That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light truck

His first point is methods of production of alternative fuel can be highly dangerous, however I would change it to let's see into the future if there is a better alternative. The biggest point to be made is one major advantage to vote pro is the fact that 2040 is a long time and if a better solution shows its self, then the term is known has we might have to change policy. However from what we know now, which is what I am debating Oil is going to peak by 2040 and global demand is going to be at it's highest at that point. So it doesn't matter if you want to accept the con to be a weather forecaster, because the what if argument isn't true, because scientists have already proved peak oil and if you don't buy that look to my contention 2, which stated that the fact that the majority of CO2 emissions are from petrol cars, which is a leader to global warming not that smog is a health hazard and must be reduced as well. So my opponents first point falls, because I am not looking at what ifs, I am looking at the evidence that is proved thus far. If my opponent can give credible evidence that oil is not going to peak in 2040 then he could win that argument, but he doesn't so you must vote pro. I think I covered point 2 as well, this policy is placed on purpose so we can gradually switch to alternative fuels. The point about alternative fuels being dangerous, his own evidence says that we need to proceed with our route but be mindful of the consequences. Of course there is always going to be a risk, but oil as of right now is more dangerous than alternative fuels. It doesn't even say that alternative fuels are dangerous, it says that they could be dangerous, so my opponents point 1, and 2 are based on what ifs, while I am focusing on the present conditions of oil, and alternative fuels. First the CAFE rules which your point 3 dealt with applies to cars and light trucks. We can't help that the auto companies made more SUVs and trucks that had less mpg's, we simply were promoting a policy to help with conservation. However the government didn't hurt fuel economy, because no where in your evidence does it say that it damaged it, it says we wanted cars and light trucks to work with less CO2 emissions. The CAFE standards were put into place in 1991, and they have worked to help lower CO2 emissions. Second the government do not help in the proliferation of SUV's and trucks. The auto companies did, because they believed that the public wants them. However with gas prices rising and of course the oil peak coming, the public will want a car with better mpg. The government didn't destroy the auto companies and even than you have been arguing that we need to do this in your own speech. So you must vote for the affirmative. In conclusion I will stretch across my arguments, which were one that Oil production will peak in 2040 by studies from the CBO, this means that if you didn't like gas prices at 140 dollars earlier you really aren't going to like them, because the oil companies will be unable to increase production to help people out. The government is not only protecting the people from environmental issues, but rising oil prices were a contributor to the reason why this recession has been so prolonged. The government is trying to eliminate a possible recessionary pressure in 2040. Two the environmental impacts are and must be important to people. As petrol vehicles are the leading contributor of green house gases. Third the US has been looked down upon on issues, so why doesn't the US lead the world on something that will benefit everyone and at least have people like the US again, at least a little.