Any source
Pro vs. con view
979 arguments retrieved in 1.0 ms

PRO

  • 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

  • PRO

    18 Oct. 2008 - "Americans want change, yes, but banking...

    McCain offers the right kind of change

    "Editorial: We recommend John McCain for president". Dallas Morning News. 18 Oct. 2008 - "Americans want 18 Oct. 2008 - "Americans want change, yes, but banking on change alone is a risky proposition. Both Barack Obama and John McCain offer new deals to a tense, weary nation."

    • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_McCain_vs._Obama
    • score
      BM25 score: 13.20
      climate: 0.32
      sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 0.54)
      sum: 7.57 (product 2.65, product 4.56, product 0.36)
      change: 12.88
      conclusion: 7.96 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 1.01)
      premises: 4.56 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.77)
      sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.93)
  • PRO

    To all those doomsdayers out there. ......

    The climate is not "a changing".

    Great news! To all those doomsdayers out there. According to NASA the antarctic sea ice has reached an all time record high. hhtps://www. Nasa. Gov/content/goddard/antarctic-seaice-reaches-new-record-maximum Thus, You can safely ignore all of my opponents false news information.

CON

  • CON

    Yet once children acquire a criminal record they cross a...

    Child curfews can help to change a negative youth culture.

    Imposing child curfews would actually be counter-productive, as it would increase juvenile offending by turning millions of generally law-abiding young people into criminals. Already in the USA, more children are charged with curfew offences than with any other crime. Yet once children acquire a criminal record they cross a psychological boundary, making it much more likely that they will perceive themselves as criminal and have much less respect for the law in general, leading to more serious forms of offending. At the same time a criminal record harms their opportunities in employment and so increases the social deprivation and desperation which breed crime.

    • https://debatewise.org/2596-child-curfews/
    • score
      BM25 score: 6.82
      climate: 0.80
      sourceText: 0.80 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.34)
      sum: 2.20 (product 1.91, product 0.28)
      change: 6.03
      conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)
      sourceText: 0.28 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.54)
  • CON

    It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of...

    The creation of the post of a High Representative marked an important change in the EU.

    The creation of a combined post of High Representative for foreign and security policy and Vice President of the Commission for External Relations marks a needless complication of decision making. It adds an expensive and largely pointless layer of European bureaucracy to a substantively weak and poorly coordinated foreign policy. This failure is made worse by the member states’ refusal to appoint a senior European politician with international credentials to the post. This suggests that the European Union is simply not ready to pursue a serious and substantive foreign policy. 1 1 Charlemagne, 'The test for Ashton and Europe', The Economist, 1st February 2011,accessed 1/8/11 improve this  

  • CON

    It would create instability and logistical problems

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    It would create instability and logistical problems

  • CON

    It would not be consistent with a fair, reasonable and...

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    It would not be consistent with a fair, reasonable and responsible democratic ideal

  • CON

    The concept overestimates the role of the Prime Minister

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    The concept overestimates the role of the Prime Minister

  • CON

    Social and Political Impacts of the Motion

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    Social and Political Impacts of the Motion

  • CON

    Logistics

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    Logistics

  • CON

    The issue can be solved another way

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    The issue can be solved another way

  • CON

    Australia summary

    In Parliamentary Democracies, A Change Of Prime Minister Should Automatically Trigger A General Election.

    Australia summary

  • CON

    3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the...

    The United States should change towards the use of alternative fuel and away from fossil fuels.

    I will adopt my opponents format and address his points with the appropriate numerals: 1) "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." I agree with my opponents assertion that fossil fuels are indeed finite in supply. Where I disagree with him however is in the amount he estimates the world to currently hold within its depths. Take for instance the recent discovery of the largest ever oil field found in the Gulf of Mexico by BP - a well containing 4 to 6 billion barrels of oil and natural gas (1). Indeed not only have huge oil deposits recently been discovered, there have also been vast numbers uncovered - 200 fields this year alone (1). With these recent discoveries, it would now appear that our estimations of world oil supplies are in need of serious revisions. For truly it seems scientifically dishonest to state that the world will run out of oil in 2057 when we have no idea how much oil the world actually holds. Therefore this point of contention you hold - that the supply of oil will run out sometime in the near future - is misleading in its assertions and rather invalid for the purposes of this debate. 2) "We are too dependent on other nations for our energy sources, which could hurt us in the future." As noted earlier, the oil reserves in the United States more than adequately meet our own consumption requirements - roughly 21 billion barrels (2). We also must keep in mind that this figure is from 2007 - discounting the monumental recent findings addressed in 1 - and that it also discounts "unproven" oil reserves such as shale deposits and deep ocean wells. Therefore, your point that the U.S. doesn't have enough oil and has to import it is rather a moot point - we have the oil necessary to meet our own demand, we have simply chosen not to use it. 3) "From an environmentalist's perspective, the obtaining, refining, and usage of fossil fuels are harmful to the environment." I find it curious that some environmentalists - for I consider myself an "environmentalist" too - always point to the "unhealthy" nature of drilling for oil, when in reality the damage it does pales in comparison to the damage done by "alternative" methods of energy production. Take for instance solar panels. If we were to produce these on a commercial scale we would need to mine extensively for silicon and phosphorus. One could easily argue that the environmental damage done by mining for these minerals greatly outweighs both the damage done by gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels and the established mining for ores necessary for coal production. Another common alternative energy source offered is hydrothermal dams. However the environmental impact of building a dam is inarguably worse than burning fossil fuels (3). Indeed the building of dams is the single greatest contributor of methane to the atmosphere, which traps heat 25x more effectively than CO2 - making dams less environmentally efficient than the burning of fossil fuels (3). Furthermore recent advances in fossil fuel technology have reduced that amount of C02 produced by modern coal plants by 40% (4). Therefore coal - despite all the connotations and taboos associated with it - is actually not a very "dirty" energy production method, negating your point. "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." This is problem with the shipping of oil, not its production. The problems of transporting oil have little to do with whether or not the United States should continue to use. Indeed, the prospects of transporting alternative energy sources - say nuclear waste - are much more environmentally dangerous than shipping oil. "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." This is the full quote from your source, since you decided not to show it: "Fossil fuels also contain radioactive materials, mainly uranium and thorium, which are released into the atmosphere. In 2000, about 12,000 tonnes of thorium and 5,000 tonnes of uranium were released worldwide from burning coal. It is estimated that during 1982, US coal burning released 155 times as much radioactivity into the atmosphere as the Three Mile Island incident. However, this radioactivity from coal burning is minuscule at each source and has not shown to have any adverse effect on human physiology." Plagiarizing Wikipedia and deliberately editing quotes is not acceptable in a debate. Furthermore, your own sources are contradicting your arguments which is usually not a strategy employed by people interested in being taken seriously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'd also like to take some space to offer forth a point my opponent neglected to address: cost. The average cost of alternative energies is much higher when compared with fossil fuels - in the case of wind its close to a 50% increase in cost per kilowatt per hour (5). This is due mainly to the fact that alternative energies are as of now unproven, contain inefficiencies of design, and have no infrastructure which can harness the energy they create. Furthermore I'd like to state that I fully support developing alternative energy sources, but I am steadfastly against the sort of panic-driven hysteria that my opponent has offered as a reason to adopt alternative energy sources in their entirety. Because the truth is the sources we have now are rather infeasible and forcibly adopting them would do much more harm than good - the technology simply isn't ready. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion: My opponent offered relatively weak reasons for why the United States should change energy production sources. Furthermore I offered evidence that forcing an artificial movement towards alternative energy sources would be economically disastrous and infeasible as the technology is not ready for commercialization. (1) - http://www.nytimes.com... (2) - http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) - http://e360.yale.edu... (4) - http://www.worldcoal.org... (5) - http://www.nytimes.com...