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

"I take that you are not a debater, correct?" No I am, just because I don't like to follow rules that I shouldn't have to follow, it doesn't change the fact that I have an account on debate.org. Look, if the voters think I don't have adequate sources, let them vote that I do not under that one point of the 7 they have to vote on. I shouldn't lose the entire debate because of one point, and you shouldn't be allowed to 'mandate' the amount of sources I have. If anything it's good that I don't have enough of my so-called evidence, that way you can score at least one of the seven points. "As a debater, it's a good idea to explain to the judge why you win." This isn't a PF debate, it is an online one. "Look, you should have read the rules, I'll let that one slip because I can't really stop this debate." I read the rules, and I followed most of them. Simple because I didn't agree with them all; that makes me a horrible debater, an automatic loser, and an idiot that has never had a debate before? "What are you talking about?" The debate subject is alternative fuels, and I mainly stuck to talking about your arguments.... "Forget about it, look you had no evidence to support your claims therefore none of your arguments went through;" I showed my logic and my sources. And even if I didn't have evidence, that is still only 1/7th of the debate points. Just because you say I lose 1/7th of the debate, does not mean an automatic loss for the rest of the points. " secondly as I have explained the first round is just for people to see what they will debate, aka PF. And no you can't bring evidence in the last speech since I will not be able to respond to it, which makes it unfair, and the judge will be compelled to vote on fairness" Yes, you can respond to it, and you could of responded to it! You just simply chose not to, in those words above you could have easily made a rebuttal to my arguments, but instead you simply made one towards me? And you call ME the bad debater... "So we will still be dependent on oil, therefore you don't solve oil dependency, thank you." No we won't, we will still USE oil, be we will no longer be so dependent on it, that other countries can control us with it or that we are willing to destroy the environment to use it. "Ok, again where do you have an evidence to warrant any of your claims about lowering CO2 and stuff? Are you aware that the plan will increase CO2? Probably not, but I will get to that later in my speech." Are you aware that your just talking and talking, but still not yet to make any good points or use any logic? I'm sure you have adequately destroyed my character for the voters--can we move on already? "China & India will dramatically surpass U.S. energy consumption" Minqi Li, Department of Economics, University of Utah, November 2007, "Peak oil, the rise of China and India, and the global energy crisis.(Report). ." Journal of Contemporary Asia. 449(23)." Okay fine, let's say China could surpass us in oil usage, that still doesn't matter. That's just like when children say 'My brother was allowed to hit Johnny, therefore I am allowed to hit Johnny." Except switch out Johnny with the Environment, switch out hit with dangerously increasing CO2 levels, switch out brother with China, and yourself with the USA. And another thing, decreasing the hits, decreases the pain to Johnny, or, using my metaphor the Earth. "How are you getting all of you claims?" Well I visited the Artic this fall, spent a week their talking to the top scientists in the world, I own my own non-profit organization that works to combat global warming, I have spent countless hours researching not only science, but the scientists who discovered the findings credibility.... I've done some stuff to research this. Please do not assume. "They are simply naive," Once again, I think you have destroyed my character enough now, can we move on? "First of all you claim that oil prices will go down, then why should the countries change if they will have cheaper oil?" Because they will have already changed? They will notice the fact that the price went down more so here? *My opponent goes on to say things that do not have anything to do with our 2040 time limit* "So you don't even know if GW is not real? I have 32, 000 scientists opposing it, and the few that don't oppose it, ignore the facts" That is just such a stupid thing to say. I love how unaware so many people are these days. First off, none of those scientists had a large reputation to uphold. If global warming turns out to be real, it isn't going to destroy their career, unlike how if it doesn't turn out to be real, it will destroy the scientists careers who are backing global warming. "We have safe ways of drilling, the places we drill at are wastelands and no net harm is done, some of the biggest CO2 drivers are deforestation and methane." The drilling wasn't what I was talking about (although there are over 80 recorded oil spills a day) I was talking about the CO2 released from oil. "Bio fuels Raise Carbon Emissions Much More than Oil" Let's just look up your sources, are they even credible? Just because some online story says it, it does not mean it is real. That's like saying everything you hear on the news is even close to the truth! The media is trying to get your attention, and you are falling for it. "These "small-scale farmers" are the majority who will get poorer because of you're plan. And how old are you? What, 15-16? Do you provide food for your family to live? No you don't. If you were you wouldn't be online." What? People whom work for a living can't go online, well that sucks.... Back to the debate, what does this prove? "I don't say the alternative fuels are perfect either, I say if they are good enough for us to pass this plan then why not mandate it earlier?" Because people like you are saying it is bad, and slowing down the process. "Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins." Once again your TELLING people who wins? Seriously? You might disagree that the negative aspects of the alternative fuels just far outweigh the positive aspects, but what is your rational? *List of reports with nice sounding quotes* A list of reports doesn't prove anything. You proving me wrong proves something. All you have done so far is copy and paste quotes, attack my character/credibility, and completely ignore all of my evidence, sources, and arguments. Have you even responded to one of my arguments? No. I'm not sure if you know what a debate is, but it's purpose is for me to say something and for you to counter it, not for me to say something you to say 'your stupid, naive, and have no real evidence' (even though I have a list of sources right in front of your face...) "At the end of this debate, ask yourself:" "Will the plan truly make a difference, or will it just give a false sense of security?" As I said before alternative fuels are not meant as even close to a single solution, but we must do everything we possibly can, and they are part of the solution. "Is Pro warranted better for her claims, or is Con the one with best supproted claims?" Also remember, is Con coming up with real research or is he (or she?) just copying and pasting quotes, and refusing to defend them when Pro makes points against them? "Since the answer to the above questions is the letter of two, I urge you to vote Con" Once again, this looks like a desperate tactic to receive votes, I hope it works out for you. "As for your sources, um yeah I m going to Google "my puppy-dog" and look up at some pets... Maybe you could be just a little more specific?" I put that in as a joke, some people enjoy laughing, even on debate sites. Let me just make this clear, all my opponent has done is: Copied and pasted quotes from non-credible sources, attacked