PRO

  • PRO

    Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation...

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

    Thanks opponent for a nice argument. i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them. Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable. This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing. Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation point 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. Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win. Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already.

  • PRO

    But since round four is for conclusion only... And as...

    That Humans Are Causing Climate Change

    I see little relevance with your graphs about humidity and such that has anything to do with the actual topic. But since round four is for conclusion only... And as always, thanks for debating. I have learned a lot and you seem like quite the genius. Though my stance on the subject stands and I believe my arguments had relevance. But again thanks it was fun.

  • PRO

    Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must...

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

    I thank you for accepting. I like your icon by the way. I also like it that you didn't rely upon bare assertions and that you used outside sources to back up your claims. "According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions, including 37 percent of methane emissions and 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions." Should Factory-Farmed Foods Be Labeled? Ronnie Cummins "Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation. [i]" cowspiracy.com " The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " greepeace.org " The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted." " Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."." wikipedia "In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent." Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent independent.co.uk I conclude that not only does factory farming cause the most amount of greenhouses emissions to be released directly. It also causes global Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " greepeace.org " The Amazon is estimated to store 80-120 billion tonnes of carbon. If destroyed, some fifty times the annual GHG emissions of the USA could be emitted." " Following a Life Cycle Analysis approach, the report evaluates "that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."." wikipedia "In a paper published by a respected US thinktank, the Worldwatch Institute, two World Bank environmental advisers claim that instead of 18 per cent of global emissions being caused by meat, the true figure is 51 per cent." Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent independent.co.uk I conclude that not only does factory farming cause the most amount of greenhouses emissions to be released directly. It also causes global climate change via destruction of the Amazon rain forest. Releasing the stored carbon inside the trees. Thanks for reading. http://articles.mercola.com... http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://www.greenpeace.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Long_Shadow http://www.cowspiracy.com... http://skeptics.stackexchange.com... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://bitesizevegan.com...

  • PRO

    Rep. Henry Waxman’s retirement will create a vacuum for...

    Retirement of Rep. Henry Waxman leaves climate void

    Rep. Henry Waxman’s retirement will create a vacuum for House leadership on climate change, though allies say the California Democrat has helped cultivated a young crop of like-minded lawmakers to fill the void.

    • https://www.allsides.com/story/congressman-henry-waxman-retire
  • PRO

    Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got...

    Climate change is real.

    Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got your silly theory?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • PRO

    If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?

    Climate change is real.

    If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-real./1/
  • PRO

    Yep I agree with you

    Climate Change is happening - NOW

    Yep I agree with you

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-happening-NOW/1/
  • PRO

    For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in...

    Anthropogenic climate change.

    Round 4 defense. My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again. "Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to. Proof: "There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative "My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal. "Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Anthropogenic-climate-change./3/
  • PRO

    With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon,...

    Climate Change is a real issue

    The War of 1812 was a conflict fought between the United States and its allies, And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its allies. It began when the United States declared war in June 1812, And ended mostly in the situation as it existed before the war when a peace treaty agreed to earlier was ratified by the United States in February 1815. Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, While historians in North America see it as a war in its own right; it can be considered part of the American Indian Wars and Sixty Years' War. From the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France in 1803, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade to France, Which the United States contested as illegal under international law; to man the blockade, Britain pressed merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, Including Americans. American sentiment grew increasingly hostile toward Britain due to incidents such as the 1807 Chesapeake"Leopard affair, And the British were outraged by the 1811 Little Belt affair. [10] Britain supplied arms to Native Americans, Who raided European-American settlers on the American frontier, Hindering the expansion of the United States and provoking resentment. [11] Although the debate on whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America (Canada) contributed to the American decision to go to war, The reasoning for invasion was mainly strategical. [12] President James Madison signed into law the declaration of war after heavy pressure from the War Hawks in the United States Congress. [13] Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 in the United States affected its prosecution, Especially in New England, Where it was referred to as "Mr. Madison's War". With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon, Britain adopted a defensive strategy, With offensive operations initially limited to the border and the western frontier, With help from its Native American allies. American military defeats at the Siege of Detroit and the Battle of Queenston Heights thwarted attempts to seize Upper Canada, Improving British morale. American attempts to invade Lower Canada and capture Montreal also failed. [14] In 1813, The United States won the Battle of Lake Erie, Gaining control of the lake and defeating Tecumseh's Confederacy at the Battle of the Thames, Thereby defeating Britain's largest Native American ally, A primary war goal. The Americans made a final attempt to invade Canada, But the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the summer of 1814 was fought to a draw. At sea, The powerful Royal Navy blockaded American ports, Cutting off trade[15] and allowing the British to raid the coast at will. In 1814, The British burned Washington, But the Americans later repulsed British attempts to invade New York and Maryland, Ending invasions from Canada into the northern and mid-Atlantic states. In early 1815, After a peace treaty had been signed, But before this news had reached the Americas, The United States defeated the British Army near New Orleans, Louisiana. [16] Fighting also took place in West Florida, Where a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender. [17] In Britain, There was mounting opposition to wartime taxation and merchants lobbied for the resumption of trade with the United States. With the abdication of Napoleon, Britain's war with France ended and Britain stopped impressment generally. This made moot the issue of American sailor impressment and removed one of the original causes of the war. The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast which had a crippling effect on the American economy. [15][18] Peace negotiations began in August 1814 and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on 24 December 1814. The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on 17 February 1815, Ending the war with no boundary changes[19][20] except for the disposition of some islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, An issue that was resolved after the war. [21] A popular view is that "[e]verybody's happy with the outcome of the war. Americans are happy because they think they won, The Canadians are happy because they know they won and avoided being swallowed up by the United States, And the British are happiest because they've forgotten all about it";[22] although indigenous nations are generally seen among historians as the real losers. News of the peace finally reached the United States in February 1815, About the same time as news of the victory at New Orleans;[23] Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, Leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, A period of national unity. [24] While Britain quickly forgot about the war, Nationalistic mythology around it took hold in both the United States and Upper Canada. Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results by historians. [25][26][27] The failure of the invasion of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/2/

CON

  • CON

    SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst...

    Climate change is both real and a serious issue

    I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause "great floods" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...

  • CON

    Ok

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Ok

  • CON

    I accept your challenge, and look forward to this debate.

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    I accept your challenge, and look forward to this debate.

  • CON

    Ok

    Climate Change is the most dangerous threat humans face.

    Ok

  • CON

    Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some...

    A referendum will create a better political climate.

    A good political climate is one where government functions properly. In a representative democracy, decision-making is not intended to be majoritarian. Elected officials are in place to make decisions on behalf of constituents, as they continue to do with matters relating to the EU. As such, a referendum is a direct rebuke to their own power. Therefore MPs should not hold one, even if some constituents want it. It is not the job of government to neutralize radical voices, but to offer better alternatives while preserving freedom of expression. If parties want to resolve the Europe question, they should do so through established political channels. improve this  

  • CON

    I accept.

    Ice Ages versus Man Made Climate Change.

    I accept.

  • CON

    My dear friend i think as you mentioned above you were...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    My dear friend i think as you mentioned above you were against the changes in the lifestyle of humans because that is leading to bees extinction. But now you are favouring technology in some parts too. Just take care what you actually feel is the reason for the declination. My last words would be that bees have a relevant role in the environment but we cant go against human ways just to encourage their safety . Bees are important the same as the requirements of the people because declining needs of people have never been seen so its time to save bees by technology too. When we can discover ways how to save human beings then why not bees ? and that can be possible only through technology.

  • CON

    Although human can be the first cause but there are many...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    Yes , exactly the population of bees is declining every year. Although human can be the first cause but there are many other reasons for this deterioration. The two parasites TRACHEAL and VARROA MITES are also effecting the bees. Both of them are effecting the bees internally and externally respectively and the solution of the problem is still under question. The electromagnetic radiations of cell phones attract the bees which damages there navigation and hence they are not able to locate back to their home . Technology finds a solution for everything and if this technology helps us as well as harms our environment the scientists should consider it and also find some successful solutions for the negative side effects.

  • CON

    But if you lose too many, at some point, the whole plane...

    humans/climate change are the cause for honey bees disappearing

    Technology , actually during 1950's we were not even aware of the machines , inventions etc. There were superstitions about most of the things which technology proved detrimental . Actually its not a single person responsible for this declining bee species its the whole world. "To borrow an old analogy that Paul Ehrlich often used, with the wild pollinators, losing a species is a bit like losing screws in a plane . If you lose a few here or there, it's not the end of the world, and your plane can still fly. But if you lose too many, at some point, the whole plane can suddenly come apart in mid-flight." said Berenbaum. That's what we call an exact answer . Not all the species are under danger but only a few . If people are so much concerned for bees then they should stop using the technology and find some peaceful ways , it would be a pleasure working with such people but the point is , aren't these people using technology ? half environment care takers or technology haters are using cell phones (harmful for bees ) thats again technology , other half are exploiting the environment and pretending being environment carers . The point is obtaining every thing at a single time is not possible , its we who decide not the technology .

  • CON

    Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the...

    Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

    Oh now I have to be a scientist to even speak on the subject. And of course you give a source which is the word of god and cannot be refuted in any way. Your sources just like mine are worthless except your sources aren't because you of course went to a class. And you also believe in people who tout hydrogen as the next great fuel source. You discredit all of my sources in the a typical environmentalist manner, Politics or it is bought and paid for by some greedy corporation or go as far to reject it by the political affiliation of the Governor of some state. How pathetic. If all of my sources and evidence are going to be rejected because of political reasons then yours are all just as worthless for the same reasons. The only difference is I provide more thorough and reviewed research that makes yours look foolish.