Instigator / Pro
1
1470
rating
50
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#2122
Electric vehicles are better than Gasoline vehicles, as of now.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
3
Better sources
0
2
Better legibility
1
1
Better conduct
0
1
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
shadow_712
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1489
rating
19
debates
42.11%
won
Description
Ask me anything
Round 1
Pro
#1
1. Fuel
Electric cars run on electricity, so little to no emission is popped out of its rear end.
While this source may look like it favors Pro. Let's compare Tesla to the BMW in the same tier. Comparing a semi-truck against a coupe isn't going to be fair.
And in this case, the Tesla emits less than the BMW in its lifetime.
In the 'States, Electric cars cost less to fuel compared to gasoline vehicles.
Electric cars may only drive 100 miles or so upon on full charge, but:
3 years ago, Tesla has chargers already across the nation. There is one charging station within 100 miles of another charging station, so if you are going on a trip across the US with an electric car, you would be guaranteed to pass.
Electric cars cost less to fuel compared to Gasoline cars, according to this site.
This research also shows that Electric cars emit less CO2 compared to Gasoline vehicles in their lifetime.
Gasoline is made of a process that has a lot of emissions, and using Gas to fuel the car itself would also emit CO2.
Electric cars can be charged with Solar Electricity, and that will be about 0 tons of CO2 per year of emission.
Conclusion:
- Gasoline cars emit more CO2 and that is bad.
- Electric cars cost less to fuel and cost less to drive.
- Gasoline also isn't biofuel, hopefully Con understands.
Con
#2
Some
definitions to be agreed upon by both PRO and CON for the benefit of the
audience:
1. Electric vehicle: A vehicle running on induction motor as its chief source of power with lithium-ion battery as its power source.
2.Gasoline vehicle: A vehicle running on Internal Combustion Engine with conventional fuel(gasoline) as its power source.
By Pro stating electric cars are better than gasoline cars is speaking on an overall perspective, CON is assuming it.
1. Electric vehicle: A vehicle running on induction motor as its chief source of power with lithium-ion battery as its power source.
2.Gasoline vehicle: A vehicle running on Internal Combustion Engine with conventional fuel(gasoline) as its power source.
By Pro stating electric cars are better than gasoline cars is speaking on an overall perspective, CON is assuming it.
Electric cars run on electricity, so little to no emission is popped out of its rear end.
OBJECTION: As a point source, yes! but speaking in an overall matter no, any electrical power station would be depedent on the power grid of the country for electricity as , since PRO has cited USA as an example , US is still 60% depedent on conventional fuels for its electricity demand, plus the energy generated is not transfered completely to the end user , which is an electric car. Some amount is always decipated in transfer from power-grid to connector station, furthermore a lithium ion battery gets heated up while charging so lot of energy is decipated in the transfer process,lets take 65% for safer side.
Thus in reality only 35% saving of emissions are saved, this is under the consideration that the energy conversion rate of a power plant and a car is same while running on conventional fuel .
Electric cars may only drive 100 miles or so upon on full charge, but:
ARGUMENT:
PRO helpfully documents the problem with electric-cars, factors like these
render an electric vehicle unsuitable for logistics(transport), military(
armoured vehicles), and terrains where electricity is not available, and also
in regions and locations in developing countries where the power grid not as
stable as a developed country.
3 years ago, Tesla has chargers already across the nation. There is one charging station within 100 miles of another charging station, so if you are going on a trip across the US with an electric car, you would be guaranteed to pass.
ARGUMENT: Nowhere in the topic," Electric vehicles are better than Gasoline vehicles, as of now", it is written we are talking about the USA , world's leading economy in terms of GDP. The debate has to have a global perspective to it otherwise, factors associated with other nations will be ignored and that should not be the case US only inhabitates a fraction of world population(4.6%).
MAIN COUNTER ARGUMENT: Electric car manufacturers have no desire to do anything good for the environment, neither the local population of any country,this is evident from their production and scale of operations, had they any intention to do some good for hte environement they would have focused on regular citizens of the country[2]. Since tesla is leading in electric car manufacturing, its case can be taken as a precedent for this argument, lowest price of a Tesla is 35,000 US dollars which would be out of reach for majority of world population, Even that 35,000 dollar price tag is yet to materialize and Tesla has not started delivering the lower end model, it has already spent 3 years trying to make it happen. Even if 35,000 dollar price tag is materialized it is just not an affordable option for most of the world(95%(world population outside USA)) since electric car market has not sprung up so dominantly anywhere else. [3]
This is one of PRO's source, notice it excludes the Lithium ion battery from the comparison, it is the same as documenting nuclear energy but leaving out nuclear waste disposal( main problem with nuclear energy) out of the picture. Not to mention most fire- fighters are not eqipped with tools to handle lithium fumes if the electric vehicle catches fire.
"the ranks of the global middle class appear poised to swell considerably in the coming years. About 70 developing countries, home to a combined 4 billion people, lie in the per capita annual income range of $3,400 to $10,000 — an income range where car ownership grows much faster than income — meaning that a large share of that population is just on the threshold of affluence." [1]
4 billion people are in the 3,400 to 10,000 range not accounting for the below people below that threshold.
Gasoline also isn't biofuel, hopefully Con understands.
ARGUMENT: Gasoline is just a commercial name it does not mean anything, the specifications of Gasoline vary from country to country from producer to producer, since PRO has repeated used USA as an example CON will happy to inform that By 2011 most cars on U.S. roads could run on blends of up to 10% ethanol(E10), and manufacturers had begun producing vehicles designed for much higher percentages.[4]
SO essentially very few to none cars COMPLETELY run in the USA on conventional fuel( petrol) commercially known as gasoline . Same case for Europe, and now from this year in India as well.
CONCLUSIONs:
- Electric vehicles are a technology well out of reach of 95% of world population.
- Electric vechicles run on Lithium-ion battery which cannot be recycled properly as of yet.
- Electric vehicles emit highly toxic Lithium fumes if they catch fire.
- Electric vehicles make no significant contribution to the world's pollution problem since they cannot be used in most of the places around the world, but improving gasoline vehicles can cut emissions significantly, and in an effort to this Euro Stage 6 like initiatives are already in function.
- Saying Electric vehicles is better than Gasoline vehicles is like saying a sub-species of an animal is better than entire wildlife range of a country.
- Gasoline cars opting for Ethanol blending with cut CO2 emissions than electric vehicles, having the added advantage of not having to recycle a Lithium ion battery.
Round 2
Con
#4
PRO Forfiets R2
Minor wording correction in definition in R1.
Electric vehicle: A vehicle running on induction motor with lithium-ion battery as its power source.
All arguments carried forward.
Round 3
Pro
#5
You know I am rushed and I will make the argument brief. I will directly refute upon the conclusions my opponent made.
Electric vehicles are a technology well out of reach of 95% of world population.
Con had used this as a reason, Wow. Next time, say that a Rolls Royce is not as good as a Tata Nano because the latter is cheaper. Con has not questioned the quality of electric vehicles, nor did he refute that electric cars, compared to gas cars of its own tier(Such as Tesla model Y VS BMW X8). Electric cars aren't supposed to be cheap as hell because they are still innovating. You can't tell Ferrari, "Hey, sell me one of those with a price of a French Compact made in 1988!"
This argument makes sense, but it does not make electric cars worse consider many of them are marketed towards those that can buy a BMW out of their pockets.
Electric vehicles run on Lithium-ion battery which cannot be recycled properly as of yet.
First, to say, my chart has included the lithium-ion battery in the pollution on the production line.
Second, to say, My chart has given that, in the life of the car, the total emission is less. Again, one compartment being bad for the environment does not make the whole thing worse, especially if the whole thing is actually good.
Electric vehicles emit highly toxic Lithium fumes if they catch fire.
Not exactly.
One site, listed below, states:
According to Bachus & Schanker, 6.2 million car crashes occur every year. The number of highway crashes that have resulted in fires has dropped over the last thirty years from nearly half a million in 1980 to 174,000 in 2015, with the sharpest drop happening since 2007. Some of that drop can be attributed to improvements in fuel injector technology and other safety features found in modern vehicles. But the increased incidence of electric vehicles on America’s roads is certainly making roads safer! Because they are powered by batteries instead of flammable gasoline, electric vehicles have a lower risk of fire than their gas counterparts. Granted, lithium-ion batteries — the kind used in electric vehicles — can burn, but there’s a very low risk of this happening when compared to gas vehicles. And given the recent improvements in lithium-ion technology, we’ll likely see even fewer electric vehicle fires in the years to come.
Electric cars are SAFER than Gas cars. They are less likely to catch on fire because of the present Lithium battery technology. Con's scenario happens very rarely and holds less value compared to ours. Again, Lithium-ion batteries may catch on toxic fires, but they are very unlikely to, even if crashes occur on the public motorways.
Electric vehicles make no significant contribution to the world's pollution problem since they cannot be used in most of the places around the world, but improving gasoline vehicles can cut emissions significantly, and in an effort to this Euro Stage 6 like initiatives are already in function.
That is an is-ought fallacy, if I can even call it that. Again, a thing, to be good, does not have to spread around the world for the sake of it. Oh Yeah! Over 95% of the people cannot afford a Rolls Royce, thus it is completely impractical on the roads!
Plus, I was wrong. Apparently a good Tesla on a good charge can run almost across England. More accurately, over 300 miles. That is identical to a gas car! A purpose-designed electric car can tread the whole Sahara Desert and most people use them on conventional roads, especially in cities. So, there is a little problem. Plus, charging electricity is MUCH cheaper compared to charging gasoline. Con has never doubted that.
Con may state that there are far fewer charging stations, but would you put an LMP1 on slippery ice in Mount Everest, or would you put monster trucks on public motorways? Charging stations are just enough so they could sustain, and you wouldn't put as many charging stations as gas stations when there are far fewer cars. Charging stations are also cheaper to make compared to gas stations.
Saying Electric vehicles is better than Gasoline vehicles is like saying a sub-species of an animal is better than entire wildlife range of a country.
Not really. More like saying an alien species is smarter than all humans and animals on earth. The keyword is "Better" as if this subspecies of an animal behaves better than every talent of every lifeform in the nation, such as stealth, size, sound, etc, this would make some sense.
Gasoline cars opting for Ethanol blending with cut CO2 emissions than electric vehicles, having the added advantage of not having to recycle a Lithium ion battery.
This argument is self-defeating. Saying Gasoline can be mixed with ethanol would be like saying Democracy is bad because the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is leaning towards dictatorship and that is bad. My opponent implied that gasoline can be pure, and look at this:
SO essentially very few to none cars COMPLETELY run in the USA on conventional fuel( petrol) commercially known as gasoline . Same case for Europe, and now from this year in India as well.
Definition:
2.Gasoline vehicle: A vehicle running on Internal Combustion Engine with conventional fuel(gasoline) as its power source.
Essentially, very few to none people drive gasoline cars, and that defeats Con's whole argument because he did not argue how good gasoline is, instead he dodged the kicker by stating "Gasoline" is actually able to be mixed with ethanol.
Conclusions:
- Electric cars are safer, cheaper, and less dirty compared to their same-level Gas competitors.
- Electric cars have fewer emissions.
- Gasoline is Gasoline.
I rest my case.
Sources:
Con
#6
Thank you
User_2006,
ARGUMENTS:
1. It was pre-established that since the topic is " Electric vehicles are better than Gasoline vehicles, as of now." , it will need to cover the entire world with the whole world population under lense. CON used that premise to state that an Electric Car is out of reach for most of the world(95 %), only USA(4.6%) and Scandinavia(0.4%)(considered) have access to Electric cars.
PRO's contests: (part1)
ARGUMENTS:
1. It was pre-established that since the topic is " Electric vehicles are better than Gasoline vehicles, as of now." , it will need to cover the entire world with the whole world population under lense. CON used that premise to state that an Electric Car is out of reach for most of the world(95 %), only USA(4.6%) and Scandinavia(0.4%)(considered) have access to Electric cars.
PRO's contests: (part1)
"Con had used this as a reason, Wow. ................. 1988!"
PRO further provides an analogy: (part 2)
More like saying an alien species is smarter than all humans and animals on earth. .....................................me sense.
CON's counter part 1:
That is only under geographic lens, even in America I highly doubt a person with a 40,000 dollar salary can afford to buy a 35,000 plus added expenses( lowest model of Tesla),If we put economic realities under consideration safe to say major chunk of population is ruled out again,a threshold of 98% can be safely assumed. CON's first point becomes irrefutable, needs of 98% world population must come before the 2% who can afford such a car. I will make this point more evident by using Tata Nano as an example, mentioned by PRO.
CON's counter part 2:
Subsection A: Economics
Since Tata Nano name has been mentioned PRO will use it to explain the economics, was it in the US(Since PRO is US based I am using USA as an example)
Nano has a mileage of 15.8125 miles per litre of fuel. If we assume an average life of a car to be 150,000 miles, at that mileage 9879.79 litres of fuel is needed. Multiplying it by price of USA (0.654 dollars per litre). 6461 dollars are needed to drive the car for 150,000 miles compare it with a Tesla 6120 dollars considering 12 cents per Kwh []and 0.34 kwh/mile consumption. [Consumption rate based on PRO's source][]
Total Bill Comparison:
Tesla Model 3 : 35,400+ 6120 =41,520 dollars
Tata Nano: 3413+6461= 9874 dollars
Economics of a gasoline car are more favourable for any person walking on the earth. A reader may be feel apples to oranges are being comparison is being made, CON can elucidate, the lowest possible price of both an electric vehicle and a gasoline vehicle is being compared in the same country (lowest price available from a reputed manufacturer), because an economic car is not meant for performance but to provide basic transportation to the customer. Perfect or ideal functioning of both cars has been considered.
NOTE: Tata Nano was not allowed in the US because:
The original Nano is not street legal in the US because the low price would drive down car prices across the market, and cannot legally be imported on the US grey market until 2034, when the original 2009 models receive a 25-year exemption from the US Customs and Border Protection.[27] Despite a readily available dealership network in the US through the Jaguar Land Rover division of Tata, the company did not use this network to sell the Nano[]
To further his point here is Pew Research Center analysis of data from the World Bank PovcalNet database (Center for Global Development version available on the Harvard Dataverse Network) and the Luxembourg Income Study database[1] attached in citation stating:
Only 7 % of the world population are above 50 dollars per day which only accounts for 18,250 dollars per year, the percentage would be far less if we want to consider a 40,000 dollar average income, adjusted for economic growth, we can consider only 3-4% can actually afford an electric car.
Subsection B: Business
Since only term" vehicle" is mentioned, it will be unfair to exclude public transportation vehicles such as buses and taxis, CON will elucidate with an example :
This is kumar, he is poor, wants to become a taxi driver, has no steady income, wants to support his aging parents who also previously worked as daily labourers and have no steady income. Which car is in the above sub-section would an average reader recommend to kumar if he wants to apply for a car laon and get a somewhat steady income for his family.
Same goes for public transportation, people in developing economies are dependent on public cheap public transportation to survive, electric cars are not making the world an easier place for the poor, by further reducing the costs of public transport, but only catering to the needs of the already affluent.
Subsection C: Other usages
Since only term "vehicle" is mentioned it will be unfair to exclude other usages such as Logistics and Military vehicles
Electric vehicles and their charge time make them very unsuitable for Logistics , because drivers in a gasoline car usually drive in pairs and are on the move around the clock except for eating and resting, further stops to charge a truck only makes it unsuitable for use. CON is yet he hear of an Electric vehicle in military usage so that entire area is also dominated by Gasoline vehicles.
Seems the alien species is inferior in a lot of aspects.
Subsection D: rough terrains .
PRO helpfully demonstrates how electric cars are unsuitable for rough terrains,
Con may state that there are far fewer charging stations, but would you put an LMP1 on slippery ice in Mount Everest, .............................ewer cars.
Electric cars are unsuitable for usage in rough terrains where electricity and power grid are not available still humans do inhabit as north as Greenland,how will those people commute?
After end of all subsections CON will refute PRO's conclusion made on the pretext of the above citation.
This argument makes sense, but it does not make electric cars worse consider many of them are marketed towards those that can buy a BMW out of their pockets.
MAIN COUNTER: If an invention or technology cannot make the lives of the poor and downtrodden of the world easier, it is every bit worse than a technology that helps them overcome their financial woes. In this case 96-97% of the world population.
2. CON states:Electric vehicles run on Lithium-ion battery which cannot be recycled properly as of yet.
CON further states:
This is one of PRO's source, notice it excludes the Lithium ion battery from the comparison, it is the same as documenting nuclear energy but leaving out nuclear waste disposal( main problem with nuclear energy) out of the picture. Not to mention most fire- fighters are not eqipped with tools to handle lithium fumes if the electric vehicle catches fire.
PRO contests:
PRO contests:
First, to say, my chart has included the lithium-ion battery in the pollution on the production line......................................................... actually good.
CON counters: PRO admits to the analogy of the Lithuim ion battery been deleterious to the environment after end of active life. In a jest , the nuclear power analogy of CON stands.
3.CON states:
Gasoline is just a commercial name it does not mean anything, the specifications of Gasoline vary from country to country from producer to producer, since PRO has repeated used USA as an example CON will happy to inform that By 2011 most cars on U.S. roads could run on blends of up to 10% ethanol(E10), and manufacturers had begun producing vehicles designed for much higher percentages.[4]
SO essentially very few to none cars COMPLETELY run in the USA on conventional fuel( petrol) commercially known as gasoline . Same case for Europe, and now from this year in India as well.
PRO Contests:Essentially, very few to none .......................................... ethanol
CON counters: PRO feels his argument is well articulated still will explain again,
Gasoline mostly refers to petrol, but it is just a commercial name and the specification of Gasoline can differ from country to country based on what the Energy ministry of that country sees fit, it's quality can further differ from producer to producer based on their production methods and efficiency.
Examples:-
1.US some states have mandated blends: E10( meaning 90% petrol + 10% ethanol) []
2.India:E5(95% petrol+5% ethanol)
3.Nepal(100% petrol)
PRO knows this because of his professional requirements as a mechanical engineer, the common public do not need to know the exact specifications of the fuel used. 100% pure petrol from the refinery cannot be used in any engine without damaging it. Stabalizers and anti-knocking additives are added the amount also varies from supplier to supplier.
Thus in reality there is a lot of variation in fuel and the performance of Gasoline will be superior in US than Nepal. CON is arguring for Gasoline not ethanol, although a percentage of Gasoline might comprise of ethanol which is good is all CON wants to state.
4. CON states: Gasoline cars opting for Ethanol blending with cut CO2 emissions than electric vehicles, having the added advantage of not having to recycle a Lithium ion battery.
PRO contests: This argument is self-defeating. ............................ and look at this
CON counters: Point is redundent PRO has already explained the Gasoline , ethanol dileama above. A percentage of Gasoline can be Ethanol, in US( PRO's home country) it is mandated.
CONCLUSIONS:
- Electric vehicles are a technology well out of reach of 96-97% of world population.
- Electric vehicles pander to the rich and do not make life easier for the poor, a well designed gasoline car does.
- Electric vehicles are bad economically,for business,for rough terrains, for logistics and for military usage.
- Electric vehicles make no significant contribution to the world's pollution problem.
- Gasoline cars opting for Ethanol blending with petrol cut CO2 emissions more than electric vehicles, having the added advantage of not having to recycle a Lithium ion battery,this is done as ethanol is produced from plants which absorb the same amount of co2 emitted next year when they grow back.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Argument: As Ragnar mentioned in comments, Pro would need to overcome the argument of cost-to-benefit ratio. Con raised the issue of cost, not just in purchase and use of electric vs gasoline powered vehicles, but that over 60% of the world's electrical energy is provided by fossil fuel, which raises the cost of use for electric, a cost not successfully countered by Pro, not to mention the emissions for which electrical energy from fossil fuel sources generates since energy from green energy sources is minimal. In addition, Con's argument of the inability of electric-powered vehicles to supply the elevated power requirements of a variety of commercial vehicles cxould not be overcome by Pro. Points to Con.
Sources: On the point re: energy sourcing, Pro had at least two sources extolling green energy sourcing for electric car charging, but green energy supplies a minimal percentage of sourcing for electrical power compared to fossil fuel sourcing, and neither source acknowledged this lack. Con noted in r3 that a source from pro speaking to elecrtic power benefits left lithium battry power off the list. Point to Con
S&G: Tie
Conduct: Pro forfeited round 2, Con argued all rounds. point to Con
check R1 of CON ,"By Pro stating electric cars are better than gasoline cars is speaking on an overall perspective, CON is assuming it".
okay but neither side of this debate clarified what 'better' means.
could anyone of you guys vote?
Could anyone of you vote on this if you have time ?
Bump
Good luck. Expect challenges from a cost to benefit ratio.