Developed countries have a duty to lead by example
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
Developed countries have a duty to lead by example
Pro vs. con view
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
PRO
-
PRO -
PRO The biggest emitters per capita will have the most impact...
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
The biggest emitters per capita will have the most impact when they reduce emissions
-
PRO Both parties are (for international standards) right wing...
CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.
I try not to have the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. The American government is full of *corruption-* sorry- **lobbyism** so votes don't change anything really. A good example is Obama-care which was the idea of free healthcare for everyone, but now isn't free, isn't universal and is tried to be abolished. Both parties are (for international standards) right wing and in their own information bubble, so that there isn't a discussion about things like minimum wage, healthcare, prisons, police etc. because everyone just starts yelling at ones and thinks they're right. The only option for a small group would be effective terrorism (We blow up 1 school every week, until *this* has changed or similar) and for a societal class to become aware of its power and destroy the government until there is not a fingernail of establishment left. ​ But that probably doesn't happen. Not because my conclusion is wrong, but because the establishment pushes nationalism to an unhealthy amount in the heads of every American.
-
PRO Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture...
Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture.
Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from gang activity on the streets at night and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken. By spending more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and youth clubs, which curfews make a more attractive option for bored youngsters, greater self-esteem and discipline can be developed.
-
PRO It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU...
The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.
The UK's various opt outs exist because of the strong negotiating position that the whole of the UK had at the time of the signing of the various relevant treaties. Had Scotland been independent then it would not have been in the same position. It is also argued that if Scotland wants to join the EU then it implicitly wants to join the EU as it is now and could retain exceptional status only in the very short term.[1] The change in relationship would probably change the Scottish attitude to the EU, although it is hard to say whether this would be automatically in a negative way. The implication of Jose Manuel Barroso's comments quoted earlier is that Scotland will be unlikely to retain the UK's opt outs from certain areas of EU policy. Most obviously it is likely that if joining as a new state Scotland may have no choice but to join the Euro at least in the long term when it meets the convergence requirements.[2] Several polls show Scots less likely to vote for independence if Scotland would then have to join the Euro.[3] The other main sticking point would be Schengen, it has been suggested that Scotland would have to join the EU's free travel zone which the UK is not currently a member of and the main consequence of this would be border controls between Scotland and England.[4]Were Scotland to seek to avoid joining the Euro and Schengen then it would prolong the application process meaning that Scotland would be unlikely to be ready to join the EU upon independence. This point was made by the ambassador of the EU's newest member Croatia [quote=Ambassador Ivan Grdesic] if you decide to opt out on many things, you are not ready actually... [/quote] so warning that attempts to opt out of the Euro and Schengen would prolong negotiations.[5] [1] Engel, Arno, and Parkes, Roderick, ‘Accommodating an independent Scotland: how a British-style constitution for the EU could secure Scotland’s future’, European Policy Centre, 24 October 2012, http://www.epc.eu/documents/uploads/pub_3017_scotland_s_future.pdf pp.6-7. [2] Thorp, Arabella, and Thompson, Gavin, ‘Scotland, independence and the EU – Commons Library Standard Note’, parliament.uk, 13 July 2012, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06110 [3] What Scotland Thinks, ‘If an independent Scotland had to join the Euro, how would this effect your vote in a Scottish independence referendum?’, January 2013, http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/if-scotland-had-to-join-the-euro-how-would-this-effect-your-vote-in-a-scottish http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/adopting-euro-after-scotland-joing-eu-will-make-you [4] Barnes, Eddie, ‘Scottish independence: EU may force border terms’, The Scotsman, http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/scottish-independence-eu-may-force-border-terms-1-3165731 [5] BBC News, ‘Scottish independence: Warning over EU membership plan’, 3 November 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-24794438
-
PRO A contented electorate will be more supportive of...
A referendum will create a better political climate.
The general public will be appeased: 75% of voters want the vote held.1 MPs will fulfil their duty to represent constituent interests by calling the referendum. A contented electorate will be more supportive of government and feel included in political life. Not only individuals but also parties will be appeased: the far left and right each feel strongly about this issue. Euroskeptic parties like UKIP and the BNP have agitated for an in-or-out vote for years, and disguise racism and anti-immigrant sentiment as Euroskepticism in the process. A vote either way would settle the issue and make it harder for them to disguise antisocial aspects of their platforms. Pro-Europeans like the Lib Dems also want the referendum: leader Nick Clegg said that "nothing will do more damage to the pro-European movement than giving room to the suspicion that we have something to hide"2 by not holding one. Both sides of the political spectrum wants this issue definitively settled. Once it has been, politicians will be able to redirect focus and work on crucial issues like the economy. 1 LITOBARSKI, JOE. February 18, 2011. "In or out? Labour shouldn't fear a referendum on Europe." The Guardian. accessed June 15, 2011. 2 CLEGG, NICK. October 15, 2003. "We need an EU referendum." The Guardian.accessed June 14, 2011.
-
PRO 3) Within this third reasoning, I stated that the...
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.
1) First we debated about the finite supply of fossil fuels. You argued that there were recent discoveries of new oil fields. One example being the Gulf of Mexico which contains from 4-6 bil. barrels of oil and natural gas. You continue to argue that due to such discoveries the estimation of world oil supplies need to be revised leading to the inability to make statistical hypothesis of when we expect the world to "run out of oil". I did not argue that the world would run out of oil at the year 2057. I argued that there would be an oil depletion at the year 2057 based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory. Imagine a bell curved graph of year (x-axis) vs production (y-axis), to the right side of the peak there will be an exponential decline in production. It is true that we have no true idea of how much crude oil the world holds, but it is very important to at least attempt a statistical estimation of known oil reserves to compare with daily consumption. I can use this statistic with daily production specifically for one reserve vs its estimated oil supply to calculate how longevity of oil site, which could reflect on the company's decisions for on funding for the discovery of new oil sites. One of your sources mentioned that "since the early 1980s, discoveries have failed to keep up with the global rate of oil consumption, which last year [2008] reached 31 billion barrels of oil. Instead, companies have managed to expand production by finding new ways of getting more oil out of existing fields, or producing oil through unconventional sources" Recently we have made a large number of discoveries but we will at one point reach our production peak (Hubbert) in which we will no longer be able to produce as much as demanded. 2) The second reasoning stated that we are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the end. I used the example of the 1973 oil crisis. You noted that "we [currently] have the oil to necessary to meet our own demands" and that we just choose not to use it. With enough oil reserves to meet our demands, we would still be dependent on other nations through the refining process. The US does not refine enough crude oil to meet our daily needs and therefore we send it mainly to Canada to be refined and imported back to us. It is cheaper to send to Canada then to ship it 1500 miles to the next US refinery. As for the claim that we have enough oil reserves to meet our own demands, we do we not currently use them? Are we talking about emergency reserves and reserves found on land that we currently are not allowed to drill? If we are once again cut off from a source of fuel like we were in the 1973 oil crisis, the preparation and drilling of these reserves would take a lot of time and money. Assuming the reserves were not set up for the commercial pumping of oil. As time goes by, the demand would increase and would witness the affects of a lower oil supply on the economy. 3) Within this third reasoning, I stated that the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. The opponent states that alternative method does more damage to the environment. One example was the solar panels and that "we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus". There is a problem with this statement because silicon is not mined, but manufactured from silica, wood, charcoal, and coal. Silica on the other hand one of the most abundant mineral found on the Earth's crust. It is commonly found as sand or quartz. Coal on the other hand is mined, but is a fossil fuel. We earlier defined; "Alternative fuels are fuels that are other substances other than the conventional fossil fuels". Coal which is an ingredient of silicone used to make solar panels is a conventional fossil fuel and therefore this example does not apply. Solar panels contribute to the mining of coal. Your second example was hydrothermal dams. The source you received this information on was mainly talking about China and how they are irrationally, planned poorly and in need of more safeguards for affected people. Their goal for building so many dams is not to combat climate change or the fostering of development, but as a bargaining tool to have access to natural resources such as metals, fossil fuels, and farmland in exchange (Scudder). "Building of the dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2". The direct quote from your source is "Dam building creates other significant impacts as well. Drowned trees and vegetation burp methane — which traps heat at 25-times the rate of CO2 — out of the reservoirs, particularly in tropical regions like Brazil. In fact, scientists at Brazil's National Institute for Space Research calculate that the world's large dams are responsible for producing 104 million metric tons of methane a year — making dams the single largest source of human-caused methane." Failing to mention that the methane was due to drowned trees and vegetation. Though it is impossible to remove all vegetation within the dam's path, this methane by product can be decreased by better planning of the water flow path and clearing of flood areas. Also this describes "particularly in topical regions like Brazil". This debate specifically argues for the United States which is a different type of region. Before a hydroelectric dam can be constructed a study of the area is required to be studied and have federal and state licenses. These studies include site studies, hydrological studies and environmental impact assessment with required hydrological data of up to at least 50 years. Though there are some disadvantages there are also some advantages of hydroelectricity such as that it produces no waste, has a considerably lower output level of CO2 and eliminates the cost of fuel. The cost of operation is almost unaffected by the increase cost of fossil fuels, require no imports and usually have a low labor cost. Hydroelectric plants also have longer life spans than fuel-fired generation, currently have some built 100 years ago and still in service. 4) Last of all was cost. "The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels", this is a fallacy of division. What is true of the whole is not true of its parts. For example, bio diesel is a cheap alternative fuel and we have efficient technology to use it. Diesel powered cars tend to have a better fuel economy by 20-40% and produce less greenhouse gases. Bio diesel-powered diesel engines offer substantially improved emission reductions compared to petro-diesel or gasoline. Bio diesel average $0.28 per gallon with the assumption that the used oil was free. This figure was calculated using today's chemical prices and a bio diesel experiment provided by NC State University. Conclusion my opponent states that I offer evidence that is forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources. United States was defined as "both moral and government policy grounds" with no further opposition. I argued for both grounds, meaning that there should be a behavioral change from the public and government policy change. Would it still be considered forcing if the public wants it? The presumption states "that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels". This does not mean that we should create sides and drastically change from the fossil fuel side to the alternative side. The key word "toward" could also mean a shift in a particular direction over time. If I was to find definitions they would be with a view to obtaining or having, In the area or vicinity of. Yes, we do have a form of time limit due to our finite supply of fossil fuels, but we do have the ability to use our time now to make efficient ways to use alternative fuels so that when we do need to change we can do so without disaster.
-
PRO However, This new challenge we are facing is entirely new...
We need to change the way we live or we will all die
I know my argument seems far fetched. It seems like humans will always find a way out. A way to survive. However, This new challenge we are facing is entirely new to us and life. We are overpopulating this planet. We have evolved in such a beneficial way that we now control the world and its resources. However, We are getting close to the point where the planet can no longer sustain our colossal population. No one argues against this. There are only arguments for whether or not it will resolve itself. Many argue that unforeseeable technology will be invented and save us. However, This new technology would have to be very advanced and we only have 30 years until we hit an unsustainable population. It is entirely likely that we have the potential to invent this technology but not very likely in the time frame given. I argue that we should do something about it. Figure out what we need to change about us and our lifestyles to save us and life on this planet. We do not have any natural instincts that will solve this problem. Life did not foresee it. We need to It is entirely likely that we have the potential to invent this technology but not very likely in the time frame given. I argue that we should do something about it. Figure out what we need to change about us and our lifestyles to save us and life on this planet. We do not have any natural instincts that will solve this problem. Life did not foresee it. We need to change something. It is not good when the other side is arguing that some humans will survive. We need to save as many as possible and get started on a plan as soon as possible. There are many proposed plans. Most involve some form of future technology but not all of it out of our reach. We still have time, Just not a lot of it.
-
PRO By 2005, the US imported 67% of consumption (16.54...
The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.
I agree that my definition of the United States was a little too ambiguous. You are right that I am arguing on both moral and government policy grounds. As for the definition of fossil fuels, artificial coal would be considered an alternate fuel if the definition of artificial coal is coal created by rapidly applying vibrating pressures to wood (Karweil) and/or rapid application of intense heat (Hill). In Illinois, USA artificial coals are created by heating the lignin to about 150˚C in the presence of montmorillonite or illite clays (catalysts). <http://www.answersingenesis.org...;. With this debate, I would like to prove that we should move away from fossil fuels and move toward renewable energy sources such as biodiesel because: (1)Fossil Fuels such as oil has a finite amount in this world and is not being naturally formed as fast as we are using it. Based off of the Hubbert Peak Theory, once we have reached the point of maximum production, we will experience an exponential decline. As of 2004, the total world reserves were estimated to be 1.25 trillion barrels with a daily consumption of about 85 million barrels. With this we can make an estimation of when to experience the oil depletion, which it to be around the year 2057. < http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (2) Oil, coal and natural gas make up of more than 85% of the energy consumed in the United States. Using oil as an example the US in 2004 imported 61% of consumption (13.12 million barrels per day). By 2005, the US imported 67% of consumption (16.54 million barrels per day). We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future. An example would be the 1973 oil crisis, when the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries declared an oil embargo because the United States resupplied the Israeli military during the Yom Kippur War. October 16, 1973, OPEC raised the price of oil by 70%. October 19, 1973, President Nixon didn't back down and appropriated $2.2 billion in emergency aid to Israel, which created a negative effect by other Arab states and joined the embargo on October 20, 1973. Since there was a low supply of oil in countries under the embargo, oil had to be increased in price to decrease the demand. Market price for oil rose from $3 to $12. The Middle East has control of a vital commodity, which became known as the "oil weapon". The United States needs to not allow room for such vulnerability, by depending less on imported fossil fuels. < http://www.quoteoil.com... >. <http://en.wikipedia.org... >. (3)From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment. In the extraction of oil in cases of offshore exploration, sea beds have been disturbed, which have killed the sea plants that many of the marine creatures need to survive due to the dredging process. In the extraction of coal, there are two methods; opencast mining and Underground mines. The Opencast mining tends to disfigure the country side and produces a large amount of atmosphere pollution due to the surface activity. If the Opencast mining is refilled after the mining project, the soil is usually a mixture of layers which mean that harder elements are exposed on the surface leaving the land almost barren. With Underground mines, roof collapsing of the mines can be felt on the surface level leaving buildings and roadways susceptible to cracks and sometimes disappearing into a hole. Oil spills have been known to damage natural ecosystems. It is much more damaging at sea since it can spread for hundreds of nautical miles killing sea birds, mammals, shellfish and other organisms that it coats. The combustion of fossil fuels has contributed to more than 90% of the United States greenhouse gas emissions. It produces air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds and heavy metals. Such air pollutants can contribute to smog, acid rain, climate change, which can affect habitats and wildlife. Fossil Fuels also contain radioactive material (uranium and thorium), which are released into the atmosphere. The burning of coal in 1982 released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. < http://www.planete-energies.com... >. <http://en.wikipedia.org... >. <http://en.wikipedia.org... >. I hope I have provided enough information to prove why I believe that the United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels. I look forward to seeing the response from my opponent, and would like to thank him for debating with me.
-
PRO The change in the policies that Chinese authorities have...
Tibetan's independence protests have determined the Chinese to change their approach
The change in the policies that Chinese authorities have pursued towards Tibet has been determined by pro-independence protests. It has determined the authorities to take a hard lien stance towards Tibet contrary to its previous policies.
