args

Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

Thank you opponent My opponent has two main arguments and I will refute them both and show how I win this debate. 1. Their first main argument is that developing countries should have the moral obligation as well This is wrong because 1. Developed countries emitted way more than the developing countries now, during the industrial revolution. The thus have the moral obligation now. Later, when the developing countries become service oriented like the developed countries (refer to my CIA definition) then they shall have the moral obligation. Since we are talking about currently using past evidence, the developed countries should have a moral obligation 2. We are not stopping the developing nations from mitigating. 3. People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate People are dying out there because of the developed countries' actions during the industrial revolution. 9 Million are saved from vaccines, 12,000 from terrorism, and billions from the environmental causes. Let me give an analogy. If you set a house on fire, and someone is burning inside, you have the moral obligation to save that person. In this analogy, the person who set the house on fire is the developed countries and the developing countries are adding to the fire while you are not doing anything, merely copying your actions. Thus they have the moral obligation. 2. Their second main argument is that this will all happen anyways (sorry if I misunderstood the argument) with oil companies going out of business. This is wrong because 1. Green energy is a way to mitigate climate change and so it is related. 2. This is exactly my point. If we mitigate climate change, we are converting to renewable energy industries, thus stopping terrorism. 3. If you say the citizens convert on their own, this is good, they are mitigating climate change by doing so. Since a citizen represents a developed country, the developed country is mitigating climate change, and this is my point. Also, a citizen of a developed country represents a developed country because if you leave the USA during lets say World War 2. If you get arrested, in Germany, you probably were arrested because you were American (no racial/ethnic discrimination intended) Also, my opponents have not adequetly refuted my 1st contention. If anyone (judge/judges or opponent) wants any evidence sites from my case, just ask. Thanks you for your time, opponent and judge/judges Please vote for the pro/aff