government should intervene more with alternative fuel

Sure. Here it is. http://youtube.com... As for your own "one dollar produced, two dollars sold", that doesn't matter if we're going to be using all that land and all that water for producing gasoline, when it could be used for other things. I don't need to provide any citations that the production of corn for ethanol will take up a lot of land. It's common sense. "the real argument, though, i'm posing is that we should not be against the government's intervention, just because." ---Just because period? Please give some explanation. "you give an good idea about raising fuel standards... cause if they did that, then it'd be effectively like us paying two dollars a gallon again." ---The problem with this argument is that there are two different choices from two different backgrounds. In the world of the PRO, the government would be "effectively paying two dollars" but then thered be more usage of gas and more usage of ethanol leading to more usage of land and more usage of water, whereas if you negate, then you have the same "two dollars" except only without all the other disadvantages of ethanol. "you did a good job pointing out some of my unclear points, and have some good ideas, but my ultimate argument that the government should intervene, primarily with fuels (at least eventually), hasn't really been dismantled." ---I honestly don't see why I have to attack directly and up-front the idea of government intervention. If I can prove that alternative fuels in general are bad, that's breaking down one of the premises you need in order to affirm, and that's all I need to do as the CON. "you never responded to the substance of my argument: that having the fuel economy would save us money." ---Yeah, I didn't. I never mentioned money at all in my case. I don't see why it matters, and I see different things that matter. Is there a problem? "cause one thing i wasn't very explicit on. if they can make it for a dollar a gallon, and even if they sold it at 2 a gallon, which is what they say they'd be doing, it'd still work out right." ---And I'm saying that regardless of how much money you make off of this, that doesn't suddenly mean that Earth has the water to supply ethanol. So what if you make money? You're wasting water, and I'm sorry to say, but resources are not unlimited. If they were, fine, your plan would work. But we don't. So that's why your argument fails. "and there's a trasition period, but." ---No transition period arguments here. I think those are stupid. "not all things... lke that toy you pose as an example... come from the rich... but things like cars, which people notoriously buy used... is completely different, with that example as irrefutable proof." ---Fine. Let's talk about cars then. I want to buy a Scion xD. It's like, 17K. Not a Lamborghini. Rich people don't give a crap about Scions. I like the xD because xD is a emoticon i use a lot on AIM. Therefore, the rich are not leading the economy when it comes to "what do the people want to buy". But regardless of my personal desires, you haven't given any evidence of how the rich DO lead. If you can give so many links for the ethanol stuff, I'm sure you can find some things on this. Please give me links in R3. "and you never addressed the fact that demand would indeed be created or argued how it wouldn't. you simply asserted that no demand would be created... that it's just reducing corporate costs only.. just an assertion. if someone can get cheaper fuel, the catch 22 no longer exists, and they'd be more willing to go for an alt fuel car. it's really not hard.." ---Ohhhh I get it now. So you're saying that if we fund alternative fuels, then things will become cheaper and people will want to buy that instead of Gasoline. I see. I'm sorry, my comment earlier was based on a misconception of what you were trying to say. But still. You're wrong. I'd like to point out to the audience that DairyGirl has basically disregarded my case merely by saying that 'I'm not hitting the real point'. I believe I AM hitting the point very well: I'm saying that the government should not intervene in alternative fuels because funding ethanol leads to really bad results. I have shown this through the 12,000 gallons of water to 1 gallon of ethanol ratio. Also, there are arguments that she didn't respond to that still stand true in this debate: Ethanol has less MPG than normal petroleum, and since cars can't run on pure ethanol and must use 15% or 20% mixtures, the overall result is that there is more gasoline usage, and more problems caused. Another is the benefits that will arise out of the government funding alternative energy programs (not alternative FUEL), and the benefits of implementing laws for higher MPGs. She merely disregards these, again, with an argument saying that 'I'm not hitting the point'. Oh yeah, I'd also like to point out: How the heck is she affirming? The resolution says "government should intervene more with alternative fuel". Well.... Intervene where? How do you intervene with more alternative fuel? Does the government like, go somewhere and douse people in ethanol? Her case has absolutely no link to what the topic is. Since the PRO has not refuted my points and I have proved that affirming the topic leads to many negative results, the CON is winning the debate.