Agricultural Subsidies

To start off my opponent stated that there is "no possible way that farming is producing any harmul gasses" "Livestock animals naturally produce methane as part of their digestive process, belching it while chewing cud and excreting it in their waste. According to the Worldwatch Institute, about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. " SOURCE: . http://www.foodreference.com... He then proceeded to question the USDA by saying "There is no soution that my opponent has given the meat industry produces 61millionstons of waste each year" The USDA is a valid source, my opponent has presented us with no reason why there credibility should be in question. My opponent then made a conjecture with no factual backing that the government illegally steals tax money for their own benefit when he stated "but by taxing the gov. is making money fo themselves and therfore they are taking advantage of us. " He has provided no sources at all to back up his claims that the government steals tax money instead of using it on the citizens. Thus I will dismiss his claim as being hearsay. Finally my opponent made four points which I will address separately 1. My opponent stated: "Plants have a proccess of photosynthesis in which the plant uses carbon dioxide as a reactent,also providing a product of oxygen. " Perhaps my opponent missed this part of my first argument: "By taxing agriculture in the form of x amount of cents per %/pound of pollution produced the tax will be passed onto the consumer" It is in this statement that I denote that my resolution only is for taxing per pound of pollution. Thus if a farmers net pollution being produced is X pounds then he should be taxed x amount of cents per pound. Therefore if any of the farmers crops are minimizing pollution then it would in turn lessen his net amount of pollution which would be factored into the taxation. In lamens terms, my resolution does not advocate taxing forms of agriculture that do not produce pollution and such forms of agriculture would only benefit the farmer by lowering his net amount of pollution 2. "By taxing agricultural farming we are putting farmers at risk of going broke which will stop agricultural farming from helping us supply the food we need to survive. " Anyone who is aware of basic economics knows supply and demand. In a free market if there is a demand for goods they will be supplied. Albeit some consumers will change their habits to buy forms of meat and vegetables that produce the least amount of pollution (due to lower cost) and overall food prices will increase. However this will not stop people from buying food, nor farmers from selling it. 3. "By taxing agricultural farming,we are forcing people to pay money to help prevent global warming. " Yes and as higher levels of greenhouse gases are given to be harmful in this argument, that is a good thing. 4. "not only helps us with the issue of world hunger" No they have nothing to do with world hunger. The cause of world hunger is poor leaders, disease, unproductive citizens, and corrupt, tyrannical governments. But that argument is neither here nor there. Since my opponent has failed to refute my resolution, I will await his further arguments and responses in Round 2.