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

Floodgates"?... you mean like you're drowning? :) 1. The first card about Menand 05 is to answer any impacts you might throw at me such as the collapse of hegemony = bad things or global warming = extinction etc. Yes we're dependent but you don't improve nothing and thus our dependency really gets you nowhere. 2. Ok... um what? how are you gone solve economy fail, is your plan mandating for the change across the board, meaning in all other countries? Lets look at China, they're about to surpass USA in energy consumption, how will you solve economic collapse? You solve nothing http://www.nytimes.com... LONDON, Nov. 6 — China will surpass the United States in 2009, nearly a decade ahead of previous predictions, as the biggest emitter of the main gas linked to global warming Expanding ethanol use will raise food prices thus will kill our economy this is a turn Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2007, p. A2 While the new moves enjoy considerable political support and the endorsement of environmental groups, experts who watch the nation's food consumption worry that more ethanol use will drive up food prices. (Yeah I'd really like to see you say that in person kid) Menand answers your peak and your scenario for economy to fail son. You agree and thus these so called "dropped" args don't help you. How can one predict that peak will be in 2010, when they can't predict how people will behave, and by the way look online, the peak of oil is predicted to be at so many times that your claim is obsolete for example some claim it will be 2040, you claim it will be 2010, and you know what else, so say we hit the peak so what makes your prediction so good? nothing... Fine if you don't believe me forget about comments I ll just start putting evidence into this debate, hope I won't run out of space Peak oil is false –and wars are way more likely to trigger their impacts Ismael Hossein-zadeh, author of the recently published The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism http://onlinejournal.com... Oil sells at a global price, the U.S. can't be insulated Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, June 2008, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov... 3. Dude, we're debating with 72 hours to prepare? education? what ta... Education? how do i kill your education? you accept the resolution and debate me that its not fair? what are you doing, just because my arguments are true and you can't answer them doesn't me you have to call it foul... -Dude, I explained how your plan is not going to help and will be detrimental and if you pick one of the fuels you're violating the resolution which ... wait for it..... kill MY education, because i want to debate the real topic so that i can get used to it, but hey no... I can't do that because smarty pants here wants to twist the resolution which i can't really do in a debate at least against the smarter debaters -Um dude, you have 72 hours to answer the disad, don't worry i won't make new arguments (this debate probably being the messiest i ve been in since freshman year) i don't need to since i won, BUT the thing is that you didn't defend any of them and my claim was simple, the land for these fuels will be expanded and will trade of with food etc -Dude the resolution calls for US to use anyone of the not just good ones or bad ones No you don't solve it, dude your alt fuels will be coming from south America like it does so you'll just transfer our dependence, and again you're not Moses the prophet you're just a lousy kid who makes some predictions which are just as good as mine, remember Menand? Yes he tells me that i am as good as you and any other prediction maker, so i ll make a prediction, i predict that with alt fuels we will be dependent on Mexicans who will seek revenge and try to kill us, my second prediction is that US will deem the hydrogen fuel as the fuel to use and it will make the terrorists be able to launch attacks since a car running on hydrogen is like a bomb my evidence is as follows: Many factors prevent high energy prices from undermining the economy International Energy Agency, May 2008, Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios & Strategies to 2050,.p. 46 HYDROGEN VEHICLES WILL BE USED AS MASSIVE BOMBS BY TERRORISTS* Shinnar, Professor of Chemical Engineering at City College of New York, 2003 (http://www.chem.... northwestern.edu/news_events/Seminars/H2_Econony.pdf) And since you have enough time and like 8000 characters yeah im pretty sure you can make up answers and no this is not new arguments i just predict just like you Global warming muhahahah 1. NO here is why: -The earth has been cooling, not warming Sydney Morning Herald, 11-7, 8, http://www.smh.com.au...- truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html -CO2 doesn't drive climate change The Daily Record of Rochester (Rochester, NY), October 16, 2008, p. online (Kevin Williams is president of weather-track.com and director of meteorology for News 10NBC.) The answer sure seems obvious to me: Carbon dioxide is not the main driver of climate change. It is not even a significant driver. It only comprises 1 percent of the total of all greenhouse gases compared to water vapor, which comprises 97 percent of the greenhouse gas total. Furthermore, paleoclimatoloogical history shows us that warm periods actually preceded increases in carbon dioxide as warming oceans expelled the dissolved gas they contained. History also shows us that carbon dioxide concentration over the past few hundred years is near its lowest levels since the Cambrian Era, some 550 million years ago. In fact, the concentration was almost 20 times higher then, yet organisms thrived and the world did not end due to runaway global warming. -No consensus in favor of climate change Hanover Post (Ontario), September 19, 2008, p. A6 One, the science is anything but clear. In 2007, over 400 scientists presented a report to the U. S. Senate in which they stated that consensus does not exist among earth scientists regarding global climate change and that many top ranking scientists now doubt the validity of the U. N.'s IPCC statements regarding climate change. This is eight times as many scientists as were on the U. N. panel. Pollution: Dude our air is clean ever looked outside? HEGE/SOFT POWER 1. if there is no impact its no good PLAN What are you talking about? 1. yes your joking me, solar power is not alt fuel! - Hemp does too you have to plant it and it will take space and you have to transport it, good job conceding it - That little trip? wut? dude yes it will, the net sum = no reduction of CO2, you have by the time fuel is harvested it will not help reduce CO2 and again a fuel is a fuel which = CO2 2. This is f****** PF not Policy, here we debate weather the resolution should be adopted or not , in this case it shouldn't. The word "Resolved" means we have to debate about the stuff following the word I'm not abusing you, i not even seeing you, how can i abuse you dude, by the way online you have too much time to be abused by anyargument you have a lot of time to reasearch so don't give me that bull 3.Dude what makes the 2040 so special, as far as the facts go, the industry won't have to do anything till 2040, and why not 2050 i mean why 2040, since you provide no reason game over for u 1.Hemp land will trade away with food and u loose 2.so if its imported then we put ourselves reliant on someone else proving you loose 3.so u say Gov is bad yet you help strengthen it? Theory: Plan good? no! 1. More stuff = better education 2. u dont make my unerdstanding any better when u don't look at the whole pic 3. a recognition to make "a"? dude a vote for aff