Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 0.0 ms

PRO

CON

  • CON

    Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    Pinning responsibility on nations is wrong and unhelpful

  • CON

    The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be...

    developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries

    The economy is a global system; the solutions need to be global and involve everyone

  • CON

    That is less than 1% OF 1%, it is 20% of 1% OF 1%, and...

    The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

    We aren't upsetting any balance, we changed the hearts atmosphere by 0.002%, do you know how insignificant that is? That is less than 1% OF 1%, it is 20% of 1% OF 1%, and our temperature increased by 0.6 Celsius over 76 years. Global warming is not a threat.

  • CON

    My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of...

    The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

    CO2 accounts for 400 ppm of our atmosphere, or 0.04% of the total gas in the atmosphere, and only 5% of CO2 emissions are man made {2}, this means that mankind has altered the atmosphere by approximately 0.002%, with CO2, a greenhouse gas that is actually very weak. {3} My opponent also claims that money is worth more than humans, even though this is a nonsensical argument. My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of infrastructure in the name of a false threat which will unemploy millions. The real reason for all of this global warming propaganda is to cripple the economies of developing nations to prevent them from getting a better quality of living. My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones, then he talks about how humans are more important than money. Humans are more important than false threats. {1}. https://www.theguardian.com... {2}. http://www.ncpa.org... {3}. http://notrickszone.com...

  • CON

    Trying to put a price on carbon unfairly punishes...

    We all have some responsibility for climate change. Our lifestyles result in large amounts of carbo...

    Trying to put a price on carbon unfairly punishes ordinary families. Making quite poor people pay more to heat their homes, cook meals, drive their vehicles, etc will push many of them into poverty. We already pay high taxes and this is just another way politicians have found to get their hands in our wallets. By contrast, big business makes plenty of profits and can afford to spend some of them meeting new emissions regulations.

  • CON

    If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy...

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

    I accept. Before I begin, I wish to define a few things. Mutation - Change in the DNA sequence of a gene [1][2][3] Gene - Unit of heredity in a living organism [4] I also wish to stipulate that Pro accept, and does not question, the theory of evolution itself, nor the idea that genes are passed down from generation to generation. If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy to do so on another debate. Genes, as per the definition above, are the units of heredity in an organism. They control the characteristics of said organism. Microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies of genes in a gene pool over time[5], can and does occur without mutations. However, macroevolution, evolution that occurs above the level of species[6], studies speciation and the change from one species into another over time. How, one might ask, does a chimpanzee and human split off from a common ancestor and become incapable of breeding? Their genomes are different, i.e. they (chimps) do not have the same genomes as we do. They do not share about 4% of their genome with us[7]. How, then, did their genome become different from ours when we shared a common ancestor? Answer: their DNA sequence, and ours, changed. This If Pro would like to debate those ideas, I would be happy to do so on another debate. Genes, as per the definition above, are the units of heredity in an organism. They control the characteristics of said organism. Microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies of genes in a gene pool over time[5], can and does occur without mutations. However, macroevolution, evolution that occurs above the level of species[6], studies speciation and the change from one species into another over time. How, one might ask, does a chimpanzee and human split off from a common ancestor and become incapable of breeding? Their genomes are different, i.e. they (chimps) do not have the same genomes as we do. They do not share about 4% of their genome with us[7]. How, then, did their genome become different from ours when we shared a common ancestor? Answer: their DNA sequence, and ours, changed. This change in the DNA sequence is exactly what a mutation is. It simply, by definition is what happens, and here is a distinct case. More cases of the same thing occuring (stretching out to all the number of species ever existing on the planet) can be elaborated on if need be. Now that a specific case of this occuring has been elaborated on, the general concept behind it can be discussed. An organism differs from another by its traits, which are determined by its genome. Different traits mean a different genome, which means that at some point, the genome of the common ancestor of the two organisms was changed. This change in the DNA sequence, the genome, of an organism is what mutation is. Therefore, there is direct evidence for mutation being the source of genetic diversity. The concept behind evolution supports this. Back to you, Pro.

  • CON

    Firstly, some types of emissions are more damaging to the...

    Market mechanisms provide a better means of tackling climate change at a global level. With the exc...

    Because it is not possible to achieve a perfect market in carbon emissions, regulations are to be preferred. Firstly, some types of emissions are more damaging to the environment than others, but this is hard to recognise in a carbon tax or trading system. Regulations can be more targeted in order to deal with the biggest problems first. For example, government policy has required vehicle exhausts to become much less damaging to the environment over the past few years, and can also demand that companies (e.g. power generators) update their equipment and working methods. The deadlines and potential sanctions accompanying such government demands can also focus investment into research and development which the market alone would not provide. \ Secondly, the existing global marketplace is quite imperfect. Many countries (e.g. China, India) lack the kind of open economies needed for market mechanism to operate effectively. Unless efforts to curb carbon emissions are to be put on hold until their economies are sufficiently reformed for market incentives to have a chance of working, regulations will have to be the main method of emissions reductions in such places. And on a global scale market incentives are hugely distorted by such oddities as the exemption of aircraft fuel from taxation.

  • CON

    Punctuated equilibrium explains why forms change so...

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

    I wish to thank my opponent for his arguments. Pro claims I did not have sources for R1. I did. I, unfortunately, forgot to add them, and so I added them to the commments section instead. If the voters wish to penalize me for it, so be it. I apologize, but Pro still should have brought up why he wasn't responding to them in R2, as I would have directed him to the comments. Pro brings up a catastrophe argument. This i addressed with punctuated equilibrium. I said that as environments change (which is part of any environmental catastrophe), the forms that used to be tolerable were not longer tolerable, and evolution, or a break from stasis, happens[1]. Punctuated equilibrium explains why forms change so rapidly after catstrophes, and why previously succeassful forms die out. Pro then attacks punctuated equilibrium, calling it untestable and a "metaphysical idea". I do not understand where this comes from. Punctuated equilibrium can be tested. If, in the fossil record, we were to identify a place where the environment changed rapidly, we could then test it. If animal forms continued to evolve slowly and did not really react to the change, punctuated equilibrium is wrong. If the survivors rapidly diversify to take advantage of their new environment, punctuated equilibrium is roght. We can identify such a time and place; it is the K/T extinction event, where the dinosaurs died out. That, for sure, was a huge change in environment. Right after the K/T event, there were approximately 40 genera and 10 families of mammal[4]. 10 million years later, there were between 130 and 200 genera, 78 families and about 4,000 species[2,4]. That is rapid, punctuated diversification from a mammalian body plan that had worked well since their emergence in the Triassic - 150 mya before K/T. In 10 million years, they had diversified to almost 8 times as many families of mammals. That is evidence and is a scenario in which the predictions of punctuated equilibirum proved true. Archaeopteryx, according to Pro, is an "odd creature", completely isolated and not surrounded by close relatives. I would direct readers to Ornitholestes, a dinosaur with a similar body structure, living at the same time and place, who was closely related and is a viable predecessor[9]. Later, Jeholornis, the first known bird, appeared, and is very much a more advanced version of Archaeopteryx[10]. Pro, it seems, did not read the article on the nylon-eating bacteria. The article clearly showed that a double replication followed by a frameshift mutation caused the change in the enzymes, allowing them to consume nylon. Pro talks of transposase enzymes, which function to move genes around the genome[3]. They do not change the gene or mutate it in any way unless they, too, are deficient because of a mutation. Pro then asks why extremely sturdy bacteria have not evolved. The answer is they have. Take extremophiles, which can survive in temperatures as high as 125 degrees Celsius, as low as -15 degrees C, a high a pH as 9 and as low a pH as 2[6]. Pro's questions about why malaria hasn't evolved to handle colder temperatures do not take into account that the type of host may also be important, and making malaria resistant to cold would not solve that issue. As for Pro's comments on fruit flies - here, he is not discussing macroevolution. He is not discussing mutation. He is discussing microevolution, or the change in allelic frequencies (an allele being the different versions of a gene[7]) in a population[8]. The study was not creating any mutations, and the flies' genomes were unchanged. They were changing allelic frequencies in the population, and it is completely unrelated to the resolution. Thus, the resolution is negated. I wish to thank my opponent for this engaging debate, and Vote Con! Due to the length my sources will, again, be posted in the comments.

  • CON

    Despite scaremongering about “water wars”, international...

    Many experts believe that climate change, deforestation and population growth will all put even grea…

    Despite scaremongering about “water wars”, international conflicts over access to shared water resources have been avoided. In fact there have been nearly 300 international water agreements since 1948, showing that a cooperative approach which treats water as an essential common good is highly successful. Indeed, the regular technical interaction required to negotiate quotas, share data, and set up common institutions as part of international water agreements can all help to promote better political relationships between neighbouring states that may have histories of hostility.

    • https://debatewise.org/3045-water-resources-a-commodity/
    • score
      BM25 score: 10.73
      climate: 6.06
      conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)
      sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.73)
      change: 4.67
      conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.73)
  • CON

    Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro...

    The Scottish relationship with the EU is likely to change after independence.

    The Scottish Government claims that an independent Scotland would be able to join the EU with all the UK's various opt outs intact. Scotland indeed could not be forced to join the Euro because in order to do so it would have to demonstrate currency convergence for at least two years which the newly independent state obviously would not be in a position to do.[1] Therefore if Scotland retained UK opt outs there would be only a positive change in relationship with Scotland receiving greater representation in EU institutions through having its own seat in the Council of Ministers, possibly its own Commissioner, and also a reallocation of European Parliamentary constituencies that would increase its representation there (and paradoxically increase rUK representation as well).[2] [1]    Noon, Stephen, ‘Euro membership’, 10 November 2011, http://stephennoon.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/euro-membership.html    [2]    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 p.7