The internal combustion engine in motor vehicles should be banned.

Con has yet to provide any outside sources. Con does bring up one interesting point, is a plane a motor vehicle since some planes do use the internal combustion engin?. Bah Con got me, Pro didn't think of airplanes as a motor vehicle nor as planes using the internal combustion engine. Well played. The resolution isn't perfect. Pro still contends that the resolution would do more good than harm. Even if Pro never meant for airplane's engine's to be banned. Just shows just how hard it is to make a resolution perfect. Claim: Pro contends that Con cannot reject this resolution based upon this singular flaw. Warrant: "8. The Nirvana Fallacy: This fallacy occurs when you reject a partial solution because it is not perfect. Obamacare doesn"t cover all Americans, but it does get most insured. It would be a Nirvana Fallacy to say, "because it doesn"t cover all Americans, it should be rejected." A partial fix is better than no fix; something is almost always better than nothing." [1]. Impact: Despite being imperfect the resolution would still save lives. Claim: Outdoor air pollution causes millions of deaths. Warrant "WHO estimated that there were about 4.3 million deaths in 2012 caused by indoor air pollution, mostly people cooking inside using wood and coal stoves in Asia. WHO said there were about 3.7 million deaths from outdoor air pollution in 2012, of which nearly 90% were in developing countries." [2]. Impact: Outdoor air pollution kills many. Car exhaust causes some of this outdoor air pollution. "I personally assumed that this resolution would only pass in The United States" Con Since no location was mentioned worldwide was assumed. Pro will make the resolution more detailed in the next debate. "If you think that the National Highway Administration is going to let a DIY motor fly in this day and age, I'm afraid you are sorely mistaking." Con The National Highway administration should encourage such changes. "In terms of the oil job market, it is approximated that there are 5 to 6 million people in the oil industry. Assuming that half of them lose their jobs because of this resolution, it is certainly a force to be reckoned with. 3.5 million people out of a job." Con The change doesn't have to be overnight, can be staggered. Can't compare jobs lost to live lost. "Pro claims that EV1, a fairly common electric car, is said to be perfectly reliable, but he got this information off of the EV1 website. I dare say bias is a fairly realistic possibility, don't you?" Con The EV1 isn't the only electric car "We decided to try an experiment: A trip to our friends in Del Mar, a distance of about 140 miles. With a range of about 70-100 miles" [3]. As you can see the range of electric cars varies but most get at least 70 miles per charge. That's ample range. Here's more sources with the 140 mile per charge on the EV1. "later models featured an Ovonics NiMH battery rated at 77 Ah with 343 volts. Cars with the lead-acid pack had a range of 80 to 100 miles, while the NiMH cars could travel between 100 and 140 miles between charges."[4]. " The optional nickel-metal-hydride battery will increase the range of the EV1 to 140 miles from about 90 miles. " [5]. "Pretty much all car manufacturers make combustion-based cars." Con The status quo is not self justifying. "If we ban combustion engines, there will be huge numbers of problems, resulting in far greater damage than the comparatively small issue of car pollution." Con The changeover will have to happen sooner or later. Remember global climate change is a threat, and the internal combustion engine creates Co2. Jobs would be created as alternatives to the internal combustion engine arrive. Somebody would have to repair those cars. Links 1. https://docs.google.com... 2. http://www.theguardian.com... 3. http://www.plugincars.com... 4. http://electricandhybridcars.com... 5. http://www.autonews.com...