The gas powered car was the worst invention ever.

I'm going to go through my opponent's final argument line by line. I don't know why I'm keeping up this charade of addressing the audience. You're only here for the "exchange of ideas," hence no voting.My opponents arguments are almost laughable.Starting off by berating your opponent. Perfect way to start off a civil exchange of ideas.It doesn't matter if the accident problem can be fixed in the future. The damage has already been done.The debate is "The gas powered car was the worst invention ever."Not "The gas powered car will turn out to be the worst invention ever."I've already shown evidence the accidents are mostly the fault of operators and less-than-ideal civil engineering.My opponent claims "there is no direct link between the actual invention of gasoline powered automobiles and death"Where is the evidence for that? What backs that up?The first article you cited in R2 where most of the problem in NYC was solved through means OTHER than taking people out of gas powered cars.My opponent makes the claim "Millions of people travel safely by car every day"That is the "ad populem" fallacy. That doesn't change the fact that millions die from accidents every year from gas powered cars.The debate is not whether people die in cars. It's about what the worst invention is. I've shown an invention that kills more people.My opponent says " Unless my opponent can show that they (gas powered cars) are less safe than any other type of powered car.As a matter of fact, I canhttp://www.teslamotors.com......One electric car. Not the only one ever made, by any means. You still didn't make it clear how a gas powered engine makes the car less safe, accident wise. When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash tests cars, they drain all fluids except a dye in place the gasoline. They are inoperable, and therefore a nearly irrelevant variable.http://www.youtube.com...(1 minute in)(I could not find info on prep for NHTSA tests, but I see no fluid spills in any of thier videos, either.) Would the Tesla be less safe with an appropriately sized gas engine? The type of power plant doesn't really matter in a crash test. My opponent wants to say that gas powered cars provide more good then harm. A planet destroyed by global warming is far worse than anything good a gas powered car can do.Irrelevant. Tobacco's ONLY purpose is to produce pollution. It too emmits carbon and what's more are addictive. They are more commonly used among the global population, and more easily aquired. They are the worse invention.My opponent claims that "Gas powered cars are a vital key in evacuating people before natural disasters."He fails to mention that electric cars can do the same thing.So they're both equally good for that. No points made.Then my opponent wants to compare Recreational Tobacco to gas powered cars.The thing is, tobacco is not an invention. It is a discovery.Things that grow naturally are not invented. They happen by nature.We are talking about inventions here, not discoveries.Tobacco requires processing before being used recreationally.http://en.wikipedia.org...But if it's just a discovery, then cars are nothing more than processed raw materials discovered in nature, so they are discoveries too, and not an invention. Your argument is invalid.I'm sorry, but my opponent failed to make any valid points.The gas powered car is, in fact, the worst invention ever.Since there aren't any voters, and this is "supposed" to be an exchange of ideas, as you say it is, you lose:You did not convince me.