Walking has a More Negative Impact on the Environment than Driving

With many apologies to both my opponent and the audience, I regret having to forfeit the last round -- As you can see I was not online for 6 days due to problems with my internet at home. My forfeit should not be considered when judging the "conduct" portion of this debate, because my opponent was online but also skipped a round, meaning our conduct was equal. Let it be known that I will not introduce any new arguments in this round whatsoever, but merely respond to Pro's R1/R2 argument and re-cap what I posted in R1 (many of which Pro did not respond to). That said, let's get back to the discussion. In R1, I claimed that walking itself was not to blame for any carbon emissions -- that Pro's entire argument rests *not* on the harms from placing one foot in front of the other repeatedly, but rather the fact that the way food is made (machinery) and transported (vehicles) is to blame. He presents an analogy using a cutlery/murder example; for instance if a woman decides to commit murder with a knife, then the cutlery company cannot be blamed for the tool she used to commit that murder. I completely agree. However, that analogy actually helps MY side of the resolution. I stated that Pro's case does not argue against the act of walking, but rather the way the food industry chooses to produce (and transport - i.e. driving) that food. As such, using Pro's analogy we can see that he is the one who wants to blame the cutlery company (food industry) for the action of walking (murder) which doesn't follow. Ergo, Pro's analogy actually demonstrated why his side of the argument is wrong. Now, it's true that I agreed to the R1 terms that the calories expended in this debate would be from walking and walking alone. However, even if the individual had driven to the store instead of walked, they would still need to eat. Pro cannot prove that they would eat less if they had driven. Moreover, even if Pro could prove that, that still would not change any of the deciding factors in this debate. The food industry would have still operated the same way: the food would be made by the same machinery, and it would be transported by the same means - even if the individual had walked. So, if Person X walked to the store and bought a chicken (and ate the entire thing) vs. driving there and buying a chicken (but eating only half since they had less calories to replenish) then the exact same carbon emissions from the production and transport would have been released. Ergo, Pro has not demonstrated in any way whatsoever that driving to the store instead of walking would have a better impact on the environment. To simplify it further, Pro has not stated anywhere how WALKING is bad for the environment. Indeed if food were not produced by machines, or not transported via driving, then walking would have absolutely nothing to do with this debate. In fact my family grows a large portion of our own food, meaning Pro's entire argument doesn't even apply. Additionally, if food were grown locally, then there would be less food transport (driving) meaning his argument falls apart. This further proves how his case is not about walking but rather noting the harms (carbon emissions) of the food industry itself. If we changed the way food was produced, then walking would have absolutely nothing to do with this debate and his argument would be entirely dismantled. Next Pro writes that I have "compared apples to oranges" in noting the amount of energy we use vs. carbon emissions. While it's true that they are not synonomous, the two go hand in hand [1], [2], [3], etc. Because of the way we utilize energy, it seems that the more energy we use, the more carbon emissions we put out. Therefore, saying the two are not relevantly connected is false. Here you can also see how Pro manipulates the resolution when he notes, "Therefore, driving does not contribute the same amount of carbon as the food industry does." Indeed - but how much carbon does WALKING contribute? As I said, this debate is about walking vs. driving -- not the food industry vs. driving. Nowhere did Pro state that walking emitted any carbon whatsoever whereas I have proven that driving does. More importantly, Pro completely ignored the other factors I noted in R1. For instance, I quoted a source saying that driving (not walking) was a citizen's MOST polluting activity; Pro never responded. I also pointed out all of the ways driving is negative on the environment, such as noise pollution, water pollution, solid waste production and other huge negative impacts on wildlife to name a few. Again, Pro never disputed this reality. Instead he writes: "Con further states that driving leads to a large amount of consequences, such as carbon monoxide expulsion. However, Con fails to state how much these substances contribute to global warming in comparison to carbon emissions." Let's stop right there. Nowhere in R1 (or R2 or R3 for that matter) did Pro EVER talk about global warming, or say that I had to compare / explain the harms of driving to global warming, therefore this statement is entirely irrelevant. It becomes increasingly obvious that Pro simply tries to change the entire subject matter instead of responding to the obvious truth that driving has a significantly more negative impact on the environment than walking (which has little to no effect). Pro continues, "Therefore, it is unfair to compare without understanding how much each contributes to make a mathematical calculation of who harms the environment more." Once again, this is completely false and manipulative information. Moreover it negates Pro's entire argument! If he's saying that we can't come to a mathematical conclusion about which harms the environment more - walking or driving - then he has already lost the debate for himself because he cannot prove that driving is less negative than walking. Fortunately he's wrong; I have listed a handful of negative driving repercussions whereas Pro has listed *zero* negative repercussions of walking. In my book, any number of things is greater than zero. Therefore I have indeed proved how driving has a greater negative impact on the environment than walking. To conclude Pro writes, "walking does contribute to carbon emissions, and my original arguments from round one stand." However, you'll notice once again did that he never sourced, cited or explained how WALKING contributes to carbon emissions. Instead, his argument is that people who walk need to "eat more" (which is not entirely true since smaller people who get exercise need less food...), and so more food would need to be produced and transported to replenish that burned energy. Again, if food were produced differently, then walking would be irrelevant. Moreover if food were locally grown, less transportation would be needed. However, driving would still have a more negative impact on the environment than walking. Pro did not mention one way in which walking directly negatively impacted the environment, and I explained how the other factors he mentions in conjunction with walking are quite irrelevant. For instance even if one drove and ate less food, food production and transportation would still be the same (i.e. it doesn't matter if I eat half a chicken or a whole chicken - a chicken is still being killed and transported the same way). The indirect harms he mentions from walking are far-fetched. As such, because I listed a handful of negative impacts that driving directly has on the environment, the resolution has been negated. Thanks and good luck. [1] http://www.energystar.gov... [2] http://www.infoplease.com... [3] http://www.google.com...=