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

Thank you and good luck, Yes I agree of the status quo being bad, however the affirmative does nothing to help as I shall explain. Onto Pro's advantages (As long as the oter reads all that I have written this debate is over for Pro): 1) First of all you are predicting (or using others' predictions), this is as reliable as a monkey throwing a dart. My evidence is drawn from Louis Menand 2005, (I'm sure you've heard oh him if not, i can send you evidence over the comments) the evidence point to the fact that the people who predict are less accurate then the monkey throwing darts and also I am as good as any of your professors, furthermore the more fact you have the more you are likely to be wrong. 2) Major conflict scenarios are obsolete, Mandelbaum 99, his reasons for denying the next major conflict involving major powers are that 1. the costs have risen, 2. There are more democracies in place and democracies tend to stay away from wars, and 3. the recent weapon treaties promote transparency and deter large conflicts 4. the attitudes have changed, or simply put it, people aren't stupid to go to wars 5. Any answer of recent history such as Rwanda from my opponent are obsolete because the when you look to history trends the warfare is decreasing and finally my opponent's advantage is a scare tactic which calls for a major war b/c of oil dependence and pollution which is a major conflict that won't happen. 3) My opponent has to defend the resolution and not pick a specific fuel, by picking a specific fuel he spikes out of my disadvantages and reduces the ground for the debate, both of which are abusive. The debate specifically calls for "alternative fuels" not one of the fuels. The some of the well known fuels my opponent has to defend are: biodiesel, bioalcohol (methanol, ethanol, butanol), chemically stored electricity (batteries and fuel cells), hydrogen, non-fossil methane, non-fossil as well as others which are just not very popular. 4) Onto the Global warming: 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. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear. 5)Onto Pollution: right, now ther have been people dying from pollution, where? Pro is making an illusion, the facts are clear, most of the people who die, are those in the foreign countries, because those countries don't mandate the exhaust pipe to be filtered, unlike USA, so my opponent can only help if the plan is for the entire world, which it is not. 6) Good old Hegemony and SP ;) Here is my first question why is are these powers good? according to you, we don't have it now so why aren't the bad impacts happening, why is there no major war now? Now come on, Secondly when do we have this power, back in 60-70th? well as i recall there were wars back then too. .. Another thing is that you don't specify why hegemony is good, thus you loose on it, to specify the adantages later is to be abusive since i will have way less tim eot answer it. .. . Again as a potential voter it is clear who has won, Con 7) Ooooohhhhh the plan, here is the problem, we're debating the resolution not the implementation of the plan, have you seen me attacking the solvency anywhere? No, in the 1st speech i specifically contested weather its a good idea or not, and you're on this different passage debating how we can do this. .. the way we can implement the plan is irrelevant Now lets look to your plan: "vehicles sold in the US be powered by alternative fuels by 2040" well it says alternative fuels, not "hemp" you've just finished your self right there. .. where can you find me the definition that states alternative fuels (notice it is fuels, which means there must be at least two fuels) are only "hemp" you cannot and therefore i ought to win. Again as i have previously explained you cannot just pick one fuel, by doing so you conced that other fuels don't solve and thus you loose, and secondly you violate the resolution because you not debating it, this is not policy debate other wise i would have structured my 1st speech as such. Onto his answers 1. Are you joking me? Solar power is alternative energy not fuel, fuel produces CO2, not solar power dude learn the definitions before making foolish remarks. Secondly my road to victory (although is now finished looking at my answers) is to prove the resolution is not good, since the resolution calls for "alternative fuels" as long as I prove its not those fuels that we need I win. My point is that there are ways to solve the problem however your way is bad, just because i agree to the need of change, that does nto mean you win, where do you debate at, go to your coach and ask him if don't get what I am talking about; Example: let say Pro contended that Iraq war was bad, ok their solution is to send in nuclear bombs, the con(me) says yes iraq is bad but sending in nuclear bombs doesn't solve(this is just example not any of my views), do I loose (like pro claims right now)? No, that's a ridiculous argument Here is why you don't solve anything: 1. Alternative fuels need land therefore taking away land form crops, and causing shortages in food 2. You need to transport that energy and irrigate it etc. which when you include into account means there is no reduction in CO2 thus you loose by just bringing a plan that will do nothing 2. This debate is ridiculous because of your arguments; I'm not sticking you, i am affirming what the resolution is calling for, if you thinks its abusive why did you accept the debate? (sarcastically) yeah makes lots of sense; that's the resolution and if you don't think its fair you shouldn't have accepted the debate, should have let someone who else is more able then you debate 3. No it isn't, my contention is that setting the date to 2040 you must prove the reason for it (i wanted someone to give me additional reasons, i guess you're not the one) since you didn't i win. The date should be 2039 if the problem is so bad, why not do it earlier? really what is so special about 2040? wow Con wins -Dude when you advocate something you must prove it not complain that the questioning of your plan is abusive :( -"Tossed"? why because you can't answer it? Fine if the voter is to accept that then this is my claim : Toss away every other argument the Pro has made besides this one. Somewhat, if you vote Pro you get something done which won't help and if you vote Con then we look to this problem and find a better way to solve it Onto his last hemp solvency 1. As I've explaned to pick one fuel to defend is to violate the reslutin thus I win 2. This tree needs land to grow and thus takes away the land to be grown for other crops which leads to more hunger and higher prices for crops all which lead to inflation thus You don't improve the status quo and Con wins 3. "endless benefits"? yeah if its so brilliant why don't people use it now in large quatities, maybe its more epensive? or maybe you have to use methods that produce CO2 to get the fuel? yeah real good fuel 4. IF HEMP IS SO GOOD WHY THEN THERE IS A FEDERAL BAN ON FARMING IT? oh yeah and when you cut teh tree down, don't you take out its CO2 consumption? And don't all trees eat CO2? a natural cycle? 5.