Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewThe Latest: World Bank chief 'in shock' after climate deal
World Bank President Jim Yong Kim says he was stunned by the Paris climate agreement adopted by more than 190 countries. Kim told The Associated Press in a phone interview that he was "in a bit of a shock, a happy shock" after the deal was gaveled on Saturday. He said he woke up Sunday much more optimistic about the world his children would inherit.
Plant Adaptation to Unfavourable Climate and Pesticide Reduction
GM technology on crops may offer solutions to control pests, fungal infections and growing crops in particularly harsh environments. To achieve this end, scientists are developing pest-resistant, fungal-resistant and herbicide-tolerant plants. Some crops have been genetically modified to be tolerant of high soil salinity and resistant to drought. In Africa for example, climate varies from region to region making it very difficult to breed crop varieties for each region. Thus, the ability to design crops suited to specific climatic conditions is much more effective, and is beneficial to developing African countries. It also helps to control pests and fungal infections. GM crops have been modified to target specific types of pests like rootworm, unlike traditional pests which kill all kinds of insects without discrimination. They have been estimated to save on fuel because fuel is needed for farmers to operate machine spraying pesticides. This also reduces carbon dioxide emissions. In China for example, GM rice has made labour, energy consumption and costs reduce significantly because the amount of treatment normally required has reduced. This effect has compounded to a safer environment as less farmers are exposed to pesticides. The impact on other organisms like insects also decreases.
US begins formal withdrawal from Paris climate accord
The Trump administration announced Monday that it will begin formally withdrawing the US from the Paris climate accord, the first step in a year-long process to leave the landmark agreement to reduce emissions of planet-warming gases. "Today the United States began the process to withdraw from the Paris Agreement," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement. "Per the terms of the Agreement, the United States submitted formal notification of its withdrawal to the United Nations. The withdrawal will take effect one year from delivery of the notification." ...
We need to change the way we live or we will all die
I'm actually new to this website but I'm excited that a found somewhere to debate. So I think we can all agree that climate change is a big problem. It looks like the ocean levels are going to rise substantially and there are going to increased frequency of natural disasters across the globe. I also think we can all agree that it is at least partly caused by humans. Simultaneously we are on track to hit 10 billion people by the year 2050. There is no way we can support a population of this size without some major changes. I am not claiming to have the solutions but it does worry me that we do not seem to be working towards a solution. We seem to be ignoring the impending doom. This next argument is from a TED talk by Charles C. Mann. I encourage you to go an watch it. If you have ever taken biology you have seen bacteria grow in a petri dish. In the petri dish is agar or agarose. The bacteria is in an environment with all that it needs to reproduce with no predators. 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.
Africa does not have the resources to protect itself from climate change
A report by the United Nations Environmental Project estimates that adaptation costs to Africa per year could already be $15billion, reach $50billion by 2050 and anything up to $350billion by 2070. Funding for adaptation to Africa in 2011 was only $454milliion.[1] This is not a gap that Africa can make up itself; in 2010 all spending on education was less than $50billion.[2] Africa can’t afford to adapt itself while responding to an expanding population as well as its existing problems of poverty and disease. It is clear that developed countries that do have the resources have to step it and take responsibility. [1] Schaeffer, Michiel et al., ‘Summary’, Africa Adaptation Gap Technical Report, United Nations Environmental Project, 2013 http://www.unep.org/roa/Amcen/docs/publications/Africa_Adapatation_Gap.pdf , p.xi [2] ‘Public spending on education; total (% of GDP) in sub saharan Africa’, Trading Economics, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sub-saharan-africa/public-spending-on-education-total-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html, ‘Gross domestic product 2010’, World Bank, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
I extend all of my points and I would point out that my opponent can still post a case to be reviewed in the next round. Likewise, I would like some feedback on my case.
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Extend all Arguments
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Extend all Arguments
Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Extend All Arguments
Resolved: Adaptation should be the most urgent response to Climate Change.
The shifts required will take decades to plan and implement, they are already urgent
it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
I grew up a Catholic, but am now an Atheist. I am pro-choice, so I feel like I can argue for this. After doing a fair amount of searching around I can say that, yes, it is wrong. The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception". Maybe "wrong" isn't the best word because it varies on a persons morality. If the pope says you shouldn't vote for a pro-choice politician, who clearly supports something that the church says is immoral, then it is "wrong" to vote for a pro-choice politician.
it is not wrong for a catholic to vote for a prochoice president, in this political climate
It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion. Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate"s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.
Cimate change is real and caused by humans
All points extended.
Cimate change is real and caused by humans
All points extended.
The USA IS Superior | Change My Mind
Yes. Statistics are as statistics do. But you openly admitted that the U.S.A wasn't necessarily superior in all categories, which is contrary to your 3rd round assertion. The U.S.A. isn't the best at everything and certainly isn't the worst and any honest U.S. citizen would freely admit this. The best and only place to be is Planet Earth and there's nothing much we can do about that. Happy 7th of July.
Forced evictions are necessary to change perceptions.
It remains questionable whether the FIFA World Cup has been a success for South Africa, and for the majority of South Africa's citizens. The costs of forced evictions have outweighed the benefits in the international arena. The publicised nature of evictions across South Africa, in the build up to FIFA 2010, highlighted a negative image of urban planning in Africa and the unresolved issues of equality and rights. Forced evictions have resulted in the loss of architectural heritage for new builds, homelessness, and the publication of communities living without freedom to rights. The Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign is a clear example. The social movement gained momentum to expose the undemocratic world poor communities live in and fight evictions. The communities were relocated into 'Tin Can Towns' and 'Transit Camps'.[1] The negativity raised will have future repercussions. [1] For more information see further readings: Smith (2010) and War on Want (2013).
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.
I thank my opponent for starting this debate and will begin by addressing their definitions: 1) "I define the United States to mean the public as a whole and not just the government." This is rather ambiguous. Are you arguing on moral grounds (i.e. the public as a whole) that we should change, or upon policy grounds (i.e. the government)? 2) "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels that can be made and used as fuels; renewable energy source. Fossil fuels can be defined as a non-renewable energy source that is formed by the decomposition of organic matter under a layer of sand and silt which produce the heat and pressure that change its chemical structure over a time period of millions of years." I agree with these definitions more or less, except for the part about it taking millions of years to produce coal (1). Furthermore according to your own definition, artificial coal could be considered an alternative fuel when compared with natural coal (1). "From these definitions, the primary inference is that the American people and government should use renewable energy sources more and non-renewable energy sources less." This is less an inference and more your opinion, which I believe belongs in Round 2. --------------------------------------------------------------- I look forward to your attempt at proving the United States "should" progress away from the use of fossil fuels, though from your Round 1 arguments it would appear that you have your work cut out for you in terms of providing the necessary evidence. (1) - http://www.sciencedirect.com...
the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference needs to be an international treaty with binding emission cuts
Sovereign states should be allowed to set their own targets and be trusted to meet them
the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference needs to be an international treaty with binding emission cuts
Only a non-binding agreement would get the targets necessary
the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference needs to be an international treaty with binding emission cuts
A more informal agreement avoids the US congress
