Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    The local weather may change but the global climate stays...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    The climate is not changing. The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organisation which has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the The local weather may change but the global climate stays basically the same. The oceans are not rising either. The IPCC is a communist organisation which has communist agendas. You can't and shouldn't trust any person or scientist who tells you that the climate is changing. This person will most likely have a secret agenda which has nothing to do with climate.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-climate-is-not-a-changing-./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.95
      climate: 22.02
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 9.19 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.92)
      sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)
      change: 3.93
      premises: 3.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.00)
  • PRO

    The impact is clear. ... Thanks and please vote for the...

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

    AFF- I want to thank the oppoent for their time Honorable Judges Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Definitions First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies. Standard- The standard of today’s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate. 1. Adaptation Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today’s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to “adapt” to the effects of climate change. According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate. 2. Moral Obligation Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country’s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian). Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism: It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security. Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives. The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. 3. The Environment Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5°C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. The Impact is that if the Earth’s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late. Thanks and please vote for the Aff/Pro

  • PRO

    and I must admit in some respects we do need technology...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    In our current situation its hard to say only some species are at risk. This is impossible if you use technology and climate change as the reason for their decline. just like they cant make pesticides that target just one species of insect, what kills one kills (or damages) all. I like your airplane analogy because i cant agree more, honey bees are our canary in the coalmine. and I must admit in some respects we do need technology to solve the problem but not in the way most companies(monsanto) or people think. finding a new way to genetically modify seeds or developing new medications and pesticides is not the answer. In many ways in regards to bees/farming we need to go "back in time" and return to a less big business approach and go back to the way we used to do it. buying local is a big part of that. the technologies we need to invest in are ways to combat climate change and or better regulations for importing foods. Yes its true that alot of these people are still exploiting the environment, but alot of them are farmers and companies like monsanto have forced them to do things their way (literally, if you dont buy monsanto seeds they will lobby the grain buyers not to purchase your product) And inregards to the cell phone thing, I have not seen proof that cellphones cause any harm to bees at all

  • PRO

    Developed states have more available money to fight...

    Developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change

    Developed states have more available money to fight climate change

  • PRO

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the...

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change

    Devoloped countries have a moral obligation to lessen the effects of climate change

  • PRO

    I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of...

    Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

    I pro will argue that factory farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change.

  • PRO

    As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue...

    Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

    Hello Woojin05. I accept your challenge and look forward to our debate and the rounds that will follow! Here we go... Global Warming is a reality, a problem and our fault. According to the Inquisitition of Climate Science, since 1800, 330 billion tons of Carbon Dioxide have been pumped into the atmosphere due to factories burning fossil fuels creating a "greenhouse effect," trapping sunlight, raising temperatures. This is also the cause for the largest global temperature increase mankind has ever encountered. According to the National Climatic Data Center, in the last century the average temperature has increased 1.33 degrees, and is projected to increase another 2.5-10.4 degrees by 21-hundred. The Institute for Demographic Research predicts that this temperature increase would raise ocean levels to the point where 634 million people living on the coast would be forced to re-locate. It is for this reason, that I support the resolution that Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. As my first contention, I would like to raise the issue about who is in fact responsible for global warming. According to the World Resources Institue, "industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date". Industrialized countries. Not underdeveloped countries. There is additional evidence to support this. Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide tend to stay in the atmosphere for decades. Old injuries dealt to the enviorment from now developed countries" haven"t healed yet. A study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development shows that the countries with the top annual carbon pollution per capita, are all industrialized and developed. Therefore it is developed countries that are responsible for global warming, and from the moral standpoint that this preposition wishes for us to take, it is developed countries who are responsible for mitigating the effects of climate change. It is essential to understand that climate change can be fixed. According to Royters, we have until 2040 to stop global warming before it becomes irreversible. There is a way to save our planet. However this solution is so obvious that it is often overlooked. Cutting pollution emissions by 80%, and replacing them with natural energy would literally halt the growth of climate change, which would end all effects of climate change. Admittedly, this solution comes with a high price tag. It could cost 1.9 trillion dollars annually to cut our carbon emissions by 80%. However this price tag is nothing compared to the cost of letting global warming continue. According to the Natural Resource Defense Council it is estimated that dealing with the effects of global warming would cost 20 trillion dollars a year by the end of the century, costing 10x more money than it would to just stop global warming. Each of the top 30 developed countries, have the budget to pay for approximently 4 % of the emissions decrease. This money could be funded by tax increases, charities, or budget cuts. In contrast there is mathematically no possible way of dealing with the effects of global warming without bankrupting the world"s economy. Now the logical question is: Why can"t developing countries assist in the costs of mitigating climate change? The answer is because they do not have the money. The average annual salary of a person living in a third world country is 730 dollars, or about 2 dollars a day. On top of this between 60-80% of this money is spent on food. There is no conceivable way a government could make money from taxing these people. As proof of this, the U.S."s national budget is around 2.1 trillion dollars per year, whereas Zimbobwae"s national budget is only 2.7 million dollars per year. Their budget is mathematically practically a millionth of the United States"s budget, and Zimbobwae is an average third world country. These countries need every penny they can make, therefore they cannot be obligated to mitigate the effects of climate change. It"s that simple. It is time to accept a reality and a responsibility. Therefore developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

  • PRO

    Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...

    Climate Shift

    I thank my opponent for accepting my debate. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org...... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com...... 3. http://www.nrdc.org...... 4. http://www.mfpp.org...... 5. http://www.edf.org...... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov...... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...... 9. http://www.usatoday.com...... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com...... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov......

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/3/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.74
      climate: 21.70
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.85 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.85)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 4.04
      premises: 3.65 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)
  • PRO

    Sorry, Con. ... Thus, CO2 is incapable of affecting the...

    Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

    Quote - The issue you're running into here is simple, The Earth's climate is not a heat exchange model between humans and earth. Reply - Your whole case here is that humans have caused the climate to change. Now, You have just excluded humans from the heat exchange equation. Then, You precede to discus CO2 in the atmosphere caused by humans. You are a very confused person. You want to exclude humans from the equation and yet, Include them in relation to CO2. Quote - Which has been experimentally confirmed numerous times. Reply - They are proven experiments by scientists who make a living by creating artificial disasters from which they can save us poor fools who know nothing. Sorry, Con. The scientist have many hidden agendas and need the money, Prestige, Career prospects and social standing from making stuff up to scare people into thinking something dreadful is going to happen if we don't stop emitting CO2. CO2 is needed by plants and trees Con. It is just part of the life cycle. 95 % of a plant's mass comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. The more CO2 you can put into the atmosphere, The faster and more vigorous plants will grow. CO2 is is like a fertilizer which makes plants greener and healthier. CO2 is not some noxious gas which we should eliminate. Quote - Ref - The Vostok ice Core and the 14, 000 year CO2 time lag. CO2 levels follow temperature. Temperature doesn't follow CO2. Thus, CO2 levels have nothing to do with climate but are just a result of a changing climate. Reply - You haven't offered any refutation of this data. Still waiting. The properties of CO2. The properties of CO2 don't permit it to change the climate. Once CO2 reaches 80 parts per million it's ability to reflect radiation diminishes dramatically. Thus, CO2 is incapable of affecting the climate.

  • PRO

    Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the...

    Climate Shift

    I am confused by my opponents argument. He has taken the Con side and must disagree and disprove the resolution, but his argument is only in favor of the pro. I must assume that he is being sarcastic, but I am not sure. Pros Case Point A: Climate shift is real Sub point 1: Scientific consensus "Carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants are collecting in the atmosphere like a thickening blanket, trapping the sun's heat and causing the planet to warm up. Although local temperatures fluctuate naturally, over the past 50 years the average global temperature has increased at the fastest rate in recorded history. Scientists say that unless we curb the emissions that cause climate change, average U.S. temperatures could be 3 to 9 degrees higher by the end of the century." Scientists are undoubtedly sure that climate shift is indeed a real threat. As is corroborated by a collection of scholarly articles. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement.(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7) Point B: Climate Shift is influenced by Humanity Sub point 1: Scientific Consensus "The United States Global Change Research Program (which includes the Department of Defense, NASA, National Science Foundation and other government agencies) has said that 'global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced' and that 'climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.'"(3) "The climate change denial machine has been working hard to discredit the latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which confirms that climate change is occurring and that human activity is primarily responsible."(5) "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."(6) Again this is a case of overwhelming scientific consensus. Sub point 2: Carbon Emissions are a major cause, and a product of humanity "The only way to explain the pattern [of climate shift] is to include the effect of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted by humans."(2) "Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change"(7) Scientists agree that humanity has altered the balance of greenhouse gases on the earth, which is a direct major cause of climate shift. Point C: Climate shift threatens the future, and is therefore a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. Global climate change leads to: -Increased temperatures -Changing landscapes -A higher number of droughts, fires, and floods -Endangered wildlife habitats -Rising sea levels -Greater damage from extreme storms -More heat-related illness and disease -Economic problems (4) Sub point 1: Climate shift encourages natural disaster "Hurricanes and other storms are likely to become stronger."(2) "Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause hurricanes globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size."(8) With storms like sandy become more common and much stronger, Humans living in coastal regions face a very serious threat. Already hurricanes such as sandy and the recent Typhoon in the Philippines are costing billions of dollars in damages, and thousands of human lives. (9)(10) Climate shift is likely to cause these storms to become even more intense, therefore threatening to cost even more lives and money. These death counts and damage costs are not small, by any stretch of the imagination; with climate shift left unchecked, these counts will grow. Sub point 2: Rising sea levels/flooding "Sea levels are expected to rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 and 59 centimeters) by the end of the century, and continued melting at the poles could add between 4 and 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters)."(2) "Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years."(2) As polar caps warm, ice caps are likely to melt and release water into the oceans and seas, causing the levels to rise. this could result in flooding in coastal cities, such as New Orleans, that are close to, at, or below sea level. Furthermore, climate shift could result in more intense cycles of flooding and drought in other areas of the world, such as Ethiopia. These are real threats to human lives. Flooding, like storms, has a very high cost of both money and, more importantly, human life. Sub point 3: Future effects of climate shift could significantly increase the hostility of the Earth environment. There are a myriad of effects that climate shift will have that will make the Earth environment, generally, more hostile. "Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes." (2) "Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either." (2) "Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: -North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them. -Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. -Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe. -Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised. -Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions."(11) Here are some charts to illustrate further effects. (11) Current Effects Future Effects Summary There is overwhelming evidence to prove that climate shift is indeed real and influenced greatly by humanity. Furthermore, the effects of climate shift are so massively detrimental that those who are concerned over the future of humanity ought to care greatly about the massive loss of life, cost of damage, and other miscellaneous undesirables that are consequences of climate shift. Sources 1. http://www.sciencemag.org... 2. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com... 3. http://www.nrdc.org... 4. http://www.mfpp.org... 5. http://www.edf.org... 6. http://climate.nasa.gov... 7. http://climate.nasa.gov... 8. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov... 9. http://www.usatoday.com... 10. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com... 11. http://climate.nasa.gov...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 25.73
      climate: 21.70
      conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)
      premises: 8.85 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.85)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)
      change: 4.03
      premises: 3.65 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.42)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)

CON

  • CON

    My opponent also stated that my point on the EPA is...

    developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

    The statement from the professor was from a BBC newscast in august of 2010. The articles are from BBC magazine. Unfortunately I can not post them online so we will scratch both these sources. My opponent stated in his last speech that the United States is not included as a developed country. Wikipeidia confirms that the United States is a developed country. My opponent also stated that my point on the EPA is irrelevant, This point is completely relevant because it is a organization funded by a developed nation which has come up with no successful solutions to climate change. My opponent has also not attacked my second contention so I assume that my opponent has accepted that developed nations have other bigger priority's. My opponent stated in his first speech that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment. If these gases are so harmful, how come there is no law banning them? Why are they still being pumped into the atmosphere? I would also like to pull through my point on NASA ( climate.NASA.org) stating that My opponent also stated that my point on the EPA is irrelevant, This point is completely relevant because it is a organization funded by a developed nation which has come up with no successful solutions to climate change. My opponent has also not attacked my second contention so I assume that my opponent has accepted that developed nations have other bigger priority's. My opponent stated in his first speech that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment. If these gases are so harmful, how come there is no law banning them? Why are they still being pumped into the atmosphere? I would also like to pull through my point on NASA ( climate.NASA.org) stating that If these gases are so harmful, how come there is no law banning them? Why are they still being pumped into the atmosphere? I would also like to pull through my point on NASA ( climate.NASA.org) stating that climate change is a natural cause. Lastly I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. No matter who wins or looses it was great fun.

  • CON

    I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many...

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

    Thanks to my opponent for a nice debate! 1. The only thing I got from your source is "The requested URL /files/11775_UNISDRBriefingAdaptationtoClimateCh.pdf" was not found on this server." 2."If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. " First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all. Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all. 3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. " Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. " First, we do not even know if global warming exists. It is like trying to save a house from burning down while not even knowing if it is burning or not. I addressed this several times and my opponent did not refute it at all. Second, as we do not even know if global warming exists, we do not even know if we can save any lives at all. 3."Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. " Again, oil, terrorism, and the moral obligation to mitigate climate change are separate topics. Oil is related to global warming, (Which we are not sure if it exists.), and related to terrorists, but this is nowhere linked to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change.

  • CON

    I can further explain the burden of proof in a later...

    Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.

    Thanks for the debate and good luck! My opponent unfortunately makes some shallow assumptions, in that they believe Donald Trump legitimately believes everything he's said. Remember, my opponent has the burden of proof, and as such must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Trump actually believes this during the course of this debate. Failure to do so means a lack of his fulfillment of his burden of proof and thus means the negative wins the debate. I don't need to show that Trump DOESN'T believe this, just show that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that he does. I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in I can further explain the burden of proof in a later round if this becomes an issue or is confusing somehow, but I'll leave this where it is for now and move onto my main contentions. As I said earlier, my opponent just quotes Trump at face value and assumes that is enough to assert that this is what he believes. However, it's a well known fact that politicians in general will fake beliefs to pander to a specific audience. Looking back at his history as a candidate, it's common knowledge that Trump already had his supporters locked down early in the republican primaries and really couldn't do anything to lose his supporters, even claiming he could shoot someone in the middle of the road and not lose support. A potential reason for him faking belief in climate change then could be to pander to Cruz supporters, of which only 38% believed in climate change. This is a clear reason for Trump to pander to a specific audience in order to get votes, which gives us a motivation for Trump's actions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Trump even has told people that he has a strategy of saying odd things in order to attract the audience of different groups. Take for example what Carson reported after discussing the matter with Trump himself: "I needed to know that he could listen to other people, that he could change his opinions, and that some of the more outlandish things that he"s said, that he didn"t really believe those things," Carson said. When asked which statements Trump might back away from, Carson demurred". "I"ll let him talk about that because I don"t think it"s fair for me to relay a private conversation," he said. Read more: http://therightscoop.com... How can my opponent say for certain that Trump fully believes this if there's evidence of him saying that he'll back away from some of the more outlandish claims, and that he doesn't necessarily believe all of it? My opponent even recognized in the comments section that this is a somewhat outlandish and silly claim for Trump to make. We've seen Trump back away from policies such as the muslim ban, so why assume that this is his actual belief? Unfortunately my opponent uses mostly personal speculation and does not consider the large body of compelling evidence casting doubt over Trump's actual beliefs. With that I'll give pro a chance to respond to my contentions. Thank you!

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Donald-Trump-thinks-climate-change-is-a-hoax./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.58
      climate: 14.08
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 4.81 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.00)
      sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)
      change: 10.50
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 3.16 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.23)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.08)
  • CON

    The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ( I know this...

    Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

    Thank you for being honest and admitting you don't understand my arguments. Many people would not do that and it is a very honorable thing to do. I strongly encourage you to do your own research into both sides of the argument. That is what I did and ultimately found that the con side has a better argument. Two things that could help you get started in your research into the con side are these YouTube videos: 1. The Great Global Warming Swindle Full Movie ( I know this is long but if you have the time then watch at least some of it) 2. Climate Change in 12 minutes - the skeptics case These two sources are really great and show a lot of flaws in your side of the argument Sadly, I only saw them yesterday so I couldn't use their points in this debate :) Thank you for debating and I hope you look into both sides because there are legitimate reasons why people don't believe in man made global warming.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Manmade-global-climate-change-is-real-and-a-threat./7/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.52
      climate: 14.43
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 5.15 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)
      change: 10.09
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
  • CON

    Over the past two billion years it has gone from cold to...

    Humans cause climate changing

    As this is the last round I will keep it exclusively for rebuttals: "My opponent wrote "during the last 2 BILLION YEARS the climate in the Earth has been fluctuating between..." It shows that climate was changing not in short time such as 2000 years, it was changing during 2 BILLION YEARS, which is very long period." The reason I said 2 Billion years was not because, over two billion years the climate has slowly gone from hot to cold, it was to demonstrate that the climate on earth is always changing. Over the past two billion years it has gone from cold to hot to cold to hot to cold to hot over and over again and as the chart I supplied last round demonstrates, it has been cooling for longer than it usually doe, Now it is warming up again and, being the self-centered, egotistic creatures that we are, we think that just because wea re around it has something to do with us. "It means that WEATHER conditions in the certain period of time IS CLIMATE. It proves that humans' affect to the weather can change the climate, as weather influences to the climate and they are not so different. That means my argument in the second round about how people change the weather is RELEVANT to the topic." What pro fails to realise is that the last part of the definition states: averaged over a series of years. So no, no matter how you put it, weather is not climate, weather is the day to day changes, whereas climate is the behaviour of the weather averaged over a series of years. If humans were to influence the weather over a long period of time that would be climate change. Changing one day of weather does not change the climate and hence is still not relevant to the debate. Also, while I can not dispute the facts that my opponent has supplied in the last round (for they are facts, I checked) I can attack they're relevance. For instance, constant reference to polar ice melting is made. I have already demonstrated how this is natural. For much of earths history there has been no ice at the poles what so ever, so to have such a substantial amount now is a rarity that will not last. He makes reference to the amount of CO2 in the water increasing. Again, I find this rather irrelevant, if the topic of the debate was 'Humans cause changes to ocean composition" it would. Basically, more CO2 in the ocean is not an example weather or climate. Pro also makes a lot of references to time frames, "Since 1950" or "for the last 100 years." The fact is that the temperature could have been slowly rising for the last 1000 years and we wouldn't know it. While human have always been able to feel the temperature, they have only recently started to record it. There were no monks that wrote what the weather was like everyday of the tear for their entire lives 1000 years ago. Basically, in order to say the climate has changed we need to be able to compare recent climate to past climates and since we do not have data on the climate every year for the past 1000 or so years, only a rough average like the rest of earths unrecorded history, we can not say, with any certainty, that the changes in the last 50-100 years have been special. Finally thank you to my opponent for an interesting and challenging debate! Let's hand it over to the voters...

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Humans-cause-climate-changing/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.49
      climate: 20.55
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 9.11 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.90)
      sourceText: 1.29 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.17)
      change: 3.94
      premises: 3.55 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.38)
      sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)
  • CON

    The same can be said of yellow fever[4]. ......

    Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

    A Note: My arguments, which I started constructing before my opponent posted his round, have been based on the assumption that global warming is happening. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, I’ll argue that in Round 3, and it may be my main thrust of that round. I’d like to begin by noting that this debate doesn’t really hinge that much on who, or what, is causing global warming. C1: Public Health Many disease-carrying organisms can live only in areas with specific temperatures. For example, dengue fever is spread by (primarily) the mosquito Aedes aegypti, and lower temperatures limit disease transmission—this is because freezing temperatures kill overwinter larvae and eggs, size is reduced in warmer regions (making them have to feed more frequently to develop their eggs), and shorter incupation period for the virus (dengue type-2 has a period of twelve days at 30 C, but only has a period of seven days at 32-35 C).[1] All of these mean that warming temperatures would cause a significant increase in disease transmission. Dengue fever has no vaccine against it, and can be dangerous to certain groups (for instance, young children).[2] As many people in the South are uninsured[3], and the fever would be expanding its range into the South, we can reasonably conclude that dengue fever would cause significant problems due to global warming. The same can be said of yellow fever[4]. Heat waves also pose a danger. Despite the fact that cold snaps might be reduced in frequency, the evidence indicates it won’t make up for increased deaths due to heat waves[5]. In part this is because extreme heat behaves differently than extreme cold, because it is more difficult to adapt to extreme heat. C2: Sea Level Rise: Sea level rise could potentially be very dangerous. Aside from the fact that nations like Tuvalu are at risk of partially submerging[6], there is a general risk of hundreds of millions of people in the developing world being displaced by sea level rise[7]. C3: Oceanic Acidification: As carbon dioxide levels rise, the ocean will absorb carbon dioxide. This in turn will acidify the ocean, which will cause organisms that use calcium carbonate to build their shells to have problems doing so[8]. Sea stars also have severe impacts inflicted on them (a drop of pH of .2 to .4 causes only .1% of a species of temperature brittle star larva to survive), as would squid (including commercially important species)[9]. Aside from the harmful effects on sea life (since we aren’t only talking about humans here), this damages coral reefs, and coral reefs are a useful source of tourist-related revenue[10]. Ergo we can reasonably conclude that ocean acidification will harm the economy of some areas. C4: Cloud Forests: Mountains have climates that vary based on elevation. For instance, the bottom might be forest, and the top might be an icecap. Cloud forests follow this pattern; the temperature depends on elevation. Plant and animal species in cloud forests rely on specific temperatures and humidity levels. In fact, the cloud forests of Costa Rica and the Andes have been rising over time—as the climate warms, the preferable temperature area moves upwards, resulting in the preferable elevation moving upwards. As a result, species have to move upwards—plants, for example, will have to move an average of 2600 feet to remain in equilibrium with climate, and they’ll have to do that by 2100 (based on 2006 statistics). In the Monteverde cloud forest, this may be already happening. Dry seasons are longer (since the mid-1070s) and this has coincided with some local extinctions (a few amphibian species, for instance)[11][12]. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/03/980310081157.htm www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever#Predisposition www.huffington.post.com/2012/08/30/states-uninsured-residents_n_1844346.html http://www.decvar.org...... http://oem.bmj.com...... http://www.skepticalscience.com...... http://econ.worldbank.org...... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...... http://www.scientificamerican.com...... http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...... http://news.stanford.edu...... http://www.smithsonianmag.com......

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-Is-Not-an-Imminent-Danger/2/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.48
      climate: 15.35
      conclusion: 10.15 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.12)
      premises: 3.98 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)
      sourceText: 1.21 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.03)
      change: 9.13
      conclusion: 8.79 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.12)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.88)
  • CON

    I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only...

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    In conclusion the evidence is unmistakable. Everything points to the conclusion of anthropological global warming. With both graphs made from measured temperatures and from supercomputers performing trillions of calculations per second to simulate the physical laws governing the climate I have shown great evidence to support man made global warming. It has also been shown here that conspiracy theories are riddled throughout arguments provided by denialists. I'd also like to remind readers that climate trends only appear in the long run on the order of centuries. Also that last graph did predict a fall in temperature quite accurately and it was CO2 centric.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Ice-Ages-versus-Man-Made-Climate-Change./1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 24.37
      climate: 17.07
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      premises: 7.87 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.64)
      sourceText: 1.17 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.97)
      change: 7.30
      conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
  • CON

    Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate...

    Developed Countries should have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change

    Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change This debate would be done in a form somewhat similar to Public Forum debate N is Negative A is Affirmative Rules: 1 N: Introductory statements/ Definitions 1 A: Acceptance/First constructive speech 2 N: Constructive speech 2 A: Rebuttal on N constructive 3 N: Rebuttal on A constructive 3 A: Summary (Refutation on rebuttal) 4 N: Summary 4 A: Final Focus (Why our side wins the debate) 5 N: Final Focus/ Closing statements 5 A: Closing statements Definitions: Developed countries are countries that tend to have the highest Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, have well-developed basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society, or a infrastructure for transportation, communications, and energy. These countries, the wealthiest nations in the world, include Europe, North America, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China, India, Pakistan and Russia are not considered "developed" The definition of moral means right as opposed to something which is wrong. An obligation is a promise, duty or commitment. So we can say a moral obligation is a duty to take an action which is right (moral). A moral obligation does not mean one has a legal obligation but one can argue that fulfilling a legal obligation is a moral obligation. For example I may have a moral obligation to help my neighbor, but there is no legal requirement for me do so. If I choose not to fulfill my moral obligation to help, the police will not be knocking on my door. Mitigate to lessen, make less severe or painful. Climate change is a significant and lasting change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods ranging from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in average weather conditions, or in the distribution of weather around the average conditions. For example: more or fewer extreme weather events.

  • CON

    In round two I will make my main argument in detail. ......

    Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

    I will now make a brief summary of my argument for round one. In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic In round two I will make my main argument in detail. In round three I will begin to rebuttal my opponent's arguments. I will prove the below in this debate. Anthropogenic climate change has a 97% scientific consensus, Is an existential threat, And the main driver is co2 produced from the burning of fossil fuels. I want to thank the instigator for this debate.

  • CON

    I would like to pull through my points on the already...

    developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

    I would like to pull through my points on the already funded programmes that are unsuccessful. It does not make sense to keep throwing money at a programme that does not work. also NASA stated that climate change is a natural effect. Also, according to the Social Contract no nation has an obligation to any other. Why should America care about what happens in Congo? They don't have to. Which is why I urge your vote in CON.