Resolved: The US government ban on incandescent light bulbs was a good decision.

Rebuttal against my case: I would like to begin this round by obviously pointing out that my opponent had no time to actually rebut my case, but sort of make a case of his own, so for the time being, we can just extend my case across the flow. However, the solitary contention that should remain extended for the entirety of the debate should be Contention 1 because my opponent clearly stated himself that he agrees that this ban, albeit he is not entirely certain of the existence of global warming, is environmentally supportive at some level because it reduces energy required in order to power homes. Therefore, he agrees with the main point of Contention 1. Rebuttal against my opponent's case: The only thing my opponent has said in his case is that he is just not supportive of the idea of government regulating business for the hinderance of global warming, which he claims not to be entirely proven. The main points that I would have to rebut in my opponent's case are the two ideas about government standing out of regulation and the validity of the idea of global warming. I rebut my opponent's case:Rebuttal 1: To regulate or not to regulate? That is the question that has pitted government against each other. What we have here is not just an argument about light bulbs, but a years-old question that has divided fiscal liberals and conservatives in the American nation. Are the conservatives right when they say that we need less government regulation on business so that they can thrive, or are the liberals right when they say that we need more government regulation on business so that the society as a whole can thrive? What's the answer? If you learn about economics and begin to understand it, you will realize that actually both are right. To have successful firms and plentiful business in the private sector, you cannot have too much regulation, and to lower the costs of society both explicit and implicit as a result of careless actions of the private sector, America requires sufficient regulation, and this includes environmental programs that sufficiently bring down pollution rates and energy expenses. Under the conditions when costs to society are added to the private costs of industry for production, we have what many know as a market failure, and one of the responsibilities of government is to provide regulation in order to bring those costs down and ensure the security of the American nation. The bottom line is that regulation at some level is needed by the part of government in order to maintain the security of the market. Rebuttal 2: Should I even argue this point? I could tell the judges about all of the supplemental evidence provided in my original case statement (which my opponent has not rebutted yet), in addition to the general (I believe) 94% consensus amongst scientists that global warming is evident and fully true as well as the evidence of the effects of climate change, including, but not limited to, the increase of temperature on the polar ice caps, causing them to melt. However, even if my opponent somehow proves that global warming is the most flawed, baseless, and completely useless theory on the face of the planet, he still agrees that this ban is environmentally efficient. He concedes to the main idea of my Contention 1, meaning that it only betters my case for this round. So, based on all of this, the judges should already be thinking about putting their cursors on my side of the debate ballot because my opponent not only failed to rebut the entirety of my case, but also conceded to 1 of my 2 points and completely acknowledges that the environment will be sustained with this measure. I will await my opponent's rebuttal for the rest of my case.