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

Fine, you want evidence? (Otherwise known as quotes from media stories and random reports that have no credibility) I can give you ‘evidence' I know how to use google! Look all you do is this: "Corn-based fuel is bad" (http://randomlink.com...) For that style of debate you should at least do something like this: (I am using my arguments) Who says they have to be corn-based it is any and all alternatives, a good alternative is biodiesel, which is recycled: "Instead of requiring new resources like its corn-based cousin, biodiesel can be made from the millions of gallons of cooking oil that are discarded by restaurants, cafeterias and households each year." (http://www.cbsnews.com...) We could also use PHEVs, because although not a perfect solution, removing oil based cars off the market immediately (to buy us some time) and selling PHEVs would help while we come up with better solutions. Plus if we find a way to make green energy, the cars will immediately become green as well: "The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewable. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower" (http://www.calcars.org...) On to the debate: See my opponent has neglected to mention the fact there are other alternative fuels then just biofuels. While it is true that some biofuels can have negative impacts on the environment, there are many more developed and undeveloped alternatively powered vehicles that could be used. Solar power, hydrogen, etc. The way you are debating is just giving quotes from random stories, saying they are fact, and comparing them with mine (if I had any ‘quotes' but all I had was ‘logic' which just isn't worth your time) while not defending the quotes with any of your own logic. So let's just compare quotes now from other people, and not really argue back and forth. We'll just let some random people we don't even know do the leg-work, while we just type a few words into google and have our arguments finished. In fact, what if we just chose two people to debate for us, two ‘experts' count as good evidence, don't they? Is that what debating is to you? Just pasting quotes from other people and comparing them with quotes I paste from other people? Because I thought it was writing quotes from yourself and arguing about them with your opponent. Evidence isn't just good sounding quotes from random sources, evidence is showing why those quotes are true, and evidence is showing people why you are right. Debating isn't copying and pasting, it is philosophical discussion and you seriously appear to lack in the discussion and opinionated areas. "There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem." Just like I said only 40 of them are climatologists. Not only that but several died before the petition even came into existence. And even more don't exist in the first place. And that's your solid evidence? Really? You should check your sources before you rely on them so heavily. What's interesting is that the sources you used have turned out to completely be false. Perhaps a lot of your sources could be just as false. (http://www.sourcewatch.org...) "far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists"" Actually, IPCC had over 300'000 conceding scientists, and most of them were actually studying things like Climatology and knew stuff about global warming before just signing a petition online. "Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume)" Anyone who wants to protect the environment is an environmentalist, actually 16, I can send you a copy of my non-profit's license, it has my name on it as a director and president, yes that is a course you are required to take, I took college level last year, not all types, but I understand the basics. 1.Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins Actually, biodiesel, electric, hyrdrogen, are all still very plausible alternative fuels. 2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!! Why do people tell me I have conceded? Perhaps I haven't explained my argument clearly enough yet, but when did I concede? I am still arguing here, and your telling them I agree with you... Kyoto, green electricity development, more research into hydrogen cells, and btw, you just added new evidence, the plan you never argued plan before, therefore I am allowed to add new evidence into this as well. 3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won't have choice to argue them and they're abusive You just abused it, I have the same rights, why are you allowed to add new evidence and I'm not? This is the last round for both of us and I don't have enough room to respond to new evidence. All that con did this entire time was repeatedly paste quotes from unreliable sources. It might be evidence, but not very good evidence. Not until the very end did con officially start attacking my arguments and not my character, and failed pretty miserably at that as well. To tell you the truth I don't care whom you vote for, this was just a funny debate for me, because con was officially the most ignorant buffoon I have ever talked to in my life. And buffoons can say some pretty funny stuff sometimes! Think of it as a metaphor, he slinged poop at my face throughout the entire debate, and then finally grew smart and decided to sling it at my words, and in the very end, tried to keep me from having enough space to react. So really, I could care less whom you vote for, I just hope you think this debate was as much of a crack up as I did. Like we could really trust the media's take on something to be completely true and unbiased, just look at what they said about Barrak Obama, HAH!