Electric cars should be adopted, while limiting gas-powered cars

IntroductionMy opposition today, has based his/her arguments on fallacies, fallacies that cannot be supported. Most of his/her rebuttals are a straw man fallacy, he/she has continuously misinterpreted what I stated to make it easier to attack. Pro has failed to give his model(plan) yet has failed to hold true to the fair model I later provided. I would like to first point out Pro's sentence "My opponent states that electric cars are good for the future, but refuses to support research and development now. " This is a lie. I do not refuse to support research. I believe research is the, early implementation. I do not take kindly to blatant untruths. My opposition has no valid reasoning that his/her model present an overall benefit not detriment to our society, thus we cannot implement electric cars while limiting gas powered ones now. Points of contention1. Right now electric cars are more detrimental to the environmentMy opposition stated "My opponent mistakenly does not seem to get the point I am trying to get across; get America on renewables, and usher in the age of electric transportation". This is not his point. Pro committed his first straw man fallacy here. The point, as can be seen in his first argument was that electric cars are less detrimental to the environment. Pro stated in his first argument how gasoline powered cars are detrimental to the environment. This is true and in my first argument I agreed with it. I however provided statistics proving that electric cars are far more detrimental as they are mostly powered by coal. Pro then stated in his second argument that: (a) Coal is used less and less. This is again true, but the model is supposed to be implemented now. This means that electric cars are still far more detrimental to our environment(b) Not all countries use coal for most of their power. I countered this with statistics illustrating how 2nd world and 3rd world countries use coal and how they contain most of the worlds population. I furthered this point by pointing out the harms of alternation energy sources for those countries that don't use coal. The alternate sources of power were mainly nuclear fission and natural gas energy. In his/her third argument used a "Simpsons" episode to illustrate his point of nuclear fission is clean. Let us be logical, a simpsons episode is not fact, my opposition in fact provided no research to prove that nuclear fission was fine for the environment. Fission uses 5% of the enriched Uranium with 95% being waste. This waste is buried in the ground. How is this not detrimental to the environment? My opposition has thus failed to prove that electric cars are, as of right now not more detrimental to the environment, therefore I win that clashSources:Most can be found in my arguments. . http://nuclearinfo.net...2. Electric cars are more detrimental to peopleThis point closely follows the first. As I won that is is clear to see that electric cars are more detrimental to people. I provide evidence highlight how electric cars cause 85 more pollution related deaths than gasoline powered cars, contrary to no evidence from Pro. Sources:Most can be found in my arguments.3. The whether electric cars are held back by the general public's supposed desire for muscle cars and their lack of educationThis is not the truth. The average citizen does not want a powerful car. Pro firstly provided statistics show how Ford Mustangs and Chevy Camaros are making a comeback. My opposition has sadly deceived the audience here. The titles of the to pages of his research? (a) "Ford Mustang sales leap ahead of other sporty cars"(b) "2016 Camaro bulks up in muscle car sales race"Pro states that V8's are standard, as seen in the source, this is a falsityThe opposition discounted my evidence that people are reasonable educated about electric cars as it is general knowledge. He the proceeded to provide his/her own general statement and set exceedingly high criteria. This is completely ridiculous. The oppositions illegitimate research means his statement that people want muscle cars is a fallacy. The opposite has failed to provide any relative and legitimate research while I have provided a conductible experiment, therefore I clearly won this argument. Sources:. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. Whether or not people could afford itMy opposition has come out swinging with the fallacy Ad hominem. (a) He states that people don't have to have all the money when buying a car so a person payed $60, 000 a year could easily afford it. This is not the truth. While people can take out loans there are many limitations. One could not simply take out a $40, 000 loan for a $40,000 car. Pro also discounts people in poverty. 90% of people below the poverty line rely on welfare. Once on welfare, one cannot take out a loan. (b) Pro says that he/she never mentioned anything about a tax on those that don't buy an electric car. What he also didn't state was a model, a key duty of Pro. I fairly provide the model incorporation the standard time frame, now, and a tax as it is one of the only limitations that crosses socio-economic status'. As Pro failed to provide a model, the duty fell to me, therefore their is a tax forced upon people, especially weaken those defenseless people below the poverty line. A Pro failed to provide any evidence. His/her arguments are fallacious as proven above. Therefore the clash falls to me. Sources:. https://www.ato.gov.au...5. Whether electric cars currently have the capabilities to go on the road. Pro has come up with some unsupported, wonderful statistics. They have no support and are untrue. (a) Pro refutes without evidence that most electric cars cannot drive more than 60 miles per day. Pro has provided nothing to my actual statistics. What my opposition has stated is wrong and unsupported. (b) My opponents second point of this issue relies on the first. With no evidence to evidence, the second point is therefore irrelevant. Pro has clearly lost this clash due to his/her lack of evidence. He statements are false are this means electric cars are not yet implementable. ConclusionThe oppositions final argument is irrelevant due to the sudden need for power that will arise if the Globe was suddenly to switch to electric cars. The power must come from somewhere, the power will come from all the excess oil. Pro has failed to provide a model, a significant dereliction of duty. I based a fair model of the motion of the debate. Thus the time frame was the standard now and the limit, a tax. This debate boiled down to whether is was or wasn't viable to implement electric cars now. Pro said yes while con, me, pushed for more research before implementation. Right now electric cars are far more detrimental to both the environment and health of people. Implementing them would be very damaging to those in poverty. Finally they are not ready for the road. Ladies and Gentlemen, research is a must before we can implement electric cars, we must develop electric cars and alternate power sources to one and for rid humanity of the terrible monster that is pollution!