Agricultural Subsidies

My opponent began by stating "Making this a natural occurnce that we can not control but, then would hv(have I'm assuing) to do something about the animals not the whole idea. " I'm afraid I don't understand your point? My plan only taxes pollution. The tax would tax the pounds of pollution. It does not matter is the process is natural. Human waste is natural, but that does not mean that everyone forgoes to pay a sewage bill. "If 61million tons of waste each year then where did it all go" -Roughly half of the pollution in the Bay comes from agriculture, and half of that comes from animal agriculture, Fox said. Environmental groups have singled out commercial animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, in Lancaster County, Pa. , as a major source of Bay pollution. Fox, in a telephone press conference to discuss EPA's plans to restore the Chesapeake, also said the federal government could expand the areas that need permits for development under the Clean Water Act. The areas would be high-growth sections within the Chesapeake watershed, he said. The EPA's plans follow a May 12 executive order from President Barack Obama calling for more federal involvement in the Chesapeake restoration effort. SOURCE: . http://www.gazette.net... Animal waste is widely unregulated and it contaminates many water supplies. My opponent then went on again to question the USDA, which is valid source when he stated "since neither me nor you see it around your area's, there (agian) is no proof that 61million tons of waste is being produced each year. " My opponent as presented us with no reason why there credibility should be in question. "I'm sorry for that argument i made a mistake, this is my first debate. " I appreciate your apology, however in a debate, you would be best advised to never point out that you make an error in your reasoning. Instead, drop the argument and make new arguments. Emphasize your stronger arguments. "Then if the food prices do go up because you are taxing agricultural farming, your idea is not just for the people for one. In these hard times where the economy is failing the Gov. should be helping the people with there demand's, not making it harder for them to live a full quality of life. " I agree completely. Everyone demands drinkable water and drinkable air. Currently the people are paying for that privilege through their taxes. However since the taxes are general and not tied to agricultural products that produce the most pollution, there is no financial incentive to buy goods that produce the least amount of pollution. By tying tax to the goods that produce the most pollution you give farmers a financial incentive to utilize technologies and use methods that produce the least amount of pollution. Also goods that produce the most amount of pollution will be bought the least by consumers. "You see but this is not fair for the people if you are to just let agricultural farming go untaxed, then it will be better for the people and will help prevent global warming at the same time. And these are the reasons why we should just let agricultural farming go untaxed an left alone. " You provide no reasons how it isn't fair? It is in fact much fairer. By not taxing agriculture for the global warming it creates you will be increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (farmers will have no incentive to produce the least amount of pollution and consumers will have no incentive to purchase goods that produce the least amount of pollution) and thus be produce more global warming. You provide absolutely no logical reason nor evidence how global warming could possibly be lessened by leaving agricultural pollution untaxed. My opponent has provided no evidence nor any logical reasons that refute the resolution. Thus I extend my arguments and urge the voters of this debate to vote for me. Thank you again for participating in this debate with me, and I would like to encourage you to continue debating on DDO.