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

I will first defend my case and then attack my opponents. Please note that in both cases, it may not necessarily be in the order my opponent lists his arguments, but in an order that I believe makes the most sense. I'll try to keep things clearly marked, but just be aware: Intro: Although I don't believe my opponent is taking my version of the opening theme for the Spongebob Squarepants show seriously, I would just like to say that its purpose is simply to be an intro that refers back to the metaphor in my case, not what I believe the situation would/should be like. Oil dependency: My opponent says that such a mandate would solve for only 40.8% of our oil dependency in order to negate my first contention. Notice, nowhere did I state that the mandate would FULLY solve for oil dependency. That fact is quite clear since the mandate doesn't even include all automobiles. Still, considering the danger that oil dependency poses to the economy, a mandate that would solve for close to half of it is certainly worthwhile. So, this rebuttal does not negate my oil dependency contention. Mandate helps economic future: My opponent drops this argument and therefore agrees with it. Please extend it. Opponent's case Since this is one of the most integral parts of this debate, I will begin with what Pro has to defend: My opponent states "Look, the resolution opens the floor for any fuel to be used, therefore by proving that some of them are bad, which in reality is more like all of them, I win…" First, even if you accept all of the evidence my opponent has presented in this round (I will get to that further down), my opponent has not proven that even half of them are bad, just hydrogen and ethanol. Next, as I stated before, this interpretation's heavily abusive vs Pro. I would have to defend an infinite amount of impractical and impossible fuels while Con only has to commit his effort to attacking ONE fuel. Furthermore as I stated before (and has been dropped by Con), this does not fit writer's/framer's intent and thus can't be used. Finally, let us look at the real world application. If my opponent is correct in the horrible effects of ethanol and hydrogen, why would the government use those fuels? It would certainly make more sense to avoid fuels that have horrible affects. Thus my fair interpretation that has to defend the general use of alt fuels must be upheld in the round. Please extend that none of my opponent's fuel specific evidence can be considered because I only defend the general use of alt fuels. Evidence A Crutzen paper My opponent responds by saying "For Crutzen paper, yes I have offered evidence stop lying, and his argument is plain to any mind…" After explaining Crutzen's argument he ends by saying "why do you think the industries don't want to change? Do you really think if they can earn higher profits they wouldn't change? Of course they would, the matter is that the alternative fuels aren't the solution. " First, although I assure the voters I have not lied, I believe there is a misunderstanding as to what I am saying does not have evidence. What I am saying does not have evidence is what my opponent adds to the Crutzen paper in his first round, specifically "HOWEVER, Crutchen's methodology is flawed, when land use is considered there is no reduction in GHG emissions". THIS is what I am questioning. My opponent offers no proof for claim. For example, let us say, hypothetically, that oil produces 500lbs of carbon dioxide, and bio-fuels produce only 150lbs. For my opponent's statement to be true, he would need evidence that shows that land use would produce and extra 50lbs. No evidence of any kind is provided, so this must fall. Next, the fact that industries are not changing to alt fuels does NOT mean alt fuels are the solution. It just means that they don't want to. In fact, this is another reason to have the mandate; companies won't do it themselves. B Evidence from other rounds It is true that the hydrogen car/bomb evidence was the only one that you formally said you dropped. Yet, this is not the only way to drop evidence/arguments. During a debate , arguments/evidence must be extended. For example, if I made an argument about flying space monkeys and provided evidence for it but never mention it again, it is dropped and is not considered in the final decision of who won the round. This extension can be made either through defending the argument/evidence or simply saying please extend this argument/evidence. One will notice that the only piece of evidence from previous rounds that has been extended to this round (concerning alt fuels) is the Crutzen paper. Thus all evidence from other rounds cannot be accepted because it has been dropped. C Evidence in this round First, please extend that fuel specific cannot be accepted in this round because Pro defend only a general usage of alt fuels, not specific ones. Next, even if for whatever reason you accept my opponent's evidence, there is no impact to it. Basically, my opponent tries to show that alt fuels raise carbon dioxide levels, but never shows why this is bad. In fact, considering plants need carbon dioxide to live, wouldn't higher carbon dioxide levels be BETTER for the environment? Statement I was confused about My opponent replies with "By the quote I am asserting that the plan makes the latest date for conversion to alt. fuels to be 2040. Therefore if we would mandate the date to be 2030, the change would come faster guaranteed. Therefore you would get the bad plan achieve faster. " First, as I have said before, 2040 is NOT the due date for conversion. It is the due date for when the mandate should be signed into law. So the change would not necessarily come faster. Also, I've also proven that the mandate is not bad. This also negates his statement that "Nobody in their right mind agrees that alternates are good at present, sure they MIGHT get better, but who are we to predict when that happens? " In addition to the fact that it is irrelevant as to whether alt fuels are good presently, the fact that we would have till 2040 to pass the mandate means we would get an accurate picture as to when alt fuels will be more efficient, etc. etc. , and make the due date for conversion accordingly. (And, as common sense would dictate, alt fuels will get better as technology progresses. ) Mandates A Emissions example My opponent states people had no choice in what they bought (What choice did consumer have? Either you buy a car or you lose your job), thus its the governments fault. However, they DID have a choice in what type of car they bought. If they buy cars with high mpg, it increases demand for those cars and the average mpg for vehicles increases. Visa-versa for lower mpg vehicles. Hence, it is consumer decisions, not the government that caused lower mpg. B Monopoly First, I ask my opponent to name the companies that would gain a monopoly because the produce only alt fuel powered cars. Next, it is only NEW cars and light trucks, meaning anything else can be powered by gas. Finally, the current car companies can produce alt fuel cars, preventing a monopoly. C Doesn't help I ask my opponent to provide specific evidence for this. My opponent ends by saying we should have tax incentives or let the free market do it. First, these are both COUNTER-PLANS and should be ignored because of it. Next, as for the tax incentives, there is no reason we can't do both, so this doesn't negate the resolution. As for the free market, as I have proven, a mandate helps to solve economically for the transition and helps the economy, while letting the free market doing it doesn't.