government should intervene more with alternative fuel

"If you read those links I gave and my intro statement, the fuel doesn't come from land, like corn. .. it comes from organic material like corn husks, other cellulose material, switchgrass (more energy intensive than corn and not corn), algae farms (which cna be grown in the dessert), and other non-harmful to us methods. If we used algae. .. it'd take the land size of maryland. see the wiki links. " ---You're correct, I didn't. But even then, you're saying that it will take the size of Maryland, and already you're wasting all that land for the production of a fuel that will eventually lead to more gasoline usage anyways. My argument here is that regardless of how much land it uses, the water consumed is unnecessary and will only lead to more global warming anyways. There are multiple impact levels to my argument. "Your argument seems to be that goverment intervention is by definition the least economical way to do things. .. but you don't provide any arguments to refute my points other than vague "invisible hand" rhetoric. (and some misguided factual info on your part)" ---I have no solid opinion on government intervention in general, and I don't think you're right in placing me under that umbrella of judgement when I have given you no points that would lead you to that sort of conclusion. In fact, I have even advocated government intervention. "You're finding so many ways to actually avoid actually arguing th point of the debate with me. " ---I am, again, arguing the premises of your points and disregarding the rest: The rest, being this whole money thing you're talking about. What I'm saying is that all this money doesn't matter, because affirming this topic will only lead to the overusage and unnecessary usage of water, along with the unnecessary usage of more oil. It doesn't matter if Ethanol will get 'cheaper', because the environment outweighs the economy, and EVEN IF that's a new argument and a different debate, I still prove that you impact back worse to the economy because you're causing unnecessary land usage and PRO uses more oil than CON does. "I acknowledged raising the fuel standard would mean we shouldn't be using ethanol, right now. I said we'd have to postpone intervention till later, perhaps. This is just a misreading on your part, and doesn't attack whether the gov should intervene at some time. " ---If you acknowledge, you negate. I said it's a counterplan, which means we raise the MPG standards INSTEAD of intervening and funding corporations in the alternative fuel field. To the audience: Since my opponent has basically agreed that my position is correct, you vote for me. As for this whole "doesn't attack if the government should intervene". .. . I've responded to this already, and since it's basically her only defense left against all the responses I've already made to her case, she basically has already lost. "Plus, you might not be so right abotu the factual nature of th sitaution, ie how much water is used or land. . etc. So you need to argue other things more. " ---Okay, so if you choose to disregard my evidence because it "might not be right", that also applies to your evidence, This sort of argument is nonunique; it's a problem that's inherent in all statistics. Alright, I agree that my evidence doesn't work at all. But then that means yours doesn't work either. Therefore you get no impacts and therefore there is absolutely no reason to vote PRO. "THen you can afford to buy cars, and you're better off than most people. Even if you're poor and you put all your money into cars, you're the exception to th e rule. The general rule is that, and this is common knowledge so i'm not sure why I'm even debating this, poorer people get their cars from the richer. Most people drive used cars. This is not rocket science. " ---Thank you for clarifying this in R3. I get the same impacts in the sense that if there is instead funding of alternative energy and the implementation of a law that states MPG must be higher by some year, then that means poor people will be driving those cars later; you can cross-apply my arguments to come to the conclusion that if we use these ethanol cars that you're talking about, then the poor people will just be using those cars later, and that leads to more gasoline usage, and more ehtanol usage, whichis more water usage, blah blah blah stuff I talked about in R2. "and he thinks wind power can get us off gasoline in five years. .. . that's very hard to believe cars and all that would work. " ---Just because some of the things he says seems ridiculous to you doesn't mean that the fact that I cited him for, 12,000 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol, is false. And even then, I'd argue that it's not ridiculous at all, it's just ridiculous to you: The words OBVIOUS, REASONABILITY, FEASABILITY, and RIDICULOUS are all specific to our own cultures and experiences. Just because something seems ridiculous to you doesn't mean it seems ridiculous to some other people, and EVEN THEN, just because it seems ridiculous doesn't mean it is suddenly false. "you've avoided this issue, the whole poit of this debate, like the plaque. " ---I am not avoiding it at all. If you want to talk about government intervention, that's another debate. I'm saying that funding alternative fuels, and you basically talk about ethanol, I'm saying that funding that area at all is BAD. Therefore if I attack one of the premise needed to affirm, I'm doing my job. (Is it just me, or am I just repeating myself? ) So basically since DairyGirl has not responded to my case AT ALL, every single impact I have talked about since R1 still holds true, and that means Ethanol has lower MPG, that measn that 12,000 gallons of water will still be used to produce one gallon of ethanol, that means she still bites into all the impacts I place on her, and that already is enough reason to negate the topic, But even then you can look to my case and you can see clearly that the counterplans that I propose, se; the usage of that same money to fund alternative ENERGY instead of alternative FUEL, and the implementation of more liberal laws, leads to much better results and has none of the harms and disadvantage that her case causes.