As a voter I am struggling to figure out how PRO came up with the "at least partially" interpretation. I feel with the wording of the resolution it clearly means alt. energy can either entirely replace fossil fuels, or replace it to the point fossil fuel use is negligible. I think PRO's point on polls would be better used as a refutation, should CON say that there is no recognized need. I like the cost point a lot. I feel that it is PRO's strongest. What he really needed to do with it, though, is show that demand for renewables is increasing while demand for fossil fuels is plummeting. He could've been well-served to also talk about countries such as Germany who have replaced nearly all their fossil fuel power with renewable energy and have been generally successful in their endeavors. Lastly, PRO should have shown that energy output can be maintained with renewable sources, especially since a secondary definition of effective he provided was "sufficient to replace fossil fuels as an energy source." As for his environment point, I suppose saying it generates controversy is one way to say it, but I feel that PRO would be better served to say "climate change will generate unprecedented demand for renewable energy."
CON's points tended to fall flat. I liked the argument that big oil will keep investments from being made in alternative energy, however as I read this point I am remembering PRO's argument on how alt. energy is currently phasing out fossil fuels. If this is the case, big oil must not be doing a very good job. The continuous output point is good if CON bothered to show how it outperformed alt. energy sources. Instead I'm just being told "fossil fuels is good at energy" on one side and "alt. sources are also good at energy" on the other with no direct comparison between the two. The energy fluctuation point is solid but needs more warrants than a Vox video on solar energy, especially with that comparison to Chernobyl. Without warrants here it's hard to weigh this point. The concluding remarks are solid stats, but... where is the source? Also, where is the clash, CON? How can I weigh your arguments if you do not bother to refute the majority of your opponent's arguments?
PRO responds to the CON investment point by saying Vox has less than 50% reliability... Looking at his source it's not accurate, but CON never picks up on it or contests it. The additional sources pretty much drive the nail on CON's investment point. PRO makes a stellar response that it's not about what can be done right now, but what trends imply for the future. The response to the energy fluctuation point did a good job, and PRO correctly points out that CON never really sourced his side of the debate or bothered to respond to a lot of PRO's R1 arguments.
CON's defense of his source really just solidifies to the judge that the trends point towards more investment towards renewable energy. Now, CON's defense of the energy fluctuation point should have included a bit more explanation as to what the heck he was talking about, but it did a good job casting doubt onto both of PRO's sources. "Every study on economics is good, when it comes to implementation and engineering side of it all goes haywire." Good!
Null from CON.
PRO solidly defends that renewable energy will have plentiful investments. PRO argues that most experts agree renewable energy will be able to supply vast proportions of electricity very soon. I don't like PRO's appeal with people's lives, I feel PRO would have done better to stick on topic.
I am giving a lot of weight to the investments argument. Investments are how technological progress happens. PRO wins this easily.
As for the argument regarding energy fluctuation and actual implementation...
"Every study on economics is good, when it comes to implementation and engineering side of it all goes haywire." CON SHOULD HAVE LED WITH THIS AS HIS SOLE ARGUMENT!!
Honestly, if CON had come with a stronger sourcing and impacts that weren't based solely on his own opinions and Vox videos (like actual studies), I might have ended up voting CON (It also wouldn't have hurt to not forfeit R3).
Instead, since CON provided no real sourcing at all, I'm just left reminded over and over again by PRO that experts regularly disagree with CON paired with the fact that technology generally heads where the money is going.
For those reasons, arguments and sources are going to PRO, plus a conduct point for that forfeit in R3.
Seldiora really reminds me of User_2006. The "User_2006" is now top 5. I am pretty sure Seldiora can do it too.
lately he's been on a roll
wow, seldiora is really winning.
Ah, that makes sense
sorry for the forfiet IST timeline is very different in India, If I fall asleep early I often get a forfeit.
forfeit in 8 mins :(( you could've pulled through
I... Uh... I mean I guess so?
I think there are problems with replacing all energy with alternative sources for certain. I'm just talking from a debate judging perspective
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels"
Just need less people.
You can side with him no problem, but it does not change core problems of the field, everything he provides lacks technicality , it is fine people can build their imaginary castles, but they are effectively straying away from tech and its limitations.
The real handicap of this debate is the character count... I get you have a high debate workload rn, but I feel that this topic deserves to be a bit more fleshed out
I don't like to make bets early, but Seldiora is right on this one... you've neglected to really respond to that health argument so far There are some good responses for you to give, so it's not a matter of not having them.
you forced my hand.... by failing to tackle public health sector costs, you risk me pulling up the stronger core argument about people's wellbeing!
Vox is typically fine for factual sourcing as long as it isn't something to do with Trump, racism, sexism, or just SJW culture in general
Business part of it, I can attach research papers but they are not open access
you: uses Vox
me: I'm not convinced this is your field lol
This is literally my field
also I had too smol char limit lol, should've added 1,000 char
you do realize, effectively does not necessarily mean 100% better?
This is a easy win.
"Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels". This is an undeniable truism, unless you specify a context. Where when etc.