Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewStates should contribute equally to combating climate change.
It is true that developed states will contribute more resources and money on absolute terms, simply because their wealth is greater. But, they have no obligation to contribute more money and resources as a percentage of GDP. This should be roughly equal across all states.
Geoengineering can effectively fight climate change
In the New York Times, Ken Caldeira, of the Global Ecology Department at Stanford writes: "If we could pour a five-gallon bucket's worth of sulfate particles per second into the stratosphere, it might be enough to keep the earth from warming for 50 years. Tossing twice as much up there could protect us into the next century." Other experts say that blocking 2% of the sun's rays from hitting the earth could stop global warming.
Risks of geoengineering smaller than risks of climate change.
If we do not undertake geoengineering, the effects will be much worse than anything that could happen if we did work with it and possibly even made mistakes. The tests that have already been carried out have been very successful with limited or no unintended consequences. Examples include solar radiation projects (such as using pale-colored roofs to reflect the sun’s light, and doing the same to pavement). Other test projects such as the iron fertilization of algae blooms have gone well, with little or no consequences.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
I'm just going to give up at this point. I can't even understand most of what your stating let alone formulate a response. I've had other debates on this site that even after months of reviewing my opponent's argument I still couldn't make heads out of tails out of my opponent's arguments. Maybe, just maybe if I had a year to respond I could defeat you. Thanks for the debate.
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
Your arguments are long and with little breaks between paragraphs. I'm going to ignore your response and attempt to talk through you. I lost any hope of convincing you when you stated. "Not only is the idea that Co2 is causing the recent warming preposterous, but it just doesn"t make any sense. " epidexipteryx The temperature has increased .87 Celsius. [2] The 400 ppm mark was hit in 2013. "has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii." [3] Impact, there is a clear and strong positive correlation between CO2 and tempature. To my opponent's arguments struggle as much as you need against scientific data. Thanks for the debate. Sources 2. http://climate.nasa.gov... 3. http://climate.nasa.gov...
US has a responsibility to lead on climate change and in Kyoto
Joe Biden, US Senator (D-DE), stated in a Mar. 30, 2001 press release - "The President's decision to turn his back on this treaty is a huge setback for the environment and could delay action on global warming for years... The United States has an inescapable responsibility to lead on global environmental challenges. It's wrong to simply walk away from this international agreement."[
Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.
My opponent's argument seems endless and confusing. Rather than trying to prove me wrong my opponent's aim is to make the problem more complex and cast doubt. I make only a few arguments and my opponent makes at least 4 arguments for each argument I make. Making the debate grow in size and complexity until nobody can tell who won. Even if I defeat one of my opponent's objections, he/she just simply moves onto another. https://thinkprogress.org...
Human caused climate change is total nonsense
Let me know when you are ready to start debating. It looks like your still not ready.
Human caused climate change is total nonsense
You are just a gutless coward who too scared to debate and hides behind the system to protect your illogical nonsense and grovelling acquiescence to the Big Brother System.
Human caused climate change is total nonsense
I think I'll declare victory in this debate right now because my opponent has not addressed any of my statements.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
08/07/18. and no major wars at the moment. The U.S.A. is expansive and diverse, and so is Canada. Both are interesting places to visit. But home is where the heart is and my heart is in the U.K. For you the U.S.A. will always be superior and no one is ever going to The U.S.A. is expansive and diverse, and so is Canada. Both are interesting places to visit. But home is where the heart is and my heart is in the U.K. For you the U.S.A. will always be superior and no one is ever going to change your mind. Happy 8th of July.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
The U.S.A. is superior to what? How is it possible to change a mind? Maybe superiority is the antithesis of reality and maybe Stockholm is the Capital of Sweden and maybe cheese is just to tasty for our own good. The U.SA. certainly isn't superior to a cheese and sweet pickle sandwich or a good quality pork sausage. Wouldn't you agree? Lake Superior is a really great lake, but the Northern half is in Canada. Therefore Canada is also superior to the U.S.A. It stands to reason doesn't it. The Pacific Ocean. Happy 5th of July.
CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.
Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
What are your benchmarks for national superiority? What do you base your study of national superiority upon? Have you travelled the World extensively and made honest, first hand comparisons or do you rely upon edited and manipulated, second hand media information? Maybe you are simply biased. There's nothing wrong with a bit of national pride, but I would suggest that national pride is not an accurate measure of superiority. National pride is similar to religion, it gets lodged inside your head at an early age and is nigh on impossible to shift. So I almost certainly won't be able to change your mind. But that doesn't matter. Happy 6th of July.
Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction
It is wrong for donors to attempt to change the policies of a sovereign state. Each state has equal rights, which include the right to be free from interference from any other group[1]. The West is therefore violating state sovereignty when they attempt to change domestic policies which they dislike[2]. African governments have a right to self-determination without the interference from the West; they are no longer colonies. [1] Political Realism in International Relations Karpowicz, K 02/04/13 [2] Quandzie,E. Anti-gay aid cut: Bring it on, Ghana tells UK 02/11/11
I don't vote. Change my mind. :p
I don't want to vote. Change my mind. I neither agree or disagree with voting despite me having the con/against position thing
The Meaning of life is to support life and create change.
You: I see your point about prey not "giving itself up" to its predator" Me: Cool You: but my point is not about animal or human instinct but more or less why there is life and why life has any point; not whether death supports life. Me: This is understandable, but not your assertion which, was that the Meaning of life is to support life. you go on to say, that there wouldn't be life without this support. I countered by with examples, like the ocean, the water (non-living things that support life. I also asked you where death (a very natural part of life) fits in if the whole point of life is to support other life. I think I have stayed very close to the terms of this argument..(without self-inflicting wounds) And yet you continue to impose your value on the meaning of all life (it'd be okay, if it were just your own) by saying things like: You: Therefore, wouldn't the only reason life continues be because in the past living things died (not necessarily giving themselves up) to support future life; as well as different species evolving to support life whether they evolved to adapt to climate or to hunt prey or grow food etc., Me: Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory, but it doesn't hold up for things like death, or the extinction of species. Life is equally destructive (unsupportive) as it is creative (supporting). That is why the survival of the fittest theory is so prominent. You: So, what about the "circle" of life? The supposed "Live, die, and your death supports new life?" What about how everyone dies but their death brings more life to other creatures. Me: So what about how fossil turns into petroleum, or diamonds..these things though valuable, do not necessarily nurture life. Your points are compelling, but to go as far as to say that it is the definitive meaning of life, I believe is a step too far. You: These are people who do not care for others and do not respect life. People who have done amazing things to support the human race though, we remember them kindly and instead of being forgotten they are remembered and have had an impact on future life for the better. Leaving their memory with more respect than that of someone who did not aid in supporting life or advancing our species. Me: Oh my gosh.. cruelty marks our memories and our souls, just as much, if not more than kindness... Yes Ghandi, but also Pol Pot.. Yes Isaac Newton... but also Hitler... and so on memories, both good and bad stick with us...and this too, I think is a survival mechanism!!! Thanks for listening
Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns
This makes the flawed assumption that development has to be dirty to lead to meaningful advances in living standards. This is not the case. In the 19th Century the developed world had no choice but to develop in a dirty way as there were no alternative power sources that could provide enough energy. Today there are numerous green energy sources that are every bit as efficient as the coal fired power that was used for the developed world’s industrial revolution. Moreover history has shown that the states that catch up economically do so by leapfrogging the already developed nations by moving in to new industries and not making the mistakes made by those who are already at the top. Thus Germany took a lead in the then new industry of chemicals by the end of the 19th Century[1] and Japan in Electronics during its economic miracle after world war II. Newly industrializing countries should consciously aim to take a lead in new green industries in order to power their development and can therefore avoid the developing the 19th and 20th century industrial base that was once necessary.[2] [1] Mowery, David C., and Nelson, Richard R., Sources of Industrial Leadership Studies of Seven Industries, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p.222, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NUlpdjc6fsMC&dq [2] Cascio, Jamais, ‘Leapfrog 101’, worldchanging.org, 15 December 2004, http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001743.html
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
States have no responsibility to other states
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
Developing countries have the biggest incentive to reduce emissions.
