Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewResolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.
My partner didn't send me his part sorry! I'll repost same topic and invite you when I get in tomorrow.
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.
In ancient times, like when subways were invented, the idea was to allow freedom of movement even when there was a big snowstorm. Why did the subways get closed, and the streets and sidewalks have marshal law imposed for a small snow storm? Keep trusting the climatologists, as they are much smarter then the meteorologists that fail regularly with no repercussions. The ability to predict the weather beyond 12 hours only depends on the size of the storm.
Models of Climate Change and weather forcasts are equally wrong, most often.
What? I can't hear you.
the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change
Other nations have an obligation to help
the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change
Small size makes for ease
the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change
Shared sovereignty
the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change
Moving is an imperative
Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change
Thanks for responding, I thought you were going to forfeit the round. "This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. " Con Bare assertion. You call the FAO report both non-academic and untrustworthy with no proof. "the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org......... a source which I trust way more)" Con Again you assert wri.org is more trust worthy without proving it. Basically Con is stating that the World resource institute WRI is more reputable than the FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Free range This term is often found on meats, eggs, and dairy products, but the USDA only regulates use of the term as applied to poultry like chickens and turkeys. That means all beef, lamb, pork products (and so on) labeled as free range aren"t actually regulated by the USDA" "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING: Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." usda.gov "No signs of life were outside the buildings, and if it wasn"t for the faint sound of panicking hens from within the metal buildings the place would seem deserted." Jewel Johnson "Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. " Con Based on this evidence I argue that the cattle raised in Brazil and the clearing of Amazon rain forest the qualify as factory farming. Thus the green house gases emitted by the clearing and burning of the Amazon rain forest should be counted as factory farming. The clearing and burning of the Amazon certainly qualify as man made and greepeace made it pretty clear there would be dire environmental consequences for these actions. http://www.onegreenplanet.org... http://www.fsis.usda.gov... http://peacefulprairie.org...
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
They can do both. Anyway even if we disagree over what kind of government action should be taken that doesn"t matter because both count as radical government action so you"re not even disagreeing with the title of the debate.
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change
yes it does. Correct. What is your point?
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
Debate.org
