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

No my opponent has clearly shown no adequate evidence and I trust that people already seen that. Again that's how debaters debate, so don't give me that. --- Evidence Alright first of all if you "Google" your "evidence" the only source I actually found is Age of Consequences, which is post dated by my 2008 evidences therefore prefer Con's evidence. Secondly your opinion is defaulted to bias since you can say whatever will benefit you. All of the other sources, are inadequate, like Science Daily, what am supposed to research for you, for the specific links? --- Global Warming Yes, and I have worked in Antarctic, where it is freezing instead of melting. Are you ignorant of the facts or are you just reluctant to lose? There 32,000 scientists opposing the notion that GW is man made and is a problem. The temperatures are also shown to be decreasing in the time when we use lots of cars. Finally, your experts assume instead of having facts and it has become a politically party. These fact prove global warming is not real and do not accept any late evidence by Pro since she has held out 4 rounds without showing evidence and since this is last round Con won't have the ability to answer the arguments and it is unfair therefore should be discounted. No matter what your scientific groups say, I win on two facts, one I have facts disproving GW and two I have evidence disproving your groups. (Smack down) Global temperatures decreasing National Post, October 20, 2008, http://network.nationalpost.com...- warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx Daily Telegraph, August 31, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk... The common view of the IPCC is that it consists of 2,500 of the world's leading scientists who, after carefully weighing all the evidence, have arrived at a "consensus" that world temperatures are rising disastrously... It is not so much a scientific as a political organization. Its brief has never been to look dispassionately at all the evidence for man-made global warming: it has always taken this as an accepted fact. --- FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHERS Yes, logic, you can somehow predict how people will think and what they want to do.-,- You have yet to prove that they will want to, you have not therefore this claim is not warranted. And don't tell me in the next round you've studied politics in your college. Again it is you, and nobody who votes knows that you are not biased, plus you don't warrant your own claims, no wait, its your belief, well if voter will agree to "unwarranted beliefs" the here is my belief, the GW is just a scare tactic that scientists use in order so that we change our use f oil, they do benefit because they make discoveries, therefore they have motive, now wow that's a good claim. --- COUNTRIES CONTROL US Yes they really do, where is your evidence? Why would they? How could they? We have #1 Military in the world, no one can do anything against US, the only thing would be suicide, but the problem is in that these types of conflict are extremely unlikely, Mandelbaum 99, the major conflicts are obsolete, because of treaties, more democracies, people aren't stupid, and the costs of major war have risen and benefits have gone down. And no Iraq is not qualified as a major conflict. --- NO SOLVENCY OTHER COUNTRIES WILL PRODUCE CO2 No I haven't heard of Kyoto, but I believe its in Japan, and I also believe that I'm arguing that India and China those countries that will produce more CO2 and are producing more CO2 will not want to change, one of the recent factors for China, CNBC, Russia's Risky Investment, I believe, is that China has been giving Russian's top oil companies cash to stay afloat and in return, more oil baby for the CHINA LAND!!! (Chinese) "Yey us" --- Back to GW Scientists just join the ï¿½€œconsensusï¿½€� to protect their reputations and Climate skeptics deliberately ignored Senate Minority Report, December 20, 2007, Denver Post, December 26, 2006, As of for the 32,000 scientist link, I sincerely apologize if the link has not worked, it hasn't for me, in any case I have provided another link http://www.americanthinker.com... "Solomon also points out that these dissenting scientists - over 9,000 of whom hold Ph.Ds -- now outnumber the environmentalists that attended the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio that actually kicked off the global warming craze. And, I might add, far exceed the count of UN IPCC "scientists" whose calamitous predictions lie at the very heart of climate hysteria and what Solomon calls "the Kyoto Protocol's corruption of science."" Logic is fine if its a logical argument, yet yours are not, you need proof of the politics and GW etc As for your first evidence of which I can finally debate, is not credentialed, I do give you those societies, but as my previously explained evidence carefully points out, your guys are assuming Global Warming they are not basing things on facts. And as for NASA, it has over inflated their surface temperature trends, March 4th 2008, and their own data shows a period of at least 7-10 years of global cooling. Again I have facts you and your sources are not being truthful. And no I am not a conspirator, it is ironic how only a year ago I used to destroy my opposition on the GW issue, the thing was that I was just out debating them and the more I know the more it becomes clear that GW is not the way it is portrayed by your scientists. --- Yes, no it's not very likely, and I have evidence on India and China, the two giants who matter the most. The evidence is in the above rounds. OMG, who are you??? Environmentalist, 15 year old, owns a non profit company, studied Political Sciences, understands Bio fuels, because she works with them (all types of them I'd assume) --- Kyoto Protocol Thank you very much for the evidence, that is exactly what I like and actually need, first of all it doesn't say they want to, it just says they are a member of that agreement or something, there is no mandate therefore no reason for countries to change I have studied that evidence and occurred to me that most of the countries have not put any commitment and aren't intending to do anything. Also here is a close evaluation ( I love that evidence, although it's not great if closely investigated, I'm going to twist it so much during my debates to help the Soft power argument :) ): 1. Among the top CO2 emitters, China which doesn't want do anything, and doesn't want to join, Russia, which doesn't do anything although is a member, and USA, which is thinking about joining the group for a long time, to put it nicely, most of the member in that Kyoto agreement don't do anything about their CO2. And if you put your policy in place you will be cutting trees down irrigating the land and all of which produce more CO2, cross apply all my cards, her own website and http://www.spiegel.de... --- "you just called ME stupid" No I didn't, and as everyone who reads this debate realizes by now, you're just trying to make me look mean, by lying about what I say. As for your global warming answer, You have conceded my cards all of my arguments which destroy any of your possible arguments, a silence in a debate speaks louder than words. -- Media She concedes my answer b/c she has no answer, I win again. -- PLAN 1. Cross apply my previous args, she concedes All of the Alternative fuels args therefore plan = bad Con wins 2. She concedes No GW, She gives no reason why the government has to do the plan, and who loses on the grounds that she doesn't tell why her plan is good, all she did is argue GW, not plan, therefore CON CON CON!!! 3. Don't count any new answers in her last speech since I won;t have choice to argue them and they're abusiv