Pro vs. con view
1038 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • PRO

    This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this...

    DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"

    First off, my opponent did not refute my arguments, and completely dropped my most conclusive argument (the DDO global warming opinion page samples). He copy and pasted an article from http://www.redorbit.com... Con's only commentary on this article was "So as you can see that the debate on man-made GW would be useless and the debate should be on weather or not GW exists as we currently have it." The entire article was about how man-made global warming doesn't exist, or is greatly exaggerated, but the author agrees global warming exists. I completely fail to see how this doesn't help my side, as the 'big issue' in this article is man-made global warming, NOT global warming in general. This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this issue Con then goes on to say "It's too difficult to change things," citing examples of how hard it would be to implement the resolution. This is not a valid argument because it doesn't attempt to analyze the situation. He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should This shows Con's complete lack of understanding on this issue Con then goes on to say "It's too difficult to change things," citing examples of how hard it would be to implement the resolution. This is not a valid argument because it doesn't attempt to analyze the situation. He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should He fails to show that the long and difficult process he described somehow means that the costs outweigh the benefits. The resolution is not trivial, because as it stands, the big issue (global warming exists) is a complete failure of a prompt. It fails to provide clear results because people are too interested in expressing their opinion that man-made global warming exists as seen by the samples in my round one. People shouldn't have to take multiple levels of thought just to 'guess' what someone's opinion on an issue is. I mean, I could vote Con to the prompt global warming exists, assuming everyone else assumes that I assume it means 'man-made global warming exists'. However, another person might assume that I'm ignorant because I don't think global warming exists, when really I do. In conclusion, Debate.org should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists" to present a prompt that represents the opinion that the members of debate.org actually want to share, as seen by the comments on http://www.debate.org......

  • PRO

    It should not be raised, therefore, as something that...

    Being black won't change policies.

    That Obama is black has no bearing on his policies. It is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. It should not be raised, therefore, as something that will somehow promote racial equality by breaking historical barriers. To do so probably does more of a dis-service to racial equality than anything else.

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_McCain_vs._Obama
    • score
      BM25 score: 8.64
      climate: 0.32
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 0.54)
      sum: 3.01 (product 2.65, product 0.36)
      change: 8.32
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    It will also turn sunsets into a bright red color. ......

    Sulphate solar shading will change the appearance of the sky

    Sulphate solar shading will create a white, cloudy-looking sky. It will also turn sunsets into a bright red color. This may be unappealing and damaging to animals and possibly to the psychology of humans.

  • PRO

    Only an international treaty can create penalties for...

    the outcome of the Paris Climate Conference needs to be an international treaty with binding emission cuts

    Only an international treaty can create penalties for non-compliance

  • PRO

    The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a...

    Trump Administration’s Strategy on Climate: Try to Bury Its Own Scientific Report

    The Trump White House, which has defined itself by a willingness to dismiss scientific findings and propose its own facts, on Friday issued a scientific report that directly contradicts its own

  • PRO

    The American. ... March 2, 2010: "intuitively, it seems...

    Geoengineering ideas can help scare world into climate action

    Samuel Thernstrom. "What Role for Geoengineering?" The American. March 2, 2010: "intuitively, it seems more likely that most people, when told about geoengineering, would be more inclined to support greater mitigation, not less, thinking: If such extreme measures are really being contemplated, surely we ought to more aggressively pursue other solutions."

  • PRO

    Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. ... >There is...

    The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

    >I would like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. >I will be supporting Obama Cap and Trade. >Cap and Trade is a fundamentally good idea. As my opponent notes, global temperature has been increasing recently. Cap and Trade would limit these effects by limiting the emissions causing this. To support my point, while global temperature has increased by a degree in one hundred years, ocean temperatures have risen one half a degree since the 1970s. Also, the process has accelerated slightly recently as the 8 warmest years in history have all been since 1998. >The Obama Cap and Trade is very vague, but the general concepts would be beneficial to the Earth and to the rising temperatures. >There is not much more I can say at the moment, I await my opponent's arguments.

  • PRO

    The Three Percenters’ Oregon chapter has gotten involved...

    Armed Extremists Just Escalated Oregon’s Fight Over Climate Legislation

    The Three Percenters’ Oregon chapter has gotten involved in the Oregon standoff between Republican state senators, who fled the state to avoid the passage of cap-and-trade legislation, and the Democratic majority who wanted to put the measure to a vote. The paramilitary group, known for anti-government and pro-gun sentiment, said in a Thursday night Facebook post, “We will stand together with unwavering resolve, doing whatever it takes to keep these Senators safe,” pledging to provide “security, transportation, and refuge” for Republican lawmakers.

CON