Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Clean and renewable energy is the optimal energy source compared to fossil fuels. In my opinion, fossil fuels are superior to clean energy. Firstly, the initial investment for solar panels to harness sunlight is exorbitant. Conversely, fossil fuels require minimal expenditure and can be procured in bulk, eliminating the need for individual purchases. Secondly, the utilization of renewable energy depletes the earth's energy reserves. Extracting energy from the earth for renewable sources compromises our natural energy supply. Lastly, renewable energy systems are more complex to integrate. The process involves extracting energy from beneath the earth's surface and then connecting it to the designated location, which is more laborious than with fossil fuels.

Alright, so you believe that an electric infrastructure would satisfy that needs of the people. Unfortunately, back in 2002, those electric cars cost more than twice the price of a normal car. One example being the Toyota rav4 EV, which was priced at $42,000. For that money I could buy a Chevy Aveo and a Toyota Prius, drive them for 5 years, and still save money. Further, anytime those cars had difficulty, I knew I could find a dealer who knew how to fix it, as opposed to the electric technology, which was dangerous to repair, and even more dangerous in an accident. Consider today's hybrids; you are driving an electrical grid whenever you sit in these vehicles. The fire department holds special training for their fighters to save an individual trapped in one of these cars in a collision. Guess how they get in..... They have to cut into the car from the trunk in order to reach you at the driver seat. This takes a lot of time, something not many people have in the middle of a vicious collision. Let's say the price was lower on these electric cars, and we'll even speculate so far to say that danger is not an issue either. You still have to deal with battery decay. Our modern technology still cannot make so much as a cell phone battery last in top condition for more than a year. Every specification on these electric cars you mentioned means nothing after 6 months, because someone charging the battery nightly, or every two nights, is slowly wearing down the capacity of the battery. It is enough of a pain to charge my cell phone every night when it's estimated working time WAS two days a year ago, and it's even worse when the battery stops working midday because it's capacity is so badly damaged. What happens when your car battery stalls out in the middle of the highway from a poor battery meter and capacity? That's an entire day ruined as you spend perhaps the next couple of days trying to get an expensive replacement. Perhaps car engines require more maintenance due to the particulate emissions, but they an be done quicker and cheaper than any repair on an electric vehicle because of the availability of resources, and the education of the technicians. As far as global warming goes, it is far from "Basic" science. The carbon sample test was performed multiple times and aligned with an estimated time line of temperature change. Indeed, a correlation was found, and global warming proponents like Al Gore use the FIRST test's conclusion, which was discredited, as a reason for their assertion. The time line was adjusted, and a correlation showed the the temperature of the planet rose (or decline) and was FOLLOWED by an increase or decrease in carbon dioxide with a lag period of 700 years. If any conclusion were to be drawn from it, it would state that carbon dioxide was increased by the changing temperature, and NOT the other way around. Check the current IPCC report, and notice how the graph Gore used to make his argument is NOT included. Other models, such as the "hockey stick" model (also used by Gore) are also not included in the report because they-too- were discredited. There is nothing basic about climatology. It is an infant science, and requires far more research into the workings of the world for us to make any clear conclusions. In the end, global warming is not yet confirmed, and the organizations that claim they are often talk about consequences rather than PROOF of their assertions.

"You make it seem as if robots and artificial intelligence solve everything. They do not."- Nothing is Perfect. " First of all, the fact that RBE requires an advanced AI means it cannot possibly be implemented today." - This coming from the world's foremost authority on Automation? This A.I is a glorified calculator." Ironically, the only way to achieve such a system would rely on capitalistic principles."- In the same way that the cells in our body still reproduce similar to how our ancient ancestors did. Yes. "How can an RBE produce or innovate?" I am going assume you are basing this question on " Who is going to do the work to improve the systems" The answer is who ever wants to. This may sound counter intuitive to all of your years in a capitalist society, but there is plenty of real world evidence that people will innovate with out the need for financial compensation.Exhibit A: http://www.linux.com... There are many distros of Linux that are more pleasant to use than Windows and are absolutely, 100% free... given freely, distributed freely and developed further by a massive community who devotes their highly skilled efforts-for-free, to developed a product that some one else can use.I recommend you watch this: "How would this system determine who deserves what good, how much of it, and for how long?" - Indiscriminately, by how much resource is available where. As long as they need it. Your fundamentally looking at things as if they must be possessed but the goal of RBE is to accomplish access abundance. Simply meaning that what you want is available when you need or want it. Mind you, living necessities are taken care of already and everything else is practically a want. A large number of the goods you want, will be fabricate from 3D printers. Things like bowls,civil ware,cups and even more complex things will become replicable in the not too distant future. " Fossil fuels are exponentially more efficient than any renewable resource, and solar power in its state today couldn't provide a fraction of what fossil fuels can."- At an extremely high cost, environmentally. Many components in the RBE are designed to make more efficient use of power so that the less-energy dense renewable resources still provide a quality of life on par with our modern standard of living in the united states... except for everyone. There is not enough fossil fuels for everyone to live like Americans but there is plenty of sun light,win,tidal and Geo thermal power. Our living spaces must be completely redesigned to optimize energy use, rely mostly on human power to travel " around town" distances while long distance travel is handled by previously pointed out technologies. The city to the future: is circular in design. Other such factors that save energy is a switch to a primarily vegetarian diet."No system is self sustaining, and thus requires human involvement." - I agree, lots of human involvement. You're confusing the lack of requirement to do boring-repetive and energy consuming tasks just to stay alive, for lack of anyone doing anything. Humans love doing things, we like exploring and mastering tasks ( reference: RSA video) and we love accomplishing things. It's in our nature. Only a fraction of our society will do much work, no big deal... Only a fraction of our society does meaningful work today anyways. " That is what an RBE will dissolve into: mass control over the lives of people."- This is conjecture. " If a person in an RBE desires more, if he wants to excel, how can he do it?"- By creating it himself. I don't think you understand... objects... as in cameras and so forth... have no value. They are just things, which are widely available. In an RBE- all of the information in the human repository can be accessed freely. Anytime. Want to learn how to design electronics? the information is literally there. We already see president for this in the Modern Internet... You tube DIY: Desired topic. Literally any topic. Free universal education is just the next logical step and people do love teaching as well so this free society will also have human professors."He cannot improve himself because every nuance of his life is beyond his control."-This statement has no basis, I suspect you have not been clicking my links or if you have- you have not been fully taking in their content. the RBE is a service, not a government. There is really little need for a government by I suspect we will have some type of Government anyways. It might resemble a republican democracy, or it might be a semi-representative democracy. It won't have a great amount of power either way as its task is more maintenance,research and development. " Therein lies the beauty of capitalism, that the offspring of a poor immigrant can rise to become millionaires. " That was beautiful in the early 20th century. Even though it still happens today... its one person that lives a beautiful life while his brothers and sisters less than a 100 miles away are living in poverty. This is what I was talking about the Capitalist conservative vilifying the poor and blaming the helpless for being helpless. It isn't beautiful at all when we have technology and production enough to give everyone what they need, when they need it. Its disgusting... its preserve... and its sick to see some guy running around in a Hummer... or a laborgini while he justifies to him self living on the backs of the people who made his wealth possible. It is revolting as sewage. "Capitalism is not based on static "classes" as many people like to assume, but rather a fluid movement of people."- Did I say the classes where static... no people rise and fall all the time, but there are still classes and static or not, money buys you anything you like, even immunity from justice as I demonstrated. What a corrupt and sick way of looking at the world causes people to admire those who waste the most resources among us, gorging them selves at others expense? Do you really want to know where your 5$ walmart T-shirts come from... http://en.wikipedia.org... , http://www.cnn.com... The truth will make you miss the old days when we used Mexican child labor. " an RBE may provide an equality of outcome."- Than why are we still debating this?"But it destroys any notion of opportunity, individualism, and responsibility."- All of this is conjecture." . And an RBE will inevitably degrade into a violence, because people will want to control their own lives instead of being mandated to by whoever is in power. "- I still don't think you really took in any of my sources. RBE will give you more control... So much so that you will not be localized to any one location, an RBE will be global. hop on the train and go to Germany for a day... or hit the beach in California. Go attend a lecture in Sweden or maybe stay with your cousin in Michigan for a weekend. Anyone, everyone, when ever they wish. The RBE offers the elite life style to everyone. This the difference science makes, this is the difference made by using systems strategies in our real world, daily lives. In conclusion, RBE offers us every thing that we have ever been promised... the paradise world of tomorrow. We can buy it for your children and their children at the price of letting go of our old systems. They served us well in the past, RBE is made possible because we had a capitalist system... HAD, a capitalist system. These systems are no longer serving us. Capitalism is no longer doing what it promised our forefathers. We have out grown it. The power to chose the world of tomorrow is ours today. CHOSE.Thank you pro for the debate, I very much enjoyed our exchange. Feel free to issue a challenge at any time.

Basically, I'll rebut my opponents last case. My opponent begins by telling us that the continued usage of coal and oil will help boost our economy. That is what I get from this contention, and If I'm wrong, I pray that my opponent will correct me. My opponent tells us how the usage is benefiting the United States monetarily. My opponent fails to show an impact. Would our economy severely decrease if we discontinue use? If my opponent cannot prove that it would lower our economic stance significantly to discontinue use of coal and oil, then we must see that there is no impact in my his argument. Are we debating on a global aspect or US interest exclusively? My opponent goes on to say that alternative sources of energy would reduce our personal need for coal and oil. So why don't we? Considering it'd be in our better interest not to use coal, as it harms our environment with pollution and such, which obviously lead to health issues. I urge a negative vote. Thank you.

Introduction: My name is Jacob. I am 14 yrs. old. I live in New York. Please bear with me. I registered the day this debate was added. Rebuttals: 1. Indeed. According to the laws of thermodynamics (Conservation of energy[1], in particular), energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. 2. True. Energy is finite. 3. Yes. The Sun does. 4. Mass and energy does not fill up those spaces. Alright. While solid objects are dense (Mass compacted together as having no space to go around), liquid and gas is not; the mass has space to go around in which it does. Same goes for our Universe. Source: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

okay fine all this is agree but lemme tell u this..... in 40 yrs v are running out of petrol! in 150 years 90% of all our resources will b depleted! industries are providing us with employment, shelter, food, etc however imagine the scenario in the future when all our resources are depleted. what will we do then! then we will be in dead lock! completely fixed! what will we do then fight among our selves!

This debate is concerning the viability of Orbital Elevators, their construction and usage, and the potential of using an orbital elevator to harness non-attenuated solar radiation striking Earth's atmosphere for the United States' energy needs. I will be taking the 'Pro/For' side of this debate while my opponent BlueSteel will be taking the 'Com/Against' side of the debate. The debate will cover five rounds, the first round going over each of our positions on the subject. Rounds two through four will go over arguments and counter-argument over our opponents points, and the fifth and final round will be strictly the conclusion of our positions, summarizing our arguments. An orbital or space elevator is a proposed structure intended to transport material from the surface of a celestial body, particularly Earth, into space. Many variants have been proposed, all of which involve moving the material along a fixed structure instead of using rocket powered spacelaunch. The concept most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth to geostationary orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond. The use of an orbital elevator would greatly reduce the cost and energy needed to send material and personnel into orbit and beyond. It would provide an easy gateway for humanity to leave the Earth behind and begin settling into habitats off of Earth, expanding and propagating across a wider environment. This would likewise open up a seemingly infinite source of resources for both Earth's population and settlements outside of Earth. The United States continues for the moment as a leader in technology and strategic dominance, both economically and militarily. However in terms of strategic value, being able to efficiently reach beyond Earth's atmosphere provides the ultimate high ground, and unless the United States is able to reach this pinnacle first or at least at the same time as her rivals, she is going to find herself at a significant disadvantage. No single private entity has the ability to gather the necessary materials, capital, and personnel need for what amounts to as a civilization-level project. As such it should be the prerogative of the United States as a whole to bring this project into fruition. The most abundant source of energy available to humanity is that created by our local system star, Sol. While used on Earth, solar energy we normally experience is heavily attenuated resulting in only one-thousandth of it actually reaching Earth's surface. Solar panel systems located in orbit above the atmosphere do not experience this attenuation however, allowing more abundant and easier capture. However the cost of transporting solar panel systems into orbit either as a finished product or piecemeal is expensive. Luckily with the use of an orbital elevator this problem is solved. http://polyvinylcrush.com... *Artist rendition of Earth with orbital elevator supporting solar collection system around equator.* The project described would involve a three surface station system, spaced evenly apart on Earth's equator. Each tether would be connected to its brethren by a low orbit ring used for support and minor facilities and a high orbit ring with outward facing solar collection panels. Processing and distribution would take place from the high orbit counter-balance structures which would also house the necessary facilities for other projects, needs, and launching facilities. Before I go into too much detail, maintaining debate integrity, I will pass the floor onto my opponent. I thank him for excepting this debate, though technically he is the one who challenged me too it. I hope for a civil and informational affair and await a good challenge. ~Meow~

Pavan Sukhdev, leader of a European Commission studying biological diversity, explained in 2008 the dilemma we face today when he said: “The treatment of climate change by the Stern Review surfaced an issue which had been widely recognized but not tackled squarely: how to assess a roll of the dice, when one of the outcomes is the end of civilization as we know it?” If the Status Quo is running a risk of ending civilization as we know it, we have an obligation to reduce that risk in any reasonable way we can. Reduction of that risk will be our goal and our voting criterion in today’s debate. INHERENCY. Some disturbing facts about the Status Quo FACT 1. Record Atmospheric Carbon. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in 2013 hit 400 parts per million http://tinyurl.com... “A monitoring station in Hawaii recorded carbon dioxide concentrations of 400 parts per million Friday, dramatically up from the 316 parts per million recorded when the station made its first measurements in 1958. The monitor, high atop the Mauna Loa volcano, offers the longest-running record of atmospheric carbon dioxide measured directly from the air. Carbon dioxide is a primary greenhouse gas, efficient at trapping heat from the sun. The colorless gas is released from power plants and vehicles as they burn coal, oil and gas. “[The] increase is not a surprise to scientists,” said Pieter Tans, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “The evidence is conclusive that the strong growth of global [carbon dioxide] emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is driving the acceleration.” FACT 2. Current efforts are inadequate – we need geoengineering. We need to reduce CO2 emissions, but it’s just not happening. That means we need to start exploring how to modify the environment to increase the earth’s ability to absorb CO2 after it’s already emitted. http://www.innovationconcepts.eu... “Mankind burns at considerable economic, social and environmental cost in a few hundred years the fossil fuels that have formed over hundreds of millions of years. Weathering cannot keep up with this greatly increased CO2 production, and the atmosphere's CO2 content is rapidly rising. Many of the most weatherable rocks are now covered by a thick weathering crust - called lateritic soils - which effectively prevents them from further contributing to CO2 capture (Fig.1). The preferred response to date has been to reduce the rate at which fossil fuels are burnt – in principle at least. However despite widespread agreement as to this objective, there has been little actual progress to this end (IPCC 2007, Prins & Rayner 2007). It therefore makes sense to prepare to deploy ‘geoengineering’ solutions.” The URGENCY. Let’s look at the RISK and the IMPACT of growing atmospheric CO2 in 2 subpoints.First the RISK: Catastrophic climate change http://www.cbo.gov... “There is a growing scientific consensus that rising concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other Greenhouse gases, which result from the burning of fossil fuels, are gradually warming the Earth’s climate. The amount of damage associated with that warming remains uncertain, but there is some risk that it could be large and perhaps even catastrophic.” IMPACT: Trillions of dollars in economic damages http://tinyurl.com... “Climate change is unlikely to be catastrophic in the near term, but it has the potential for serious damages in the long run. There are big economic stakes in designing efficient approaches. The total discounted economic damages with no abatement are on the order of $23 trillion.” The GOAL: Reduce atmospheric CO2. The risk and its impact are so great that you should vote Affirmative if we can offer you any reasonable means of CO2 reduction. http://wordpress.clarku.edu... The challenge of reversing rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations is growing with the continued expansion of CO2-emitting energy infrastructure throughout the world and with the lack of coordinated, effective measures to manage and reduce emissions. Given this situation, it is prudent for society to explore all potential carbon management options, including those with seemingly low probability for success. We have a PLAN. Congress votes to fund and authorize the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration to do the following: 1. Olivine Research. Research into optimal methods of introducing crushed olivine particles in the oceans through land distribution with river runoff, coastal zone application, and/or by ship directly into the sea, to increase oceanic CO2 capture 2. Pilot Programs. Small scale pilot programs to test olivine distribution, followed by… 3. Wide scale olivine usage. Results subject to continuous monitoring and testing. Program is canceled if negative impacts outweigh the benefits. 4. Funding from cuts in Head Start 5. Plan takes effect the day after an Affirmative ballot 6. Affirmative speeches may clarify as needed. The ADVANTAGES: ADVANTAGE 1. Cost-effective reduction in atmospheric CO2 Dr. R.D. Schuilling & Prof. P.L. DeBoer 2010 “The olivine option, in the coastal zone and on the land, is a cost-effective way to counteract the increase of CO2 level in the atmosphere, at the same time mitigating ocean acidification. The volume of olivine needed for the neutralisation of human fossil fuel burning is ∼7 km3[seven cubic kilometers] /year, that is about 1 m3[one cubic meter] /human. This is a large amount indeed, but comparable to the volume of fossil fuels which mankind burns annually, expressed in oil equivalent∼10 km3 /year, i.e., ∼1.4 m3 /human. Olivine is produced in open pit mines, while hydrocarbons are often retrieved from kilometres depth in often remote areas. Olivine weathering is a natural process that takes time, years to decades when applied to suitable environments. Contrary to CCS [carbon capture & storage], the effect is not instantaneous, but in the course of the coming decades in which society will continue to produce CO2 and to be threatened by continued greenhouse warming, the annual addition of large volumes of olivine to suitable environments will counteract the rise of CO2 level of the atmosphere and the acidification of ocean waters.” ADVANTAGE 2. Better environmental policy-making. It’s better to start testing geoengineering options now and find out if they work, rather than waiting until the crisis forces us into desperate, uninformed decisions. http://www.tos.org... “The geoengineering options discussed to date by scientists and engineers have not figured prominently in policy discussions because of the perception that they may have detrimental environmental consequences, are prohibitively expensive, or both (Schneider, 2008; Jones, 2009; Morton, 2009; Royal Society, 2009). However, the appropriate course of action is to evaluate the relative financial and environmental costs of each emission reduction or geoengineering option, compare them to the anticipated costs of adaptation if that particular option is not adopted, and then rank them by a set of standards agreed upon by policymakers. IPCC Working Groups II and III should undertake these activities as they prepare the next assessment report. The initial step in the above process cannot be undertaken without a serious investment in geoengineering research and development. Financial and environmental costs can only be estimated by conducting scalable experiments with reasonable levels of control and replication. As these experiments are scaled up, they will become increasingly difficult to control and replicate. In addition, their financial costs and environmental impacts will likely increase at least proportionally with their scale. Geoengineering experiments will raise serious ethical and legal issues, and society may ultimately decide that most of the proposed approaches cannot be implemented on a global scale because of their anticipated risks to the environment and our socioeconomic well being (e.g., ocean fertilization; see Strong et al., 2009). However, investing in geoengineering research now will enable policymakers to make informed decisions based on science rather than uninformed decisions made out of desperation.”I hae created a beautiful model for fixing the harms that we see in the ststus quo. Please vote affirmative.

if nothing every happens with a nuclea plant, that is reason enough to say we are ready. the current system involves the potential for alternative energy, as a stretch. it in fact involvves millions of deaths per year from air pollution and oil spills and other calamities

I am sorry that my theory was not more well received. I admit that capturing Satan to harness his flatulence for fuel is no easy task. Currently, I am researching Arabic and Persian grimoires for methods whereby I can bind Satan to my control, but so far I have only found methods corresponding to various jinns and spirits of the planets and stars. Inshallah, I will be able to find more in time. Once I am able to summon Satan and bind him into a lamp, I will then feed him Taco Bell until he is about to burst! Then I will play a continuous loop of the call to prayer. The devil will be unable to move away, but will be unable, also, to control his malevolent gassy-pants! ERGO, I will have a siphone attached to the open part of the lamp into large canister drum. I will hire somone to seal the drum once full, then we will repeat the process until I have millions upon millions of drums of devil gas! Then these can be sent to Islamic scientists for research purposes, getting us off of evil American and Russian Kufr fossil fuel! Allah hu-akbrar! Valiya writes, "a religion that has such balderdash cannot provide any solution for mankind"! How untrue! A modern, scientific worldview which rejects the existence of a gassy Satan is no science at all, and it is certainly not modern! I would hesitate to call such assertions "balderdash", for they are clearly the holy truths of the Hadith. In my own dawah, I always begin by telling people the Islam teaches a farting Satan, whereas Christianity and Judaism do not, demonstrating the clear superiority of Islam over these wicked faiths. Someday, when science discovers evidence of the devil's flatulence, I will laugh at them in derision for disbelieving in the Hadith! When Steven Hawkwing rolls out in his wheelchair and says in robot voice, "I was wrong. The Satans fart. All the time they do it. Inshallah! Allah hu Akbar!" I ask you O Nasrani and you, O Yehudi: why does not the Injil, the Taurat and the Zabur not have farting devil? Maybe because your scribes have falsified Allah's words! Truly, a fateful doom awaits you upon the last day, for Allah hath made clear the devil has a serious case of the tubbly-wubblies in the tummy! Truly, Moses taught a farting devil, as did Jesus, and Lut, and Joseph! But you have edited these out of your records, to hide the truth from humanity! You are right, though, Valiya: Islamic economics is certainly superior to the Kufr West and Kufr East --- especially when we consider the massive diversity of wealth that exists in Daar-al-Islam vs. Daar-al-Harb. Whereas the Kufr relies predominantly upon fuel and energy for their wealth, Muslims innovates in all fields, and it has been this way for centuries. Where has most of modern technology come from? Islam! Modern medicine? Islam! The space program? Islam! Who ended slavery first? Islam! Who gave women full equal rights with men first? Islam! Who had first gay cowboy? Islam! Islam is the clearly superior deen in every way. Without Islam, the modern world would be in peril! Why do you think it is that the good Muslim, Buzz Lightyear, was first in space, and not the wicked Kufr, Tom Hanks? While Tom Hanks was stranded on island talking to a bloodied football named Wilson, Buzz Lightyear was performing wudu and salat in the sea of tranquility! Take that, you wicked gringos! Justin Timberlake is Muslim! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...

Thank you again, to Con, who provided another quick response. I would again like to point out that we are already past the level of sustainability in our resource consumption. As con has said, and I agree with, this usage is not distributed equally, but it should be, and refined to be made more efficient. The problem here, is that despite having enough to supply a world population of 10 billion, we are nearing that number, and are predicted to surpass it in less than 60 years. If topsoil erosion continues at the current rate, paired with climate change, farming industries are looking at lower and lower yields. This paired with the population growth, the current rate of consumption (which is excessive for 7 billion people) will be necessary and even obsolete for a nearly 12 billion strong population at the end of the century. Con also states " that we provide 10 billion people's worth of food and that will only be increased by adding more people, logically". Brainpower is not the only factor and constraint working to limit productivity, there are also, as stated before, climate and soil conditions. Given we destroy soil at a much faster rate than it is naturally produced, which is a multi thousand year process for soil to accumulate the needed nutrients and raw ingredients to make it productive, and artificially making soil is a resource intensive process that is both expensive and difficult, rendering it inefficient until further notice. Con has tried to assert that more people will only result in higher food production, completely ignoring other constraints. This has been disproved. My opponent then turns to aquaponics (I assume) when he mentions the near infinite food source the ocean provides. He has completely neglected to show that one, our oceans our being over fished, and aquaponics is just as questionable as what I am about to propose. Fisheries reported a peak in 1989, when about 90 million tonnes of food was removed from the ocean, and ever since then yields have dropped and stagnated. This has clearly been going on for some time. Con proposes that we turn to the ocean for food solutions, but we already have, and have strained that ecological system as well. Apex predators continue to disappear, and species are pushed to the verge of extinction. If our population is to rise, and we turn to the ocean (which already figures into the food estimated to be able to feed 10 billion) as con suggests, then over fishing is likely only to be exacerbated, due to its heavier use. With less and less yields, we will not be able to feed our population will subsidies from the ocean by the end of the century. Now we turn to aquaponics. While it is a promising solution, it can only grow certain crops, excluding things such as roots, and, it is heavily dependent upon wildlife, which would be found naturally, or grown, which has been proven to be inefficient. Just to support the above statement, using the basic principles of ecology, if we are to raise healthy stock in fisheries, these animals require more calories to grow than they can be consumed for. How do we provide this extra intake you may ask? Well it used to be provided from grains, insects, and other fish. But as stated before, more nutrients were put into the fish than were received, due to most of it being used for internal functions, with only around 10% being stored. So in turn, humans who consume the fish are only getting roughly 10% of what food resources they put into raising the livestock. For all intents and purposes, pairing aquaponics with fisheries is resource intensive and not efficient. The alternative is natural acquiring fish. The problem with this is logically it deducts from the already decreasing output of the fishing industry. However, if fishing industries continue to over fish, and will be forced to in order to feed the growing population within this century, then they will be negatively impacting aquaponics. Since there is an inverse relationship between the two, you can only use one or the other on large scales, which I have to assume Con is alluding to in the "infinite potential" for food the ocean provides. Even then, aquaponics is flawed, as it is difficult to perform on mass scale, and if not performed properly can harm the environment in a variety of ways. Con has stated that the ocean provides a better solution for food. This has been disproved. Now if we turn to eating these filter feeders and micro organisms, they are not an infinite resource as con suggests. They are just as vulnerable to over consumption as any other organism on this planet is. As to water. To conclude that our oceans offer more drinkable water than space it what is simply ludicrous. From Mars, to moons, to comets, to even asteroids, there is an abundance of easily treatable water out there. You have already conceded that water desalinization is difficult and intensive, and in turn out of our reach at the moment for large scale production. I find it hypocritical then, to claim harvesting water from space is not a viable solution, because it is out of reach, when your own solution has yet to be proven. On top of this, we can both agree that our fresh water reserves are being used 3 times faster than they can replenish, and again, will not provide enough clean water for the population increase to come. Con tried to assert that the ocean is a better solution for potable water. This has been disproved. From what I can gather, your entire disclaimer against my argument is based on the fact that I promote research towards this, thus proving that it is not currently a viable solution, while in turn, much of what you claim has the same limits. Both of our proposed solutions need research, but space is by FAR more profitable. For instance, I cite Europa, one of the many moons orbiting Jupiter. You called out the kuiper belt and ort cloud for having extreme distance from our planet. Europa is much closer. Scientists estimate that if all its liquid water was to be formed into a sphere, it would be 1090 miles in diameter, compared to the Earth, with one 860 miles in diameter. This also fails to take in the amount of ice on the moon. So in one instance, you have more water than the Earth has in, all compiled in one location. That in and of itself should illustrate the potentials of space. Con has these same "flaws" in his own argument, thus making it invalid against mine. As to the solutions for energy space has to offer, orbital solar arrays positioned around the sun would be nearly unlimited in their production of clean, usable power. These stations are not confined by weather, nor position. They have nearly optimal efficiency, and are proven to be adequate to power entire complexes, such as the ISS. Earth only receives about one part in 2.3 billion of the suns total output, but these orbital facilities are being looked into, and thought to be the key to our energy problems here. I think that alone warrants heavy investment into space. Con has tried to assert that space has no energy solutions. That has been disproved. As for food production in space, organisms have been shown to grow faster and stronger in recent studies aboard the ISS, given they no longer have environmental constraints. Greenhouses in orbit are completely feasible, as they do not limit the crops that can be grown as aquaponics does. Given we could colonize and establish such facilities on the Moon and Mars, it is entirely possible for agriculture to be expanded into orbit, without some for the rather pressing concerns of mass aquaponics. Con has stated that space offers little to no potential in the food sector. That has been disproved. Your only response to the perfectly good logic behind avoiding an extinction event is simply the likelihood of getting hit by an asteroid, which is not the only extinction level event that could effect the species, and that it is equally as likely to hit any other world we colonize. I was beating my head on the table for this one. All I have to say is this. If we expand, what is the likelihood both planets we could colonize in theory get hit, within the same period of time? Despite the low odds of an extinction event, spreading out makes it increasingly less likely. Never put all your eggs in one basket. Con tried to assert that colonization does nothing to alleviate the likelihood of an extinction event. This has been disproved. Technology. I laughed here. We have already started to exploit space more than we ever had the ocean in this sense. Satellites, both military and civilian, as well as research that has been directly funneled down to everyday life goes to show the potential of space. Con tries to assert the ocean has more technological potential than space. This has been disproved. Research was directed at you notion about how little of the ocean is known, to which I replied even less is known about space. I would certainly agree that this has been one of the more cerebral and challenging debates I have has as well. Thank you to you too! Sources: http://news.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.nss.org... https://www.worldwildlife.org... https://www.nrcs.usda.gov... https://www.scientificamerican.com... https://sites.google.com... http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com... http://www.space.com...


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Nuclear Power stands as the most practical alternative to fossil fuels.

Firstly, let's address why geothermal energy is not a viable replacement for fossil fuels and why nuclear power is a superior choice. My opponent argues that geothermal energy is ubiquitous, but this is akin to stating that everyone resides directly above the Earth's core. In reality, one must drill between three to four miles deep to reach temperatures of about 300 to 400F (approximately 200 degrees Celsius). I challenge my opponent to explain the economic feasibility of such a process. Moreover, geothermal energy has specific location requirements. For instance, one needs magma to heat groundwater to 100 degrees Celsius (212F) to be usable. Geothermal energy is not evenly distributed; it is primarily found in the Western USA, Alaska, and Hawaii. Even in these regions, economically viable sites are scarce and difficult to locate. Furthermore, drilling in hot, dry, and corrosive environments is more expensive than other drilling methods. The geothermal process also involves toxic and corrosive materials like arsenic, mercury, and ammonia, which pose health risks. (Sources: <http://lifestyle.iloveindia.com...> and <http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com...>)

Now, let's discuss the safety of nuclear energy. My opponent claims that uranium mining is dangerous, but I invite him to review the following chart on the "dangerous" aspects of nuclear energy. The Chernobyl disaster is often cited as a concern, but nuclear plants have significantly improved since then, and that plant lacked an upper containment system. Today, all nuclear plants worldwide have such systems. Comparing deaths per TWh for various energy sources, nuclear energy has the lowest death rate at 0.04 deaths per TWh. (Source: <http://www.world-nuclear.org...>)

Nuclear energy is also one of the most affordable and scalable energy sources. It costs under 2 cents per kilowatt, and the energy produced by one pound of uranium is substantial. Nuclear power can be adjusted to meet peak and off-peak demands, making it adaptable to various conditions. Nuclear plants can be mass-produced globally, and France has already achieved more than 75% of its energy from nuclear power, demonstrating its potential as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. I challenge my opponent to provide an example of a country generating over half or even 40% of its energy from geothermal sources. For nuclear

Due to the fact that you are an obvious and true moron who has a natural bona fide cabbage batbrain who cannot read worth a damn, this debate is now over. Get an edumacation, graduate from that big big big high school of yours, and get an intelligence please. Many thanx.

ok my rival i stated that i have no prove that it the seagen turbine doesn't help the enviorment but i have stated that yes it does the seagen turbine doesn't pollute and tis safe for thee sea life also you can't get your sources from wiki becuase the informatioin isn't right also The installation of SeaGen in Strangford Lough will be carried out by A2SEA A/S of Denmark, one of Europe's leading offshore installation contractors. The SeaGen 1.2MW commercial demonstrator has been developed on the basis of results obtained from SeaFlow, the world's first full-size tidal turbine installed by Marine Current Turbines off Lynmouth Devon in 2003. It has taken the subsequent four years for Marine Current Turbines to design and build SeaGen and secure the necessary environmental and planning consents. SeaGen is a commercial demonstration project with permission to operate in Strangford Lough for a period of up to 5 years. It is intended as the prototype for commercial applications of the technology that will follow. Martin Wright, Managing Director of Marine Current Turbines said: "SeaGen's installation is a very significant milestone for both Marine Current Turbines and the emerging marine energy sector. Following from our previous experience with SeaFlow, our 300kW experimental test system installed in 2003 off the north Devon coast we are confident that SeaGen will show that tidal energy can be truly competitive with other forms of power generation. Decentralized tidal current energy is fundamentally predictable and sustainable. It is also environmentally benign." Commenting on the future prospects for tidal current energy, Martin Wright added: "We will build on the success of SeaGen to develop a commercial tidal farm, of up to 10MW in UK waters, within the next three years. With the right funding and regulatory framework, we believe we can realistically achieve up to 500MW of tidal capacity by 2015 based on this new SeaGen technology." Recognizing the special marine environment of Strangford Lough, MCT has undertaken a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme. This program is already active and is managed by Royal Haskoning, a leading environmental consultancy, working in partnership with Queen's University Belfast and the St Andrews University Sea Mammals Research Unit. The program is overseen by an independent body, chaired by David Erwin, a former Chief Executive of the Ulster Wildlife Trust. The A2SEA jack-up barge, "JUMPING JACK", is planning to mobilize from Belfast's Harland & Wolf shipyard, where SeaGen is already complete and waiting, to Strangford Lough on August 20th. It is expected that the drilling of a single pile into the seabed and the installation of the twin-turbine device will take 14 days, with commissioning and power generation to the local grid shortly afterwards. Martin Huss, Sales & Marketing Director of A2SEA said: "We are delighted to be working with MCT on this important and challenging project and hope it is the start of a long and rewarding relationship as tidal technology enters the market place in the UK." The blades are designed for bi-directional flow, so that they turn regardless of which way the tide is rushing. They'll spin 10 to 20 times per minute. The company says this is slow enough to allow fish and other sea creatures to get out of the way if they're swimming on through. But it certainly doesn't sound like anything a diver would want to approach. This Seagen installation may be just the first step. As part of another project, the company is also hoping to install a farm of underwater turbines off Wales that would be capable of powering thousands of homes. my sorces are from popsci.com and also alternative-energy-news.com

Alright, one last thanks to Con for a riveting debate. Let's start out by looking at Con's specific regulations. I'm glad that Con specified some of these though, admittedly, he spends little time elucidating what adhering to the 7 major statutes means. I will assume, however, that this will increase inspection practices, and that they will be required to disclose what chemicals are in their fracking fluids. These are still insufficient. Cementing the wells won't work either, since cement can still crack over time,[42] not to mention that the list of problems include “poor thread connections, corrosion, thermal stress cracking, and other causes” that aren't addressed by this.[43] Nor will the basic issues be addressed, such as leakage through soil (due to its basic porous properties), the process of contaminating that soil, and of creating fractures that can cause earthquakes, all of which are dropped and inherent to fracking. Distance from water sources can only do so much as well. It doesn't really address the issue that hundreds of millions of gallons of water are contaminated by the practice when it's done safely.[8] Con wants examples of regulations failing. Here's a few. In Pennsylvania alone, there have been 3,331 violations of regulations in place since 2009.[44] Con doesn't suggest that they cannot dispose of their water through disposal wells, a regulated practice that can also easily contaminate groundwater.[45] Even if Con is right that this will make each individual fracking practice better, regulations will just force an increase in the number of drilling sites and rate of fracking, as it has in Colorado, increasing the harms.[46] Contamination by accident is sufficient, since it also won't be solved by regulation.[47, 48] Only a ban effectively prevents these. Onto the key issues of the debate. 1. Air pollution a. CO2 Con drops my point that oil is also dredged up through fracking, and that it comes with volatile gas infusions that make it highly explosive.[25] This challenges his CO2 benefit, but more importantly, it presents a large safety concern. It also mitigates any economic benefit he seeks to get, due to the costs required to use it. Even if there's some reduction in CO2 emissions, it's far lower than Con initially cited. It's also low impact, considering that methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas.[26] b. Methane I already showed how Con's sources on methane leakage were faulty. The sole links he provides either don't address methane leaks (his 3 and 19), or are too short term, biased, and selective (his 8). Con has not defended any of his links. My links stand uncontested, and don't suffer from any of these problems. Con seems to believe that all he has to do is present a source that disagrees with mine in order to show uncertainty, but this is absurd. Con needs sufficient doubt to throw all of my evidence into uncertainty, and he has not presented anything that would do so. The best he's done is show that emissions may be 0.5% less than a dangerous threshold he himself admits exists. That means the best case scenario is one where the benefit is minimal and uncertain, whereas the worst includes 60 tons of methane per hour rising into the atmosphere from each well.[49] c. Health Con dropped my argument that health risks come from just being close to drilling sites, which aren't solved by any of Con's regulations.[23] 2. Water pollution a. Through fracking Con drops my point that contamination has already occurred in 4 states with present regulations, and provides no warrants that his regulations will solve.[35] He drops my argument that the EPA, which would be the agency in charge of this regulation, is a terrible regulator, and misses obvious contaminants.[36] He also drops that certain contaminants will always leech into the soil, remaining after recycling the water.[37] b. Through disposal Con doesn't seek to ban disposal wells, which, as I mentioned earlier, can easily contaminate groundwater. Even if recycling is made mandatory, the practice doesn't solve for the harms. He ignores the fact that wastewater is still generated from recycling, and that that wastewater is highly concentrated with toxins.[34] He drops that the recycling process leaves behind highly concentrated radioactive solids that also require disposal.[33] Con drops my point that abandoned wells lead to massive methane leaks, which none of his regulations solves for.[19] Each of these show failures with his case that don't exist in mine. 3. Earthquakes Con drops this entire contention. By itself, this is sufficient reason to vote Pro. Look to my [8], which shows how the process works and is integral to fracking. The safety and economic harms of earthquakes are immense, and the fact that this has gone unaddressed is just baffling. Economically,, it forces huge insurance boosts on local peoples.[50] On a human level, it destroys homes and kills people.[51] Environmentally, those quakes can easily release pockets of methane, allowing all of it to escape into the atmosphere. In other words, it's a huge, diverse harm with a wide area of effect. 4. Economic harms a. Local economies These harms are most certainly topical. This is analysis of one of the many impacts the process of fracking. Whether my opponent views it as important or not is irrelevant to its topicality. All I have to prove is that it's reason enough for a legislative ban. First off, the ability for towns to ban fracking only exists in New York.[52] Con is not requiring this nationwide. Second, if towns could choose whether a fracking company comes in or not, it just means they accepted the risk. That doesn't mean the harm is any less a harm. Third, at best, this just means they are capable of escaping the harms if they have enough foresight. Fracking companies represent quite a big influx of money into numerous towns, making it difficult to refuse them.[53] There's incentive there to ignore the long term harms. Fourth, Con can't have it both ways. If all towns ban fracking, then effectively the process is banned, making it equivalent to my case. If some towns ban fracking, other towns will still be harmed as I described. Con drops the links to the spread of ghost towns and shut downs of local businesses.[38] Con also drops the point about stealing water from local businesses, further contributing to their closure.[17] So Con never contests the harms at all, only trying to mitigate them by saying that towns have agency. At most, that's a lower likelihood of a terrible impact that only he has. b. Short vs. long term Con makes the unwarranted claim “shale gas is a bridge from really crappy coal to really good green stuff.” He drops all of my warrants and evidence, which show that having a fossil fuel that is a cheap and easy source of energy keeps us dependent on fossil fuels for longer. There's no reason to believe that, with this around, we are going to treat green energy as worthy of more resources. I've shown, with copious amounts of evidence,[10, 11, 25, 40] how natural gas has changed our perception of green energy. Whether things can “change overnight” is irrelevant. I'm not saying that they will, though his lack of response to my cost points is glaring, since it suggests that it is an entirely affordable process. But that transition has only slowed down in the presence of a cheap and easy source of fuel. Our increased need for more energy is a reason to pursue renewable energy with more fervor, not double down on a limited source. Con states that bans will badly affect the economy. First, those increases to taxes and harms to GDP are able to be absorbed, even if they do happen. A state can still continue to function, unlike the small towns. Second, it's based on a set of assumptions that make it the worst-case scenario rather than the actual likely outcome.[54] Third, this assumes that no energy industry would come to replace it. The green energy sector would skyrocket in the absence of this alternative, and as it's already accelerating, this would be a big deal.[55] Considering job growth nationwide was up 38,600 in one quarter in 2013, this surge in growth could easily outdistance any drop from fracking.[56] Conclusion: I've shown that the environmental, health, and economic harms of fracking are too large to allow this practice to continue. Each is enough by itself to warrant a ban on fracking. I've shown that Con's alternative strategy of regulating the industry is insufficient, and that the harms of a ban are minimal at worst. The best he can do is present minimal doubt with faulty evidence, and then claim that it detracts from a solid, uncontested set of evidence. Don't believe this audacious, unwarranted claim. Vote Pro. 42.http://newyork.sierraclub.org...43.http://www.pnas.org...44.http://stateimpact.npr.org...45.http://www.texastribune.org...46.http://ecowatch.com...47.http://fracking.einnews.com...48.http://www.sciencedaily.com...49.http://www.sltrib.com...50.http://www.bizjournals.com...51.http://www.dallasnews.com...52.http://truth-out.org...53.http://articles.chicagotribune.com...54.http://www.denverpost.com...55.http://www.worldwatch.org...56.http://theenergycollective.com...

Roy Latham is considered as the best debater at DDO. However this is not one of his best debates and he appears to be clearly distracted. In R3, he has ignored many of my arguments, dropped his own arguments and posted ‘quotes’ which are actually comments on some other blog. Reader will also notice that there appears to be no continuation between arguments made by him in R2 and R3. == My arguments == My arguments were brief. However as they have been ignored by Pro, I will first recapitulate them. CCS internalizes cost of CO2 removal from atmosphere into production. CCS is technically feasible, as confirmed by organizations like IPCC, IEA and CURC. IEA is already working towards global adaptation. Countries which are part of Kyoto protocol have already accepted it, at least in principle. Modalities of global implementation are being worked out. It is projected to be as cheap as conventional method once the technology is widely accepted. Pilot projects are already being implemented worldwide, including 12 sites in United States. This is remarkable for a technology which only gained prominence in 2005. == New arguments by Pro == Pro introduces a number of new arguments without any theme: Global Warming / Cooling and its cause: Suddenly it turns out that Pro is not sure whether global warming is real and is caused by CO2 emission into atmosphere. This is just a cunning debate tactic. If we are debating economics of CCS, it should be obvious that we are concerned about global warming caused by CO2. There is no point in debating CCS, if my opponent believes that global cooling is going on. Note that Pro does not even specify what he believes in. He just tries to present all possibilities and inflate the scope of the debate. There has been lots of research on the result of global warming [1]. Even the most optimistic ones sound eerie. Unfortunately for my opponent, his lack of awareness of recent research makes his tactic worthless. Global warming is taking place and it is caused by burning of fossil fuel. This is the inescapable conclusion of a research conducted by Berkley Earth Group [2]. This is the conclusion of a team of 11 leading scientists including Robert Muller and Saul Perlmutter. Saul Perlmutter won the Nobel Prize for physics last year. This paper is still under peer review process. There are no shortcuts in science. However it is obvious that this path breaking research has settled the debate on cause of global warming. I will argue the readers to read the New York Times article by Robert Muller [3] announcing key components of his team’s work. Climate Engineering: Pro would like to invest as much as needed in ‘climate engineering’. I have no problem with further research. However rejecting a solution we already have in favor of an unknown solution which we don’t even know even exists is not rational. Pro not only assumes that a solution exists and will be found, he also assumes that the solution is going to be cheap and would solve all the problems all alone. Too expensive to be globally accepted: Pro thinks that this technology will not be accepted globally. However he ignores the fact that it is already being globally accepted. He thinks only US and Europe would use it. As it turns out, lots of work on CCS is being done by China. [4] Costs of CO2 unknown: There is no doubt that exact costs of removing CO2 emission are not known. However unknown costs does not mean no costs. Voters will agree with me that the cost is likely to be high. It is better to shift too CCS whose costs are comparatively well known. I am not arguing for internalizing cost of CO2 removal just because it is fair. Internalizing cost is an essential component for any stable and pragmatic economic solution to the problem. CO2 is not like a normal pollutant. However it may interest my opponent to study effects of global warming. Balloon baloney: Pro offers an extremely non-serious alternative to CCS. Everyone should blow into balloon. However he fails to explain. Feasibility of scheme Cost of scheme How much of CO2 is emitted by human beings, and whether he plans to extend it to animals as well How he plans to dispose the balloons Until he can present more serious proposal, voters are argued to ignore it as a juvenile attempt to derail a serious debate. == Rebuttals == CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warming: Pro considers 13% reduction in temperature increase to be insignificant. It can be argued that this is significant since this is the contribution from a single industry. I am not saying that CCS alone would solve all global warming problems. However it is clear that Pro is not having any better proposal at present from power industry. The Cost Makes CCS Impractical: Pro wrongly asserts that the costs are projected future costs without providing any quotes. Here is the relevant quote from the article Pro quoted [5] All studies were made using commercially available technology and include the cost of compressing the captured CO2 to about 100 atm for pipeline transportation. The results do not include cost of CO2 transportation and injection, which will add about $10/tonne of CO2 avoided. Another problem is that this is a 1999/2000 paper. A lot has changed in this industry since then. I admit that cost of coping with CO2 in environment is not precisely known. However my argument was that cost of CCS should not be compared to cost of conventional production directly. It should be compared with cost of production and the cost of removing the excess CO2 from atmosphere. The cost of CO2 damage to our environment is likely to be high. To buttress his arguments Pro raises the issue of risk with CCS and it’s associated cost. Unfortunately he has posted ‘quotes’ which are actually comments on some other blog. There is no doubt that there are some risks associated with CCS also. However as per IPCC reports the risk associated are comparable to risk associated with current hydrocarbon activities. [6] Nuclear, Climate engineering and adaptation: Pro has ignored most of my arguments against nuclear power and rather relies on few assertions. Pro asserts that if nuclear power is located away from population centre, the cost of accidents can be minimized. I agree, that is not feasible for many countries including India. Also that is not the only problem with nuclear power. I listed several problems, which Pro has ignored. In any case, there is no reason why both CCS and nuclear cannot be used. There is no sense in debating nuclear power unless my opponent wants to take the extreme position that all methods of power production except nuclear should be abolished. Pro blandly asserts that there is no problem to spread of nuclear power. This is clearly not true. The biggest problem is that the Pro’s own country refuses to trust a large part of globe. I do not want a full international politics dispute here. It should be clear to readers that while nuclear is controversial, CCS is being enthusiastically welcomed by everyone except my esteemed opponent. Roy believes that climate engineering offers the only solution. Problem is, climate engineering has not got any solution at present. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://berkeleyearth.org... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com... [5] http://sequestration.mit.edu... [6] http://www.ipcc.ch...

The oil crisis will not be solved with a small amount of additional oil. The Pro argument is offering a non-solution as a solution.

I've switched to smaller text.0. EMP range can be tweaked based on the amount of energy one is fed.The EMP's, once again, are not targeting civilian life. They are only for established systems that may hinder this one.STUXNET is being used to hijack the Earth's energy reserves. It is not a monitoring device. The plan to use EMP's for "all other tech" refers to all other tech that threatens an open-source world(finance and militia)1.There are several mines around the world being run autonomously today. The issue, as you stated, is the threat they pose to the workforce. Therefore, many of these "automatic" mines aren't really automated to repair themselves, sort through the materials mined, or log how MUCH they mine.In our program, these mines will be automated to the fullest extent, even in separating and storing the materials. Even in repairing themselves and monitoring how much they mine.Distinguishing between different rare metals and minerals requires refined detection, of which most high powered sensors have the ability for.2 & 3."The renewable farms have to be built first"No. I have all the oil, coal, and nuclear energy to build as many farms as I need.4.The EMP's will be detonated simultaneously so that the communications grid used by "nation defense" in every nation goes dark. They won't be able to communicate the threat in the first place.The EMP's can wipeout the grid in seconds. The submarines can be hijacked via STUXNET.5. The volunteers hepling program the autonomous systems and infrastructures will not ask for payment. Any payment they recieve would be useless upon completing the project, since everything would be free and accessable by default. 6.STUXNET controls all nuclear systems and may very well disable them.War threats are of no consequence. This program is not being carried out by America or any other private business and they will not be awarded credit for the system update.I also fail to see the threat of wiping out every desert. Is there any civilization anywhere that wouldn't benefit from this system?7.Money, or rather profitable gain, does not cause incentive for creativity.In most cases, it actually hinders the creative process. I can prove this with studies funded by the Federal Reserve, but I'll let you do your own research."That's the problem with your society. No one has [an incentive] to do anything anymore." Precisely. Nobody is forced to do anything anymore. So is my system totalitarian or not?"If you are prepared for hundreds of years of energy, then no one will bother going to school in the meantime since they don't even have to work, and even if they get a basic education, who'll bother going to university, and who'll run the universities?"You have an interesting view of universities in terms of what they provide and why people attend them. They are not for turning learners into workers. Those are training centers and they aim to specialize individuals rather than generalize them. Specialization is offensive and puts a serious limit on what the brain is capable of learning. Unfortunately many government approved training centers are being advertised as "Universities". In our system, universities will have unlimited resources at their disposal, unhindered creative drive, and will not rely on accreditation. If you don't like University #35, then try out University #36. Education will be open-source and not totalitarian, as it is under today's system."It ends up like Idiocracy's commercially stupid population."I just watched this film for the purpose of the debate. Idiocracy shows a world where technology is somehow stupider than the civilization using it. My system uses only the best technology. This movie also has a part where the government finds the world's smartest man to solve all their technical problems, instead of relying on voting. Only then do things start to improve for the population.My system eliminates commercialization and the workforce both. "We weren't made by anyone, so we decide our own purpose and destiny."The fact that we exist means that we were in fact made.Whether we were made by divinity or nature, or whether these creators are one and the same, our bodies and minds have certain rules they must obey. If you do not get enough energy, you will die. There is not much of a decision there."And soylent green will never taste as good as normal food. It's an end to pleasure."Overstimulation makes the brain fire neurons and neurotransmitters more often, causing immunity and lowered response intensity. In short, overstimulation = inhibited pleasure. Like living off of food and hoping to get pleasure from it after doing it 3 times a day, every day, for 10 years.A Soylent diet not only assures an optimum daily intake of energy on an individual level, it allows people to only eat foods they take PLEASURE in and only as often as they want.9.For the 3rd time, the EMP's will not be used against civilian homes.The structure of the homes is a very serious problem. All humans need a senes of safety. It is one of the foremost preliminary steps in satisfying Maslow's pyramid.11.A black market wouldn't be very popular if it's slogan was ""We'll take out thoes pesky sensors so you have to navigate your car yourself". This system initiates no force once it has been programmed. The only force being used is to take the resources and energy needed for a worldwide access system, where anything can be mined, constructed, shipped, repaired, updated, or replaced on a whim.People won't be forced to have sensors in their vehicles, but this is a service very few would turn down.12.Nobody is making things for computers. Computers are making things for us.I've said 3 times now that there is no human labor force, and there is no force of human labor.Machines DO work for free and there's no task done by humans that machines cannot do faster, smarter, and with more accuracy. Including triple-bypass surgery.This entire system is automated, from the mining of resources, to the assembly, to the shipping, to the waste management and recycling.The only jobs left are the ones that require human creativity, such as software updates, personalization, product design, etc;Overall:I didn't start this debate to sulk over the purpose of live in a system that provides everything to everyone.On one side, you debate the feasability of the program, whether it's national defense, lack of resources, or shipping problems.On the other side, you attack the productivity of mankind in this system once it has been accomplished, whether it's creativity, incentive to repair the system, etc. I'd like to address these two concerns more at length in a futher debate, perhaps someting along the lines of "Dystopia or Utopia?". I'm confident that I can convince you not only the feasability of this program, but the positive effect it would have on the global population. I also apologize if I ever came off as condescending or insulting. I respect that you know enough about politics and technology to debate me on this.

=== CONTENTION 1: OTHER USES ===The article ' Oil is too Precious to be Used as Transportation Fuel,' [1] states: 'An oil executive once observed that burning oil for energy is like burning Picassos for heat. Oil is extraordinarily valuable as the basis for so many products we use every day that the thought of simply burning it ought to be unthinkable. So versatile are oil molecules that they can be transformed into substances that serve as clothing, medicines, building materials, carpet, skin care products, sporting goods, agricultural chemicals, perfumes, and myriad other products. Increasingly, when we make oil-based products for homes and businesses, we are finding ways to reuse those products or recycle the materials they are made from (think: recyclable plastics). But, burning oil is always a one-time, irreversible act that leaves nothing of value behind. '=== CONTENTION 2: OIL SPILLS ===The article 'How Oil Tankers Work,' [2] states the following: 'Soon after entrepreneurs in the 1850s began exploiting crude oil as a source of energy, the nascent oil industry found itself in a dilemma. How were early oil prospectors supposed to transport this "blackgold" from the remote locations from whence it sprang, to places where it could be refined, sold and used? It didn't take long for these early oil barons to come up with a solution. The first oil tankers were built in the 1860s and propelled by wind-powered sails. In 1873, the Palmers Shipbuilding & Iron Company assembled the first steam-driven oil tanker, named the Vaderland. Meanwhile, oil producers in Pennsylvania had been making use of barges -- large, unpowered boats that must be tugged by another ship [source:Port cities Southampton]. Today, oil tankers fall into two basic categories, crude tankers and product tankers. Crude tankers are the larger of the two. They move raw, unrefined oil from the places where it's pumped out of the earth, to the refineries where it's processed into fuel and other products. 'By not using oil for transportation fuel, we will reduce the risk of an oil spill, and the oil can be used for other purposes (see above arguments). The MT Haven was. .. well, the wikipedia article [3] states: 'MT Haven, formerly Amoco Milford Haven, was a VLCC (very large crude carrier), leased to Troodos Shipping (a company run by Lucas Haji-Ioannou and his son Stelios Haji-Ioannou). In 1991, while loaded with 144,000 tonnes (1 million barrels) of crude oil, the ship exploded, caught fire and sank off the coast of Genoa, Italy, killing six Cypriot crew and flooding theMediterranean with up to 50,000 tonnes of crude oil. [1] It broke in two and sank after burning for three days, and for the next 12 years the Mediterranean coast of Italy and France was polluted, especially around Genoa and southern France. '=== CONTENTION 3: GREENHOUSE GASES ===The article 'Greenhouse Gas Emissions,' [4] states:'Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, like carbon dioxide (CO2), entering the earth's atmosphere. GHGs come from producing and using fossil fuels such as oil and gas. The challenge we all face is how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while demand for energy – and the amount of energy the world is consuming – is growing. 'The article 'Advantages and Disadvantages of Oil – Cons Disregarded by Powerful Lobbies,' [5] states:'Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) – One of the biggest Disadvantages of Oil is that it releases Carbon Dioxide which has been sequestered for millions of years in the dead bodies of plant and animals. This transfers the Carbon from the Earth to the Environment leading to the Global Warming Effect. 'Back to CON. [1]-. http://oilprice.com...[2]-http://science.howstuffworks.com...[3]- . http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]-http://www.capp.ca...[5]-http://www.greenworldinvestor.com...

Be careful where your examples come from. There is a problem with documentaries today. Very few of them are fair to other sides of the debate. I could easily tell you that the electric car had at least 2 very simple problems that made them uneconomical and weak in the US market. The first was that a charged battery gave a person 150 miles before needing to be recharged, which took several hours. Over time, an expensive electric car battery would decay and require replacement. Chances are, however, someone would recognize that as they got stranded on the side of the road because the battery meter was unreliable after many charges. Another issue was a failure of the country to have an infrastructure that could competently accommodate the electric car. Forget gas prices, that's merely an accusation of a film that is in no way unbiased or fair. You opened yourself up for criticism on a few points with this debate, so I ask you to get a little more specific to this topic. Global warming is a very debatable topic of it's own, so I could challenge that to refute your assertion that there is a special environmental urgency to deal with gas prices. You also mention biofuels, which have their own slew of problems. And then of course, the electric car as an alternative power source. Are you saying that we should challenge high gas prices and find a means to lower them? Are you saying that we need more funding for alternative energies to lower prices? Or are you saying we need the alternative fuels simply to eliminate oil usage for the environment's sake? Please clarify exactly what you would like this debate to focus on.

It is good for the environment because it doesn't release extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and damage it. Also, it repays what you payed for it overtime because you don't have to keep going and buying oil and coal.

Good luck! Now I will begin. .. Because my opponent has started the debate, stating "i think tidal power is the best power. .. " the burden of proof is on my opponent, but for Round One, I will work with what I have, providing a few arguments of my own and at the same time to rebuke or prove false any of my opponent's statements. First off, this, from my opponent's previous agrument, states ". .. becuase it would not harm the envoirment and also it won't hurt the sea life and it prouduces electrity my favorite tidal power is the seagen turbine it powers up to a 1,000 homes and also it can't hurt sea life the 52 feet blades move so slow that sea life can't be harmed and also it moves all the time. .. " In his argument, he failed to explain just how these generators don't harm the enviroment, other than ". .. blades move so slow". I did some reasearch, and this came up first. Check it out: "Fish may move through sluices safely, but when these are closed, fish will seek out turbines and attempt to swim through them. Also, some fish will be unable to escape the water speed near a turbine and will be sucked through. Even with the most fish-friendly turbine design, fish mortality per pass is approximately 15%. " Hmmm. .. I didn't mean to burst your bubble or anything, so sorry, but next time you should check your sources. I found this too: "Turbidity Turbidity (the amount of matter in suspension in the water) decreases as a result of smaller volume of water being exchanged between the basin and the sea. This lets light from the Sun to penetrate the water further, improving conditions for the phytoplankton. The changes propagate up the food chain, causing a general change in the ecosystem. Salinity As a result of less water exchange with the sea, the average salinity inside the basin decreases, also affecting the ecosystem. .. "Tidal Lagoons" do not suffer from this problem. Sediment movements Estuaries often have high volume of sediments moving through them, from the rivers to the sea. The introduction of a barrage into an estuary may result in sediment accumulation within the barrage, affecting the ecosystem and also the operation of the barrage. " . http://en.wikipedia.org...