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

When I said that you are not a debater, I meant that you don't debate on a debate team, otherwise you wouldn't make some of your remarks. Without evidence nothing is warranted, or valid I no it's online debate, but when you accept challenges, and there are rules, if you don't agree, then don't accept, because you're only going to do me worse, by having me school you. And you should explain to judge why you win, in any of the debates, -,- Where are your sources? You have not provided any, and because you don't have sources your arguments are not warranted, you can't claim some of the arguments you've made, unless you're an expert in those fields. Sure on the voting panel there is one point for that, but, there the other points are dependent on that one point, such as the "who made more convincing arguments", look at it this way, if you say that countries will follow our move, then you have to have evidence that supports that claim, you are not qualified to make those suggestions, however if you have evidence it's another story. I do not understand you, even after reading that line 2 times, look, the rules, omg I'm not even going to talk about them, you're just a kid with whom I do not want to deal with. ***? !? !? You are telling me that countries are controlling us, you're telling me that we won't be dependent, yet we still will use oil, and you're telling me we're destroying the environment, yet you have ZERO evidence, its same as me saying that alternative fuels cause mutations in the environment, now sure that's maybe possible, but without evidence it's just an unwarranted claim. omg, I'm going to have a heart attack in my school. .. - "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). " Ok this conceded claim means that the other countries will balance out the CO2 not produced by USA and that means that there will be no positive impact, and these countries don't want to switch their oil use. --- Ok. .. scientist. .. I looked at your profile, well you are lying about your age and all that stuff. .. And I have answered your Global Warming with 32,000 scientists, I'm pretty sure they know better than you. Thirdly, her "credentials" are only able to warrant some of the GW claims therefore that is not enough of evidence. --- "They are simply naive," "Once again, I think you have destroyed my character enough now, can we move on? " Once more I'm destroying your claims not you. .. -,- --- "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? " What, no, have you even looked at the resolution? "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels. " The resolution does not call for anyone but US to change! Again are you a political scientist? God, if you are then please edit your profile to at least say some truth about you. .. Again I have specific evidence proving those countries don't want to change. --- STUPID? ?? ? What reputation do you have? (Ok, this is going to be a schooling round) GLOBAL WARMING The earth has been cooling, not warming Sydney Morning Herald, 11-7, 8, . http://www.smh.com.au...- truths-about-climate-change-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617. html Last month I witnessed something shocking. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was giving a talk at the University of NSW. The talk was accompanied by a slide presentation, and the most important graph showed average global temperatures. For the past decade it represented temperatures climbing sharply. As this was shown on the screen, Pachauri told his large audience: "We're at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate [than before]". Now, this is completely wrong. For most of the past seven years, those temperatures have actually been on a plateau. For the past year, there's been a sharp cooling. These are facts, not opinion: the major sources of these figures, such as the Hadley Centre in Britain, agree on what has happened, and you can check for yourself by going to their websites. Sure, interpretations of the significance of this halt in global warming vary greatly, but the facts are clear. No consensus in favor of climate change Hanover Post (Ontario), September 19, 2008, p. A6 NASA has inflated surface temperature trends Patriot-News, March 4, 2008, p. A9 GAME OVER ON THE GLOBAL WARMING, I HAVE WAY MORE BUT I DO NOT WANT TO DISCLOSE MY TOP CARDS ---- U. S. biofuel demand and growth has triggered global deforestation Fred Magdoff is professor emeritus of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in Burlington, adjunct professor of crops and soils at Cornell University, 2008, Monthly Review, July August, . http://redorbit.com... ml Media? ?? ? Yeah they are really wrong, yet you have nothing to disprove my claim with. -,- here is the one of the numerous evidences I have to justify Media not to be biased . http://media.www.the-standard.org... This is a harm to the plan, omg, remember the plan which you are pro for? that plan has many harms and that is how Con wins, this is just another harm that plan does, people will get poorer not richer because of biofuels. --- "Because people like you are saying it is bad, and slowing down the process. " OMGGGGGG, do you understand what I am debating here? It does not seem so, because if you would have, then you would understand that you have to prove the plan to be good, however, you say that me protesting this plan is not good, the problem is in that you do not prove why the alternative fuels are good after 3 rounds already. You see, it is also because of the people like "me" that we question the acceptability of attacking people with nuclear weapons, now is attacking people with nuclear weapons good? No, it is not. Same as this plan. --- ""Look, I have specific evidence how the alternative fuels don't help, therefore Con wins. "" "Once again your TELLING people who wins? Seriously? " This is giving a heart attack. .. .. look, please tell me how your answer has actually answered my claim? IT HAS NOT! !! !! -- "You proving me wrong proves something. " YES IT DOES AND IT IS THAT YOU ARE NOT RIGHT. "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. " WHAT EVIDENCES? SOURCES? AND YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE EITHER UNWARRANTED OR PLAIN NAIVE. (NOTICE I'M NOT CALLING HER NAIVE I'M CALLING HER ARGUMENT, YES THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I have countered all of your claims, I have proved the plan wrong, and yes the plan is the sole reason for this debate, thanks for ruining it for me. "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. " As long as I prove its not a solution I win period. I'm not debating anything but the plan I stood to negate. Desperate? It's how you debate -,- Copy pasted sources? the quoted stuff is summary and then there is link -,- ; most of which u conceded You putting a bunch of things as your sources doesn't mean anyone can find them, does, it?