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

"Ok... Um if don't agree with rules why have you accepted challenge?" You didn't say 'do not accept if you do not agree to the rules.' "I'm currently debating PF and really would like to get some practice, not someone who does not agree to the rules. Vote CON of the bat since Pro doesn't even agree to the rules." Stop telling the voters whom to vote for. You look really stupid when you do it. "Secondly, Pro violated the rules already, she has made arguments in the first round which I specifically said, not to be debated..." What? ONTO PRO'S ARGUMENTS "To all of my opponent's arguments I say "No Evidence!" Therefore she doesn't get a single contention and Con win, if she brings any other evidence later on, it should be disregarded since, it will leave me with less time to argue it which is totally abusive." It was just the first round, you still have plenty of time to react. My evidence is just as good in this round the next and the last. I don't use evidence in the first round because I put forth very blunt arguments. I show it later on though. Not only that, but YOU didn't use evidence in the first round. Does that mean your evidence from now on doesn't count? "1. If we're to not use oil then the prices won't matter to us will they? What is the impact? None?" Not using oil on our cars, does not mean we will stop using it altogether. We use oil to manufacture goods, make food, etc. " you don't solve prices because you only mandating a change in US not the world market." So we are still the one's using the most oil, just because china is "about to" surpass us doesn't mean they will or have. And if we are still close to the majority, cutting down our usage on the oil will save CO2 and lower the demand, effectively lowering the price. "Our foreign policy won't change, we still have allies dependant on oil" So, if we show them it is possible to survive, or even prosper without the use of oil, then they will consider cutting down on the usage of fossil fuels. "Are you aware that new reserves are coming and more will come, do you realize the extent of oil that is in Russia?" Are you aware that we have no idea how many oil reserves we have? We could have enough to last us thousands of years, or maybe just under 200. With demand going up as more countries afford oil, do you really want to be totally reliant on it, less harmful and more resilient renewable sources to use? "3. So you don't have evidence, and by saying "whether or not you think it is real" means that you're not sure yourself. Once more what is the impact? If none, then why bother?" I didn't say I wasn't sure, I said you might not be. Let's look at it this way: It is real and we do something about it: Outcome = A semi-good result (Some possible economic harm and harm from already caused side-effects) It isn't real and we do something about it: Outcome = A semi-good result (Some possible economic harm) It isn't real and we don't do something about it: Outcome = A good result (Nothing happens) It is real and we DON'T do something about it: Outcome = REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD. (political, environmental, social, and economic collapse, public health is severely reduced) "WHY THE PLAN IS BAD" "Biofuel demand pushes crop production into environmentally fragile areas, collapsing CO2 sinks and accelerating global warming" Did you think about the ways we retrieve oil and how negative it is? It is much more harmful then agriculture. What about other renewable sources, water vapor or energy for example? "Ethanol production increases air pollution" Ethanol isn't a green house gas, and isn't that harmful. "Biofuels production leads to the exclusion of small-scale farmers" It is bound to happen eventually, stopping the production of much needed goods isn't going to prevent it. In fact, I AM a small-scale farmer. It has impacted my lifestyle, but not over-effectively, or anything. "Ask yourself a question, are we ready by 2040? Certainly there are no guarantees? Finally, if the alternative fuels are so sweet, why not mandate by 2030?" We might not be, laws can be changed you know. And we aren't ready, I never once said they were perfect. "Also, why should the government mandate? Why not tax breaks and incentives?" Because it is important to stop. That's the same thing as asking: Why do we mandate murder being against the law, instead of just rewarding people every year they don't kill someone. "Look at all of those negative things about the alternative fuels, is it really the solution?" I looked at them, they are part of the solution. Not close to enough, but every bit helps. "Unfortunately, not. The negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects." I disagree. Pro's SOURCES: Age of Consequences, Stern Report, Science Daily, Manpollo, PBI Leadership Camp, Kevin Burke, Robert Buchanan, my puppy-dog, Bricheze, and The Impacts of a Warming Arctic "VOTE CON" Do you know how desperate it makes you look to tell people to vote for 'con'? "At the end of this debate, Con wins because Con is the only one with any evidence, explanation, impact analysis etc." You should vote for me because I have two ferrets. *Nods head and smiles*