Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

CON

  • CON

    such a shame I'm going to win without giveing an argument

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

    such a shame I'm going to win without giveing an argument

  • CON

    I would also like to provide more evidence: In a TED talk...

    Global Poverty, Education, and hunger are greater issues than global warming/ climate change

    I see that you have forfeited the round. This argument is important to me so I would like to ask what I can do in order to convince you. That is, what can I do, as a debater, to change your mind and make you believe me? All you have to do is tell me what that is and I will go and get it. I would also like to provide more evidence: In a TED talk by Bill Gates called "Innovating to Zero," the richest man on earth describes the movement towards Zero C02 emissions by 2050. The way that this will happen is through the expansion of renewable energy infrastructure. Now, in reference to this talk, Bill Gates claims that this effort will also greatly reduce poverty as an extra beneficial result. The biggest reason why this is true is because renewable energy structures, in areas of poverty, will greatly increase the standard of living. This is because small villages and communities of extreme poverty are not usually anywhere near an energy grid.

  • CON

    Environmental sustainability need not be achieved by...

    Behavioral change is the key to environmental sustainability

    Environmental sustainability need not be achieved by behavioral change.

  • CON

    On the flipside however, there has been lots of criticism...

    Plant Adaptation to Unfavourable Climate and Pesticide Reduction

    On the flipside however, there has been lots of criticism levelled at these pesticide-resistant strategies, raised by fears that in the long-term, it will lead to evolution of pest resistance. It is also not clear how pests will react and adapt to this change, placing humanity in a very precarious position. This could greatly impact conventional agriculture and strides that GM has already made so far. According to the principle of natural selection, if an organism is submitted to pressure in terms of survival, its probability of evolutionary adaptation increases. Nature, for purposes of survival induces a genetic change in organisms. An example is how bacteria developed its antibiotic resistance. With this regard, development of herbicide-resistant crops could eventually result in the emergence of resistant weed varieties, as well as resistant pests. If these effects take place in developing countries, where the ability to adapt to these challenges is limited, the damage could be irreversible.

    • https://debatewise.org/gmos-are-good/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.43
      climate: 9.07
      conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)
      sourceText: 1.04 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.75)
      change: 4.36
      premises: 4.02 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.56)
      sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.81)
  • CON

    Something to note for any voters: I accepted all his...

    The climate is not "a changing".

    More rain = more surface ice, Not depth. The antarctic is losing mass, But expanding in size cooborating my theory. Something to note for any voters: I accepted all his sources as fact, And built a justificable counter-argument within that framing. He has only disputed my sources and not provided substantial arguments of his own.

  • CON

    1a. ) ... Sources on my profile

    The climate is not "a changing".

    A brief response My opponent has denied that his assertion about the IPCC being communists is irrelevant to the debate. He also clames I did not address this point. Obviously both these things are wrong, It is a red herring, And I addressed it when I called it such. If he'd like, He can attempt to justify why the IPCC has any bearing on whether global warming is real or not. I will not use the IPCC as a source because it appears to trigger him. He would like me to show and justify my arguments, Without doing so himself. I hope voters/viewers see through his clearly dishonest tactic and address the fact he didn't actually make an argument; he just stated something and assumed we would believe it's justifiable. The Anthropological Case for Global Warming I will argue that global warming is, Atleast in part, Being increased by anthropogenic activities. 1a. ) Carbon Dioxide levels have never been this high, In the course of over 400000 years. [1][2] 2a. ) Human activity has directly caused the increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. [3] 3a. ) Atmospheric CO2 increases the global temperature. [3][4] C. 1; If these things are scientifically accurate, Humans must be causing global warming. The Geological Case for Global Warming This has very little to do with the cause, Only that it exists. 1b. ) Temperature on the Earth fluctuates. [5] 2b. ) Temperature on the Earth is currently rising rapidly. [6] C. 2; If these things are scientifically accurate, Global warming is true. Sources on my profile

  • CON

    You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000...

    Cimate change is real and caused by humans

    Contention 1: No Major/any CO2 Increase. Many Global Warming advocates state that CO2 levels are skyrocketing, but that is incorrect. I give you the above graph measuring the past 600 million years of CO2 levels are we are actually at an all time low. Now the website I got this from no longer has this page up so I appologize. We can see from observance of this graph that we being at all time CO2 low levles that we are nowhere close to meeting the impact that my opponent brings up. We have been over 5,000 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere and are now currently around apprx. 350 ppm CO2 levels. The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. (1) This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming." This chart above shows the CO2 and Earth's temperatures for the past 600 million years. My opponent's claims are incorect as we have had aburd levels of CO2 and temperature on Earth and may I ask how did we survive that? (2) Now I will move on to how Earth is actually cooling and how it's temperature is cooler than it has been. Contention 2: Earth is cooling. If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day? I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (3) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC. How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (4) Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (5) You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium. You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (6) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section. Contention 3: Artic Ice. First, I would like to state that Pro's claim about the North Pole completely melting is bogus. Al Gore stated that the Artic Ice would be completely melted by 2014, but he is incorrect then and now. Jan. 6, 2012: The Coast Guard Cutter Healy breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome. The Healy is the Coast Guard’s only currently operating polar icebreaker. The vessels are transiting through ice up to five-feet thick in this area. The 370-foot tanker Renda will have to go through more than 300 miles of sea ice to get to Nome, a city of about 3,500 people on the western Alaska coastline that did not get its last pre-winter fuel delivery because of a massive storm. (7) Let's go back to 2007-2008 and see if his claim was justified in the Artic Ice activity. Hmmm... It seems that he is incorrect, but let's look further into the near past. How about 2012-2013? (8) We all remember the Climate Scientists that got stuck in Arctic Ice Earlier last year correct? Then a Russian Ice Breaker tried to free them, but got stuck. Can you guess what they were studying? They had predicted that all the Arctic Ice had melted due to Global Warming and that Earth would get flooded massively. Boy were they wrong. (9) (10) Dr. Koonin, former head of the Department of Energy under President Obama, has stated that the Global Warming scare is not suttle. This is because that he has found 3 things wrong and highly incorrect about the scare. 1. Shrinking of Artic Sea ice doesn't acount for the gaining of the Antartic ice. 2. The warming of Earth's temps today is the same as it was 30 years ago. 3. The sea levels rose at the same height and rate in the 20th cenury. (11) Contention 4: Sea Levels Here is another corralation that must happen. If the Ice Caps are completely melted as Pro claims then the sea level would have risen completely drowning tons of land. The graph above is raw satellite image data of the sea level rise over an 8 year period showing that there is little to no change in the Sea Levels rising. (12) The sea level rises, on average, about 3 inches per century and it has been found to not even been rising at all. This graph is the sea levels off the cost of French Guyana which is one of the areas which is predicted to be flooded due to Global Warming, but as you can see by the graph (which goes to 2008) the sea level is currently on a downward trend. (13) The source is the PDF within the link. Contention 5: The Weather Many Pro Warmingists claim that Hurricanes are increasing due to Global Warming, but this claim is indeed false! The hurricanes since the year 1900 to 2008 have actually been decreasing. The slope of this downward slope is .0016. Though it is small the hurricanes are still in a downward trend. As a matter of fact not only are Hurricanes on a downward trend, but they are at an all time low as in the year 2010, there was only 68 Hurricanes Globally, which is an all time low in the past 40 years. How about Tornados you may ask? In the graph above you can see that tornados are at an all time low in the past 60 years! (14) But what about Hurricanes? Here is a graph showing the number of days between hurricanes and this shows that the number of days between hurricanes is greatest at 76 days between hurricanes.The slope of this line is zero showing no trend of a massive storm increase. Sources 1. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...) 2. (http://www.sustainableoregon.com...) 3. (http://www.cnsnews.com...) 4. (http://newsbusters.org...) 5. (http://newsbusters.org...) 6. (http://www.geocraft.com...) 7. (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com...) 8. (http://ginacobb.typepad.com...) 9. (http://www.nytimes.com...) 10. (http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com...) 11. (http://joannenova.com.au...) 12. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org...) 13. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...) 14. (http://wattsupwiththat.com...)

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Cimate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/1/
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.11
      climate: 3.90
      premises: 3.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.63)
      sourceText: 0.88 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.47)
      change: 9.21
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 0.95 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.37)
      sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.65)
  • CON

    There must be destructive as well as constructive forces...

    The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.

    Hi!! I do not accept that the meaning of life is to support other life and create change. The argument, or your layout of it, falsely imposes the human characteristics of altruism or selflessness onto nature, without any logical basis. You have erroneously situated the food chain as the end (to support life) and not the means to an end (survival), but according to our scientific and lay apprehension of the world, we know that self-preservation is the driving force behind nature, i.e, the gazelle does not deliver itself up to the lion, the flower does seek out the herd, but rather flees danger, and seeks out sun and nutrients, respectively. And as far as your stipulation that only living things that support life should live, we have only to use the example of the largest supporters of life on the planet, and that is water and sun. These are not living things and yet without them there would be no life on this planet. Conversely, how would you even justify the concept of death, an end to which all living things move, in a system where the purpose and meaning or end of life is to support life? There must be destructive as well as constructive forces in life. The motivation for change, or adaptations/mutation/evolution again has survival as its prime motivation, not altruism or the want to be remembered. This is an exaggerated imposition of human traits onto nature. But even as far as humans are concerned, change is inevitable, the individual will change as he evolves/moves toward the end of life. There is no objective measurement for what changes result in one being remembered, or indeed how or when remembrance came to be the primary motivation behind life, or the changes one makes in his life. And lastly, the number of breaths or changes that people make during their lives have nothing to do with life, which is quantitatively and qualitatively the same. You are either alive, or you are not. There are children who die within a few hours of childbirth, and though they never had the opportunity to support another life or affect change, (beyond their brief time on this earth), it is possible that they will be remembered until the end of some interested party's days... This was painful...lol. Thank you very much for your time and attention