Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    They can mitigate, but developed countries have the...

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

    Thanks for debating. I will first refute my opponents arguments and strengthen our own. Their first contention was that other individuals and organizations can helo They stated how Gas comapnies will lose their industries. My response is 1. Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century. This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness 2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN 3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge Their second contention was that developed countries shouldn't be the only ones mitigating. My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. Now they refuted my case They said to my terrorism subpoint that oil comapnies will lose their induestries and that green energy is not linked. My responses are 1. Are you going to let the climate go on how it is going and have a 1.9 trillion dollar cost of global warming in the next century. This completly outweighs their gas companies going out of buisness 2. the renewable industries created 35 M jobs in 2011- UN 3. If we cut funding into oil, then terrorists will lose money and stop killing innocent lives. I value lives greatly over money, Judge They said against my moral obligation impact that developing nations should do this too My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. They said that someone should not clean someone else's mess My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. 3. This has nothing to do with the contention at hand. They said to my moral obligation and mess argument that developed nations shouldn't clean up someone else's mess My response is 1. The topic doesn't limit developing countries, which i believe you are refering to. They can mitigate, but developed countries have the obligation as they created this mess. 2. Also, developed countries emmitted a lot of C02 into the atmosphere during their industrial revolution. Now the developing countries are going through their's and since the developed countries have emmitted so much, they have the moral obligation. Thus as you can see, we are saving many lives with vaccines, controlling the enviorment, and through terrorism. Thanks for debating, opponent and thanks for Judging this round, Judge/Judges

  • PRO

    It occurs

    Man made climate change is a myth

    It occurs

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/1757-man-made-climate-change-is-a-myth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.82
      climate: 10.47
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 8.35
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    Artificial consensus

    Man made climate change is a myth

    Artificial consensus

    • https://debatewise.org/debates/1757-man-made-climate-change-is-a-myth/
    • score
      BM25 score: 18.82
      climate: 10.47
      conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.14)
      change: 8.35
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)
  • PRO

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. ... Should...

    The effects of climate change will not necessarily be bad

    Fewer people will die from the cold in winter. We will get real summers. Should these factors be weighed into the cost-benefit analysis?

  • PRO

    Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of...

    CMV: the fight against climate change will be impossible because of compromises.

    I'm not sure how to title this CMV, but I'm starting to think that it will be impossible to stop climate change from doing too much damage, from flooding low-height densely populated areas, from making deserts (more) uninhabitable. There are too many compromises to make in order to stop the damage from being too big but also to prevent the suffering of some people. 1- Airplanes On one hand, airplanes cause a lot of pollution because of the fuel. Kerosene is the only fuel available that is cheap, energy-dense and light to power a flying beast of metal. Batteries are too heavy and aren't energy-dense enough for that. It's almost as if human beings aren't supposed to fly. The heaviest extant flying animal has an average weight of less than 20 kg. Pterosaurs existed, yes, but they are extinct and I think they'd have a hard time flying in our current atmosphere with too little oxygen. On the other hand, there are some some places that are too geographically isolated for roads or train tracks. Yes, they are accessible by water vessels, but water-based transportation is too slow, especially for those communities who can't be self-sufficient. 2- The Amazon rainforest On one hand, preserving it is important. Not just because of the biodiversity, but also because of its weather regulation capabilities. On the other hand, the Amazon is no Antarctica, it has people living in it, it has cities in it. They need infrastructure that can't be built because of extreme environmental regulations. Yes, there's a risk of the roads and train tracks (again, water travel is slow, and not everything can be transported via ships) causing even more deforestation in their surroundings, but the Brazilian north is poor for a reason. 3- Energy Renewable energies still can't supply the energy demand on their own and nuclear stations take too long to get ready and got their reputation destroyed by Fukushima and Chernobyl (there's also the issue of the disposal of the nuclear waste, those take literally millennia to become safe). I fear that, even with the increase of capabilities, renewables still couldn't supply because the demand also increased. 4- Food On one hand, agriculture and livestock (especially the latter) take up too much space that could be used for nature preservation and for planting trees to suck up the excessive carbon in the atmosphere. On the other hand, there are people living in places that can't support intense agriculture because the soil sucks and/or because their biome is too important (*cough* Amazon *cough*). Also, being able to follow a vegan diet is a privilege. There are the people whose lifestyle require a lot of protein, people recovering from eating disorders (they can't have a diet that is too restrictive), autistic people who only eat a very specific diet (and they are often repulsed by vegetables), people who simply can't give up meat because they like it too much, among other groups who can't go vegan.

  • PRO

    I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was...

    Climate change is real and caused by humans

    I'm sorry but I just don't see any point in debating someone who clearly doesn't understand the science I'm talking about. I made lot's of points that you could try and rebut, but apparently you either just don't think you can, or you're just being stubborn. I encourage you to research some of the stuff I was talking about to better understand the science behind this, but I just don't feel like turning this into a teaching session. You made absolutely no scientific claims in your last argument, and therefore I can't respond. I've realized this is a waste of my time. I would also point out how I mentioned the explanation of why humans clearly are the problem in the fourth paragraph of my argument. I encourage you to look it over. Thank you for debating!

  • PRO

    Thus, Humanity represents the equivalent of about 3...

    Human caused climate change is nonsense

    You have assumed that CO2 is a dangerous substance which needs to be reduced. First mistake. CO2 is not a dangerous substance. Plants use CO2 to grow. When a plant grows, Most of its weight and bulk comes from CO2. The more CO2 that you pump into the atmosphere the faster and more vigorously plants will grow in response. Thus, CO2 is necessary and vital to create and mature plant growth which in turn gives us more food to eat. Thus, It is part of the oxygen, Water and CO2 cycle of life. It's CO2 in the lungs that tells a person to breathe. If you didn't get any CO2 into your lungs your brain wouldn't give you a signal to breathe. Properties of CO2 CO2 has similar properties to glass. When CO2 has reached it's saturation point it can no longer reflect infra red light. It's saturation point is about 80 parts per million. Thus, Any additional CO2 will have zero effect on increasing global temperatures. Global temperature. The global temperature isn't capable of being effected by humans due to the mathematical ratio differential between the size of the Earth and the total mass weight of humans and their machines. The size differential is trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions to one. Thus, Humanity represents the equivalent of about 3 grains of sand on a 100 kilometre beach. Thus, It is quite laughable that humanity thinks that they can make a difference to global temperatures.

  • PRO

    I think it's inherently unethical. ... I don't see how...

    Unethical to change planet w/o universal approval

    Richard Somerville, a climate researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in California: "I should say right up front, I am not at all in favour of geoengineering. I think it's inherently unethical. I don't see how you decide on the basis of all humanity how to change the planet."[

  • PRO

    14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by...

    The Chicago Climate Exchange is a success and model.

    Jason Margolis. "My Kind of Down Chicago Climate Exchange paves the way for U.S. emissions trading". 14 Jun 2005 - "City officials are not sitting idly by waiting to see if or when such things could happen. This spring, Oakland became the second U.S. municipality to join the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) -- North America's first and only voluntary, but legally binding, emissions-trading market.

CON