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

"...should have let someone who else is more able then you debate" YES! Opened the floodgates :-) (1) If you would ever explained, that would have helped your image just a little bit (2) (Ok buddy) 1. Yes I have read this author. The negative does not see that it was a fatal flaw to rely on this AND ONLY THIS GENERIC and UNRESPONSIVE piece of evidence. If the negative had one piece of SPECIFIC evidence he may hold an ounce of believability but he does not. Menand 05 talks about why we really dont know whats going to happen in the future and if we make these wild predictions its comparable to a monkey throwing a dart. But this answers absolutely NOTHING I said. Extend Debusmann 08 that says the US is 70 percent dependent on oil. Extend Siggerud 08 that says the change needs to occur in the transportation sector because 68 percent of our oil consumption is there. None of this was answered at all. 2. Oh yay once again more generic evidence that answers nothing. Ok, for the sake shortening this ridiculous debate I will concede I dont solve for nuclear war. Whoopee. I still solve for the ECONOMY FAILING. Extend the consensus evidence that says peak will happen in 2010 And extend that a country can cut us off. Cross apply Debusmann 08 Whoa buddy. These are completely DROPPED arguments. In debate silence is consent. He concedes that our economy is 70 percent dependant on oil and that oil will peak in 2010 this will give us about 50-100 years of oil before we are completely dry. What happens then? The ECONOMY FAILS. He also damns himself when he concedes the change needs to occur in the transportation sector. Uh oh, he dropped 5 arguments here. 5 Arguments that can never be answered again and dont let him because he should have done it in his last argument. 3) Extend that defending ONE certain fuel destroys all education in the round (reasons in last argument). - He says I spike out of the disads- What disads? He did not run any disadvantages for me to spike out of and this is will be fatally severing to the neg. - He lists common types of alternative fuels- Ok? Run your disads against them. It is too late now, you cant bring them up in your next speech. I only get 1 speech to answer and you should have ran them the first time. Sorry it is too late. - I will take these types of fuels, but I do not have to defend EVERY single one of them. If some of them are bad and have the disadvantages, the US will not use them. I can defend the good ones because those are the ones that will ultimately be used in the US. Hemp will be used in the US and I firmly believe that. Sorry dude, you failed on oil dependence. Its evident that I solve it and the 3rd sub point should not even be in this discussion but put elsewhere. The first two points talk about oil dependence and im crushing him on both of them. No matter the alternative energy he sticks me with it will solve oil dependence because he did not argue it at all. The impact of this was also conceded. The global economy will fail. The world will be in a depression much deeper than the one we felt in the 30s and it could have all been prevented by affirming the resolution. Global warming 1) Evidence can be brought up for both sides. But the consensus among scientists is that global warming is not only happening but is anthropogenic. Believe the consensus of scientists, not just some random scientist that thinks they have debunked global warming. Even if you do have a doubt, the plan will leave no doubt either way. Why take the chance of it being real. Vote aff to acknowledge the threat of global warming and to make sure. If you have the tiniest grain of doubt that global warming can be real, the effects of global warming are extinction, so vote aff on magnitude. Pollution 1) If any of you have even opened your eyes lately you can see that our air is polluted. That is what we will solve. So many kids get asthma nowadays because of our horrible air. We can solve for that. Sure, we dont solve deaths in third world countries. But we solve whats happening on our homeland. Imagine being able to see a great distance without all of the smog in the air. Vote aff and thats what you get. Hege/Soft power 1) Ok. I concede theres no impact to hege or soft power. Theres no turn on it, we still solve for it. So if you believe American Hegemony and soft power is good, vote for the aff. If not, this does not effect your decision because it is not turned onto me. So sure, I solve for something but forgot to impact it. I still solve, still vote aff. Plan WTF. Just because this is an online debate and the neg got first speech doesnt mean thats the way it should have been. Of course you dont attack solvency because there is no solvency to attack. Great job going on to attack hemp solvency later on. (Im going to put theory debate at the end so it is organized) A2: A2 my A2s :-) 1. No I am not joking you. "Fuel produces c02" ARE YOU SERIOUS!? This is ridiculous. Hydrogen FUEL. A FUEL that he defines as FUEL emits no co2. Go ahead and say I need to learn definitions and not make foolish remarks. But you might as well just give up now in this debate because you're already working against yourself. You cant beat me and yourself at the same time. Great job here pressing self destruct. - Hemp does not. Hemp has 4 times the cellulose than corn. If a farmer plants a quarter of his farm with hemp and 75 percent with corn, all of that corn will be eaten. Right now corn is not being eaten because its being used for a biofuel. Hemp can solve the ethanol hype and solve food prices - Any crop takes co2 from the air offsetting the little trip the car has to take to transport it. That little trip wont even have an effect. Oh and guess what the means of transportation can also be ran by biofuels. Great job. You didnt take into account the resolution at all. 2. If you had half a brain stem you would understand the resolution is up for interpretation. Hence framework, theory, etc. You cant just say "thats the way it is" because no, it is not. If I can prove youre being abusive you have to answer that and answer how you are not being abusive. That is not "just the way it is" learn to debate. We all know this is the pofo topic, im taking policy framework. Argue it. How about you become worthy of debating framework. Im not going to lay down and take your abusive interpretation of the resolution. Extend the abusive. Abuse is a voter for education and fairness. Drop the neg on this alone. 3. Why not do it earlier than 2040? Why not? You missed the point completely. The resolution says that the mandate should be done BY 2040. BY!!!!. As long as the mandate is done before 2040 then I still win. What he says is that the mandate should be done after 2040. - It is abusive to tie me to one year when the resolution does not. Fail. - Wtf. Vote for the aff. you have a mandate BY 2040. Vote for the neg you get one after. Game over. Hemp solvency OH NO!!! He totally kills himself on this one. With this, the debate is over. 1. Your 2-5 will prove why I can. 2. Hemp is just like a marijuana bush (although the look different), its not a true and takes hardly any land. Hemp solves food by putting corn used for biofuels back into the food market and not ethanol. 3. Ignorant. It is illegal in America. It has to be imported. 4. They think its weed. It is not, .03 thc. The government is ignorant like you. when its living it sucks co2 out of the air. that would be a GOOD THING. 5. It is not. You can smoke a hemp joint the size of a telephone pole and not get high. Im sure will talk about hemp more later. Theory Plans good 1. Increases in depth education. We talk about one topic. 2. He is not overburdened, he was able to answer solvency to hemp 3. The only way we can ever make a change is to understand the issues. I solve that 4. A vote for the aff is a recognition that we need to make a