Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    My opponent tries to go against my NASA data, even though...

    Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.

    This is the final round of the debate, so I'm just going to go over some overarching themes and arguments as well as give my reasons for voting for me in this debate. Frauds and Poor methodology: Even with the provision of new evidence about China and South Korea in his rebuttal, the logic that he tries to make is still faulty. He's making the general idea that because specific organizations in specific countries have their flaws in methodology, this means that every single piece of evidence relating to the proof of global warming is inherently faulty and wrong. My opponent brings up a lot of things in his rebuttal that haven't already been addressed in my own arguments or evidence (which has been fully cited in case if the links are not functional), and I explained already about the urban heating studies that the scientists behind this project have corrected their models in order to eliminate the influence of lurking variables in order to provide more credible data. My opponent tries to go against my NASA data, even though this wasn't the only source I listed, and while he talks about how the IPCC has been found for frauds and whatnot, he doesn't prove that my piece of evidence in particular is the one that is subject to such frauds, meaning that he's making another generalization. CO2 and N2O: He essentially talked all statistics in this portion, even though it was evident that he didn't seem to have a great understanding about global warming as an average of all temperatures instead of individual locations, and while my opponent says that there has not been any historical correlation, my evidence has shown otherwise. There are still natural cycles, as I explained, by overall, temperatures at a global scale are increasing. This is not to mention that CO2 isn't even the strongest offender and N2O isn't the only greenhouse gas. My opponent doesn't even make the slightest mention about methane or other greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere. He emphasizes on N2O and thinks he has proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt that there is no global warming. Ice Sheets: While I argued about ice sheets in general, my opponent just took up one ice sheet and claimed this is some overall evidence that there is no sort of global warming whatsoever, and I provided opposing evidence on this subject about Greenland explaining that the ice sheets are indeed decreasing in their size.

  • PRO

    When you look at the graphs at the bottom of this point,...

    Resolved: Countries ought work to end climate change/global warming.

    Logistics of the debate: Based on the current case my opponent has posted, my burden for this debate is the following: (1) I must prove that the evidence for global warming is sound and that it is a serious problem for the world population. (2) I must also prove that the benefits of stopping global warming outweigh the harms. Truth of Global warming: The debate really seems to come down to the evidence portion when analyzing the reality of global warming, and while my opponent posts heavy amounts of evidence in order to prove his point, when we look at the evidence itself, it can all be turned. The first piece we should look at it evidence [2], where he talks about how air conditioners skew the data, but the problem with this piece of evidence is that it only looks at the United States. The United States isn't the only country testing for global warming, and his evidence is mute about what organization specifically was doing this study, implying that there could be more organizations also studying global warming in different fashions. Second, his evidence [1] and [2] seriously underestimates the capabilities of the scientists conducting these studies. The scientists are aware of the urban heat island effect, which is why they correct the data in correlation to the setting of control variables, and in the end, the evidence of global warming is still represented in the trends. His evidence [3] is only speaking in the terms of the larger studies rather than on every study, meaning that this is underscoped as well, and when it speaks about the exaggeration of heating data in correlation with increases to CO2, it is important to note that while CO2 is the most abudant greenhouse gas being emitted into the atmosphere, CO2 is not the strongest, in comparison to the much more potent methane or N2O. When you look at the graphs at the bottom of this point, it is also important to note that my opponent's evidence is looking at every single place in the world individually. It is important to note that global warming is an average of the global temperatures, meaning that what every single individual region of the world experiences is immaterial. Greenland: What's happening to a particular part of the global ice caps doesn't mean this is what is happening to all polar ice caps. My evidence talked about the polar ice cap in Antartica shrinking, and the new evidence I was able to research on speaks about the shrinking ice caps around the Arctic Sea, close to the region of Greenland. While I speak about ice caps in general, my opponent only speaks about a particular ice cap. Global cooling: My opponent requires me to once again to explain that global warming is an average temperature of the globe, nothing too specific to any region in particular. Regions individually may experience fluctuations in their temperatures from highs to lows. Fluctuations: My opponent is right. Temperatures DO fluctuate as time goes on, but when you look at the overall graphs of global temperature, we realize that while there are fluctuations, the overall trend is increasing. My opponent talks about ages where there were very hot times, even though this was an earth from a very early time period where the atmosphere we know today was non-existent. We know that CO2 and other emissions we put in our atmosphere are greenhouse gases, and because we can reduce emissions, we can reduce the impact of global warming, hence meaning the government CAN do something about it. Benefits/Harms: When we look at the benefits against the harms, we realize that not only have I proven that global warming can actually hurt the economy, but I have also shown you that trying to solve for global warming leads to many more benefits as well in addition to that, meaning that I'm currently showing that benefits are outweighing harms. I urge a PRO vote.

  • PRO

    The second is the first constructive which will be...

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

    There will be five rounds. The first is Acceptance. The second is the first constructive which will be followed by a second constructive. Then two rebuttals will complete the debate.

  • PRO

    Speculation with BTC (asides from puts) thus is directly...

    CMV: All those climate-saving billionaires are huge hypocrites now investing in bitcoin!

    Bitcoin uses as much power as Norway mainly produced from dirty coal plants in third world countries. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952 (Edit:the article says it increased already to Argentinian size) Elon spending $100 mio price for carbon capturing while investing $1,5B in bitcoin at the same time without any real need. World climate is going down and we waste ton of energy just for speculation? This is soo hypocrite. Why aren't the billionaires not criticized more? Why isn't there a co2 tax on bitcoin? Why are those billionaires being hailed in Reddit while ruining all our futures? I don't get it, how can one produce electric cars, solar roofs, traffic reduction technologies, grant prices for climate technology and at the same time invest a multiply into the most stupid waste of energy one could possibly imagine? The only reason TSLA is doing this is for speculation purposes... One bitcoin transaction generates as much CO2 as a Tesla driving 5000 miles. Let alone an increased BTC price propelles mining activity. Speculation with BTC (asides from puts) thus is directly harming the climate as it expects rising courses and this drives mining.Tesla should sell their co2 certificates to themselves to cover for the bitcoin emissions? Are those billionaires not being honest to us and all they care is becoming richer ( well who doesn't) by polluting the ?. This invest in bitcoin will jeopardize all C02 emissions savings Tesla has made during it's entire existence in no time ( didn't do the math). One could wonder why this is even allowed, earning money from C02 emissions certificates while investing the same money into a C02 emissions network with no other real usage aside from wasting energy and becoming richer. Can anybody explain why Elon is still everybody's hero while being climate Sauron? I don't get it, we should tell him that this is wrong and he needs to stop. Elon, please be again the self made billionaire by making the world a better place! You are ruining all your reputation and the world needs green role models so badly!

  • PRO

    1] Yet, the IPCC says that steps must be taken...

    Hydrogen vehicles will arrive too late to help climate change

    A National Research Council report that pegs 2020 for the arrival of the mass-market fuel cell vehicle. According to USA Today, "That's the best case scenario, of course, assuming technology, government, industry and the public all cooperate on bringing hydrogen cars to the nation's highways."[1] Yet, the IPCC says that steps must be taken immediately to stop global warming. This means that hydrogen fuel cell technology is out of sink with the immediacy of global warming.

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Hydrogen_vehicles
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.27
      climate: 7.32
      conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.68 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.14)
      change: 5.95
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.21 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.14)
  • PRO

    Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says...

    Climate Shift

    I thank my opponent for their response. "Well my oppenet pretty much just had a argument that says 'the scientist say its right, so its right.'" Actually what I'm saying is that scientists have proven sufficiently that it's real, so it is real. As for the rest of my opponents argument, it might be compelling to consider if it was confirmed by any evidence. Since my opponent cited no sources, we can only assume that this is only from his personal knowledge and expertise. A) my overwhelming bulk of sources overrides this. B) My opponent is not an environmental scientist, and even if he was, his opinion would be drowned by the 95% consensus Furthermore, my opponents points regarding the shift being "normal" should be cross referenced with my points regarding the scientific consensus that it is not "normal."

  • PRO

    given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it...

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

    con has taken it upon himself to define what proportinoate reasons means, on behalf of the catholic church. given it wasn't defined, it is more open to interpretation. and, the quoted part where ratzinger said a catholic can't vote for a prochoice person because they are prochoice, was irrelevant to this situation.... the people are voting for them in spite of their prochoice stance. given proportional reasons is open to interpretation, it would make common sense to say if nothing is going to change to vote for a candidate, that you don't have to vote on that issue. a common issue presented back in the days of that quote, was torture. eg A is prolife but protorture, an intrinsic evil. B is prochoice but not protorture. the abortion issue won't change as a practical matter in this hypothetical. torture is pivotal on who wins. everything else is the same issue wise. how is it not proportionate to vote for B given torture has a chance of changing? it is proportionate. anything else would be to read an agenda into the pope's words.

  • PRO

    But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it...

    CMV: The internet (not Climate Change) will be the cause of the extinction of our specie via widespread depression caused by accessibility of informations enabling the comparison with the #1 person in every domain

    The internet has produced extreme advances in every possible areas of humanity and it's responsible for the rise in Gross Domestic Product since the late 1990s and up to the new millennium. But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it is always directed by market forces which are on their own directed by our nature (see for example how the vast majority of the internet is pornographic content). Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with But if the platform is new, the use which humans do of it is always directed by market forces which are on their own directed by our nature (see for example how the vast majority of the internet is pornographic content). Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with Our nature is to compare ourselves with others and the internet has exacerbated this phenomenon and literally have it run wild If you are a small owner trying to provide for your family you have the Bezos 200B net worth in your face all the times, if you are a girl trying to feel cute about her body..then you have Emily Ratajowski in your face, again, all the time And our nature, by the way, is not to look away and don't pay attention to our competitors but to keep head down and grind to eventually reach #1 and finally be happy. But the notion of #1 implies that there can only be only one winner and 7,999,999,999 losers at this game. So we are already seeing a comparison induced depression state across the board, but this is nothing yet compared with what's about to hit us. It will hit us from the inside , unlike any external enemy and it will be global You think the current situation is bad? It's still seen nothing compared to the violence of an enemy which we can't even study and have no hope of defeating. At least with climate as well as the current situation we know what we should do to solve the problem (it's more a matter of getting our act together and doing it), but with this particular enemy (comparison induced depression) there's nothing we can do. We don't even know how to attack it

CON