Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

To begin I would like to apologize for taking so long. Was busy, and needed to educate myself a little more on this subject. I would also like to ask my opponent to not vote for this debate. That is allNow to finish my argument.Brightness: I'm not sure if I am the only one, but for me, they tend to hurt my eyes quite bit. I understand this seems minor, but since a good deal of our lives revolve around lamps, this is a big problem. I understand people have differing opinions on how they like these bulbs, and I have no problem with that. The problem I do have is now I am being forced by the government, to constantly have a headache, because companies are required to make these bulbs and these alone.Hazards: I hope my opponent knows that these bulbs also carry toxic mercury, meaning if they break, you have toxic waste all over the floor.As this article states: "Toxic mercury in CFLs are downplayed, while breakage creates a dangerous environment. Bulbs are burning out faster than expected; don't fit in some fixtures; often grow dimmer over time; will not operate at low temperatures; emit high percentage of UV; shouldn't be tossed in the trash. (American Thinker; April 19, 2011)"This definitely dampers the complete superiority they are portrayed to have over incandescent bulbs doesn't it?http://peswiki.com...REBUTTALHowever, the solitary contention that should remain extended for the entirety of the debate should be Contention 1 because my opponent clearly stated himself that he agrees that this ban, albeit he is not entirely certain of the existence of global warming, is environmentally supportive at some level because it reduces energy required in order to power homes. Therefore, he agrees with the main point of Contention 1. I know Global Warming exists(Or did exist), what I don't believe is it is man-made. As for Contention 1, I agreed it saves energy, and is more environmentally efficient in that respect. What I do not agree with it being environmentally safer is what I have posted above: the mercury. It's a toxic waste accident just waiting to happen. What would happen if a large load of these were shattered across the ground, during say a semi accident? I would be far worse than if incandescent bulbs were, I can tell you that.Rebuttal 1: To regulate or not to regulate? That is the question that has pitted government against each other. What we have here is not just an argument about light bulbs, but a years-old question that has divided fiscal liberals and conservatives in the American nation. Are the conservatives right when they say that we need less government regulation on business so that they can thrive, or are the liberals right when they say that we need more government regulation on business so that the society as a whole can thrive? What's the answer? If you learn about economics and begin to understand it, you will realize that actually both are right. To have successful firms and plentiful business in the private sector, you cannot have too much regulation, and to lower the costs of society both explicit and implicit as a result of careless actions of the private sector, America requires sufficient regulation, and this includes environmental programs that sufficiently bring down pollution rates and energy expenses. Under the conditions when costs to society are added to the private costs of industry for production, we have what many know as a market failure, and one of the responsibilities of government is to provide regulation in order to bring those costs down and ensure the security of the American nation. The bottom line is that regulation at some level is needed by the part of government in order to maintain the security of the market.Yes, so how does regulating these bulbs help the economy? All it does is cost companies more to update their factories, so they can produce these bulbs. It also costs more to make them, meaning the price goes up (Which anyone who has compared the prices can attest to). I understand that they save money for the person who buys them, but it still costs more to the company to make them, and since people will buy they less, they lose even more money. Essentially, it does little, if nothing to help the economy, nor freedom.Rebuttal 2: Should I even argue this point? I could tell the judges about all of the supplemental evidence provided in my original case statement (which my opponent has not rebutted yet), in addition to the general (I believe) 94% consensus amongst scientists that global warming is evident and fully true as well as the evidence of the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, the increase of temperature on the polar ice caps, causing them to melt. However, even if my opponent somehow proves that global warming is the most flawed, baseless, and completely useless theory on the face of the planet, he still agrees that this ban is environmentally efficient. He concedes to the main idea of my Contention 1, meaning that it only betters my case for this round. Well, what you believe means very little to facts. And, if my opponent can find me a VERY reliable poll, that finds 94% of scientists believing in Man-Made Global Warming, then I will concede. But this debate is not on Global Warming, it is on incandescent light bulbs, or more specifically the ban on them. So far, the only argument my opponent has is that they are more efficient, and environmentally friendly. Once again, I ask why are we being forced to be efficient? If they were so wonderful, why does the government have to force companies to produce them, instead of incandescent bulbs? I personally don't want the government to tell me what to buy, and that is exactly what they are doing here. And were does it stop? Will we son be forced to buy only "smart-cars"?So I guess it comes down to which do you prefer: Protection from a much debated, and unproven theory or freedom?