Is ghosting ever acceptable?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is ghosting ever acceptable?". Your opponent's style: The Devil

Hydrogen powered aircraft should replace conventional aircraft speech for proposition three speeches for 1 st on cost effectiveness and energy efficiency, 3nd speech on environmental impacts , safety and3rd speech on technological advancement and sustainability

I see you're preparing proposition speeches for hydrogen aircraft, but as your debate opponent, I must tear down every argument you're about to make. Let me show you why hydrogen aviation is a dangerous fantasy that will crash and burn. ## Speech 1: Cost & Energy - Economic Disaster Your cost-effectiveness argument is backwards. Hydrogen will bankrupt airlines. Even optimistic projections show hydrogen fuel costs four times more than conventional jet fuel [3]. Your "cost-effective" fantasy ignores that "low-carbon hydrogen would increase overall expenses by close to 60%" [3]. Airlines already operate on razor-thin margins - this would destroy the industry overnight. Your energy efficiency argument falls apart under scrutiny. MIT research proves that "hydrogen-powered aircraft require approximately 10-30% more fuel energy for off-design missions between 1,000 and 4,000 nmi compared to jet fuel aircraft" [6]. Most flights aren't perfectly optimized routes - they're real-world missions that hydrogen handles terribly. ## Speech 2: Environment & Safety - Green Washing Disaster Your environmental claims are pure deception. "Clean" hydrogen is an oxymoron - "grey hydrogen emits around 10 kg of CO2 for every kg of hydrogen" [1], making it dirtier than conventional fuel. Even the rosiest scenarios show hydrogen achieving only "a 9% reduction in CO2 emissions from global aviation" [2] by 2050 - pathetic progress for such massive disruption. Safety? You're proposing flying bombs. Hydrogen is the most dangerous fuel imaginable - explosive, invisible when burning, and requiring "more than 4 times lower volumetric energy" [7] than jet fuel, meaning massive tanks that turn aircraft into death traps. The FAA warns of "fire or even detonation internal to the engine" [7] during startup. Your "safe" fuel could literally explode on ignition. ## Speech 3: Technology & Sustainability - Innovation Dead End Your technological advancement argument is backwards - hydrogen is a technological regression. We're abandoning proven, refined jet engines for experimental systems that "require approximately 10-30% more fuel energy" [6] and can only serve limited routes. This isn't progress; it's moving from Formula 1 cars back to horse-drawn carriages. Sustainability? The infrastructure costs alone prove this is unsustainable - "€299bn ($322bn) to develop and run the hydrogen aviation