This document outlines the arguments in favor of eliminating CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. It claims that CAFE standards cost lives by requiring cars to weigh 500 lbs less, increasing traffic fatalities, and that they do not truly help the environment. The goal is stated as protecting human life. Potential counterarguments are listed, such as questions about the specific number of increased fatalities claimed, whether those could be related to other factors like drunk driving, whether state CAFE standards would still apply, what act originally enacted CAFE standards, and whether future CAFE increases would still be possible. The document also lists potential affirmative arguments and disadvantages to the proposal.
This document outlines the arguments in favor of eliminating CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. It claims that CAFE standards cost lives by requiring cars to weigh 500 lbs less, increasing traffic fatalities, and that they do not truly help the environment. The goal is stated as protecting human life. Potential counterarguments are listed, such as questions about the specific number of increased fatalities claimed, whether those could be related to other factors like drunk driving, whether state CAFE standards would still apply, what act originally enacted CAFE standards, and whether future CAFE increases would still be possible. The document also lists potential affirmative arguments and disadvantages to the proposal.
This document outlines the arguments in favor of eliminating CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. It claims that CAFE standards cost lives by requiring cars to weigh 500 lbs less, increasing traffic fatalities, and that they do not truly help the environment. The goal is stated as protecting human life. Potential counterarguments are listed, such as questions about the specific number of increased fatalities claimed, whether those could be related to other factors like drunk driving, whether state CAFE standards would still apply, what act originally enacted CAFE standards, and whether future CAFE increases would still be possible. The document also lists potential affirmative arguments and disadvantages to the proposal.
Harm 1: CAFE Costs Lives A) 500 lbs weight reduction on cars use CAFE standards. This results in an increase of traffic fatalities due to lighter cars. Harm 2: Harms, Rather Than, Helps Environment Mandate: No Fuel Economy Standards Advantage 1: Saved Lives Cross-Examination: -What is the number of traffic fatalities you listed under your first harm? -Wouldn't you agree a large number of those could be related to speeding and/or drunk driving? -Are you intruding on state's CAFE standards? -What Act were CAFE standards enacted under? -Are you blocking future CAFE standards? Arguments: -Topicality: Energy Policy(Aff will probably get up and say “One of the main reasons for CAFE standards was to curb global warming”. You can say in response “The biggest reason however is our addiction on oil.”) -Solvency: Hybrids – People are converting to hybrids which are smaller and lighter. So the traffic fatalities due to lighter cars will still continue. -Inherency: CAFE standards are good and decrease our dependence on foreign oil -Inherency: California Has CAFE – Plan would lead to the following DA: -DA: Unconstitutionality – Impeding on state's rights. -DA: Oil Dependency Increase – CAFE increases MPG. Taking them away decreases MPG.