Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    1 ========= My Argument #1 First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link. Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA). 3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant. 3 ========= My Argument #2 There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever. While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths: --- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means) --- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means) --- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1) Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually. Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs. (1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.

  • PRO

    Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance...

    Money should be spend more on climate crisis than on military force

    Military has caused a lot of death and war, for inctance what about Cost of War in Iraq or in Afghanistan, how many people died? how it affects on our enviroment, climate? Thus, from now we have to take into account that If We Spend Money to Control our Climate,we'll live longer and sickness free. Total Cost of Wars Since 2001 $1,378,096,715,743 (not constant) and even Al Gore says that if government spent the money for climate conditions, not for war, the earth would be on the well way to solve this challenge. In addition there is a gold words of Mark Luther King: "Injustices anywhere threat justices everywhere" and Al Gore says in our time, increases of global pollution anywhere, is a threat to human future everywhere. It is absolutely true, people have to deal with problems seriously instead of spending money on military force, war and so on, while there is more serious problem. So let's stop pollution, safe our nature and species Source: http://costofwar.com...

  • PRO

    What Role for Geoengineering?" ... But if geoengineering...

    Geoengineering gives time and optimism to climate fight

    Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "Seen in the proper light, geoengineering is potentially the key to unlock the mitigation puzzle—a way of controlling climate risks during the many decades that it will take to transform the global energy system. Asking nations to spend trillions to avoid damages (mostly many) decades in the future while doing little to address warming’s more immediate effects is a difficult task. But if geoengineering can stave off short- and medium-term harms while giving time for a long-term solution to take effect, the result is a coherent policy proposal that may enjoy broader public support."

  • PRO

    President Trump is laying the groundwork for withdrawing...

    Trump to exit Paris climate accord in major blow to Obama’s legacy

    President Trump is laying the groundwork for withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, launching a process that is likely to take some years.

  • PRO

    An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have...

    An African voice would change priorities for the better

    An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament.[1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013.[2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South. [1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2011.623842#.UrQ0IeImZI0 [2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304020025.html

  • PRO

    Thank you for agreeing to the debate. ===We need to keep...

    "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

    Thank you for agreeing to the debate. ===We need to keep in mind the real choices before us=== Many people think that the climate choices are: A) fix the climate, Or B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE. In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices: B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? ) ===Let's review how the three options stack up=== If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets. If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let"s call these incremental costs "P"). If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let"s call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs. ===Now, I will conclude my Argument #1=== Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q. Source (1) links not working. The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017

  • PRO

    Donald Trump is poised to withdraw from the Paris climate...

    Donald Trump ready to withdraw from Paris climate agreement, reports say

    Donald Trump is poised to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to multiple reports on Wednesday, in a move that would profoundly undermine the landmark agreement by nearly 200 nations to curtail global warming.

  • PRO

    President Trump is laying the groundwork this week to...

    How Trump is smashing Obama’s legacy with decision to exit Paris climate deal

    President Trump is laying the groundwork this week to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, seeking options for how to extricate the U.S. in a process that could take years to complete.

  • PRO

    Wall Street Journal. ... We will still have to work for a...

    Geoengineering is one part of larger climate fight

    Jamais Cascio. "It's Time to Cool the Planet." Wall Street Journal. June 15th, 2009: "let's be clear about one other thing: We will still have to radically reduce carbon emissions, and do so quickly. We will still have to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and adopt substantially more sustainable agricultural methods. We will still have to deal with the effects of ecosystems damaged by carbon overload. But what geoengineering can do is slow the increase in temperatures, delay potentially catastrophic 'tipping point' events such as a disastrous melting of the Arctic permafrost and give us time to make the changes to our economies and our societies necessary to end the climate disaster. Geoengineering, in other words, is simply a temporary 'stay of execution.' We will still have to work for a pardon."

  • PRO

    Syria took a break on Tuesday from its gruesome six-year...

    Syria Vows To Sign Paris Agreement, Leaving U.S. Alone In Climate Denial

    Syria took a break on Tuesday from its gruesome six-year civil war to announce plans to sign the Paris climate agreement, leaving the United States as the only country to reject the emissions-cutting deal.

CON

  • CON

    We need to do something" is well intended, But not...

    We need to change the way we live or we will all die

    The intention and general idea of your concept is kind, But the details are muddy. "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time. First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time. First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, But we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. It's reasonable to believe a portion of humanity would survive, Reproduce and take a much smaller role in the world. Second, Is it feasible to control population? As you said, It's a self-regulating system. Should every government do what China did and outlaw having more than one child? The largest source of population growth is development of underdeveloped countries. Populations do stabilize once the economy is developed enough. If dirt poor countries, Like Zimbabwe, For example, Had a major technological or agrarian revolution, The population would swell. Would we yoke the growth of poor countries to achieve population balance? It reproduces until the environment can no longer support the bacteria and they starve to death. If you are a follower of Darwin you must take in to consideration that we too are a species that has the same natural instincts of all other living creatures. Reproduce and protect yourself. We continue to grow as a species but we are the first species to ever to have the opportunity to evade our own death. My argument here is that change needs to occur. We, As a species, Must decide what we are going to do. Third, Who is we? Is it the common person? As moralistic as the "tragedy of the commons" argument is, Me buying a hybrid car won't do anything if the rest of my country is still driving Hummers? And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? Overall, Our role as people in this earth is very limited. We should reduce the harm of global warming as much as we can, But the decision won't sway the outcome much. If we act now, We'll attenuate tragedies, But not avert them. If we don't act now, I don't think it'll be the end of humanity.

  • CON

    The total number of fruit flies in the world is most...

    Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven

    First, I will rebut my opponent's arguments. First, the fruit fly. Pro claims the studies on the fruit fly amount to "millions of years of supposed evolutionary time". I dispute this claim. The total number of fruit flies in the world is most definitely in the billions (considering there are 4,400 species, and their numbers, they being prolific, far greater than our own), and they live three weeks. I would like to ask Pro how scientists compiled "millions of years of evolutionary time" in what has been studies from the '80s and 90's - only 20 to 30 years. Scientists would have to have trillions of fruit flies, all being tracked, to meet this requirement. Even a thousand, or a hundred years of evolutionary time is a wild exaggeration. As to Pro's point about the fruit fly changes - do you have any studies to back that up? That no changes to the fruit flies were made because of mutations? In the human genome, 2-3% codes for proteins[1]. The rest have no effect that we know of. The same would hold for the fruit fly. The great probability is that Goldschmidt hit these bases repeatedly, and produced no new effect. Here is a study where scientists did get a The total number of fruit flies in the world is most definitely in the billions (considering there are 4,400 species, and their numbers, they being prolific, far greater than our own), and they live three weeks. I would like to ask Pro how scientists compiled "millions of years of evolutionary time" in what has been studies from the '80s and 90's - only 20 to 30 years. Scientists would have to have trillions of fruit flies, all being tracked, to meet this requirement. Even a thousand, or a hundred years of evolutionary time is a wild exaggeration. As to Pro's point about the fruit fly changes - do you have any studies to back that up? That no changes to the fruit flies were made because of mutations? In the human genome, 2-3% codes for proteins[1]. The rest have no effect that we know of. The same would hold for the fruit fly. The great probability is that Goldschmidt hit these bases repeatedly, and produced no new effect. Here is a study where scientists did get a change in phenotype via muations - [2]. Take, for another example, nylon-eating bacteria. Bacteria were discovered in 1975 that could eat nylon - which was not invented until 1935[3]. Japanese scientists discovered the point of mutation[4]. While the exact mechanism of it has been disputed (frameshift, deletion, insertion, etc.), the fact remains mutations produced a beneficial trait in these bacteria, and they evolved. Scientists later discovered 470 of these types of muations in the human genome[5]. Finally, I shall respond to Pro's point on the fossil record. Pro claims because we have a lack of transitionary forms, this disproves evolution via mutation. I would like to introduce the theory of punctuated equilibrium to explain this[6]. As the theory states, stasis is the dominant state for most of a species' history, and is only broken when environmental or other such circumstances force an evolutionary change from the original form that was largely beneficial in the past. This theory makes sense; if the form a species has is working, why evolve away from it? It is only when the form is no longer useful or advantageous that it would need to change. And, as an example of one such form, perhaps in a period of breaking away from stasis, I present Archaeopteryx[7,8]. It is thought to be a transitional form between small, predatory dinosaurs and today's birds, and is a perfect example of what Pro is looking for. All in all, Pro's arguments have not stood up to close inspection. I would also like the voters to consider that Pro dropped, and thus conceded, my argument considering the chimpanzee-human relation. You're on, Pro. http://www.ornl.gov... http://www.genetics.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.pnas.org... Okamura K, Feuk L, Marquès-Bonet T, Navarro A, Scherer SW (December 2006). "Frequent appearance of novel protein-coding sequences by frameshift translation". Genomics 88 (6): 690–7. doi:10.1016/j.ygeno.2006.06.009. PMID 16890400. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

  • CON

    I, on the other hand, offer a quote from an official...

    it is not wrong for catholics to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

    My opponent has offered no source for her claims concerning the Pope, so please disregard them at this time. I, on the other hand, offer a quote from an official papal encyclical (Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 73): "In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it" Remember, dear voters, this debate is NOT about whether you are pro-life or pro-choice. It's about whether or not the Catholic Church says it's ok for its members to vote pro-choice. I think we all know the answer to that. With all due respect to my opponent, this debate is basically over. Please vote Con. Source: 1.http://www.vatican.va...

  • CON

    Attempting to prevent your public ever having to deal...

    Terrorists use our own media to terrify our people and create a climate of fear.

    Attempting to prevent your public ever having to deal with the terrifying realities of events in the international world is doomed to failure. People always manage to find out about some aspect of terrorist attacks one way or the other, and fear is spread, not contained, when the public don’t feel the government is telling them the truth. In reality, people rarely change their behaviour as a result of fear generated by terrorism – use of the London underground revived rapidly after the July 7th Bombings, and use of air travel soon recovered from the impact of 9/11.

  • CON

    It is impossible for abortion to be a "non issue",...

    it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate

    It is impossible for abortion to be a "non issue", because it is actually an issue that the Catholic church has deemed one of the most serious sins prevalent. It cannot be a "non issue", because every other societal issue is lacking in proportionality.