turns on global warming, I am just not solving for it. So if you are one of those people, deal with it as if it was just never brought up. Pollution OK. Ill let the judges decide whether the air in their area is clean or not, or if there has been an undeniable raise in asthma because of air pollution Hege/Soft power Theres no reason why it is bad. If you think that it is good vote for me, if not the neg makes no turns so you have to default neutral I have adopted his framework. But i have proven that what he said against alt energy is wrong. No abuse, no hemp. But hemp will probably be used anyways. "That little trip"- The car will be ran by the alt fuel On 3. 2040 is the date proposed, that date has not been proven bad, default to the date given for the aff. It is good because it ensures stuff will be done by 2040 Hemp can be grown on bad land that isnt farmed, and gives nutrients to the soil. Farmers will put it in the crop rotation. Dropped theory, im on your framework Good is done by the aff, nothing by the neg. Vote Aff