Pro vs. con view
Topic space viewObama is leading a movement for change, not just a campaign
Obama has stirred up so much energy and excitement among his followers that his campaign and its supporters have been described as a "movement". This "movement" can and should be harnessed for positive social change.
DDO should change the "global warming exists" big issue to "Man-made global warming exists"
I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. 1. Samples taken from Global Warming Exists DDO opinion page http://www.debate.org... Prompt: "global warming exists" with the option of PRO or CON Voted Con (that global warming does not exist): 1) RoyLatham - "Global warming exists, but I assume the prompt means "Human-caused global warming crisis exists."" 2) Tes95 - " Not to the degree people believe. I believe the Earth simply has an unpredictable climate, with erratic and weird weather at times." 3) jzonda415 - "Humans don't cause the world to warm up, it's a natural cycle. This is idiotic Liberal conspiracies made to do nothing but create the EPA to target business. It is disgusting really." 4) BigSky - "Global Warming does indeed exist, it is highly over exaggerated by liberals who use it as a scare tactic." 5) Nur-Ab-Sal - "I assume this means anthropogenic global warming." Voted Pro (that global warming exists): 1) Andromeda Z - "There is a significant amount of evidence to suggest global warming exists. However, it is not entirely anthropogenic (though we do cause some of it)." 2) imabench - "There is evidence it exists and that humans could be playing a part in causing it, but I do think that some people overly emphasized how fast it could occur and how deadly it could be." The above quotes show a clear disconnect between the comments and the way people voted. RoyLatham said, "global warming exists" and still voted con to express his opinion that man-made global warming does not exist. This is a major problem because people are unable to express their opinion on the 'big issue,' that being if man-made global warming exists. Whether or not humanity contributes to global warming is the major issue, NOT if global warming exists. There really isn't much debate on if the Earth is warming or not, and there SURELY isn't any legitimate debate on whether or not the Earth goes through periods of warming...ever...and for any amount of time. For instance, every single person must admit that the Earth goes through temperature changes, so global warming exists without a doubt, and so does global cooling. Man-made global warming is the big issue because we are in the equation, and humans can change their course of action if we decide we are causing the Earth to warm. However, if the Earth is just going through a period of warming, it doesn't have any real ramifications that are under our control, and thus is not a big issue. The prompt that capitalizes the debate over global warming into a single sentence really is, "Man-made global warming exists and is significant, and the consequences are serious." However, that prompt is too long, and the next best would be, "Man-made global warming exists".
Evidence that mutation is the cause of change in evolution has not been proven
I thank my opponent for responding. This has been a fun debate for me! Let me first address you made toward toward respective voters. You said I dropped the argument about chimanzee-human relation. You had no sources in your first round therefore I did not need to address those points. In adition, you did not address the catastrophe argument which flies in the face of evolution by random mutation killing out the undesirables and slowly replacing them with the more fit. Let me discuss the fossil record. You admit that the fossil record has very few transitional forms since you are now arguing for punctuated equilibriam. There is a small sub set of people who knew the fossil record did not match the theory so they had to come up with something to match the record. Others have come up with the hopefully monster theory. The problem is that they have given up on explaining the mechanism by which evolution works. The theory then becomes one of a metaphysical idea that can not be tested. It removes the theory even further from science. The neo darwinists at least have a mechanism that can be tested. You mention Archaeopteryx in relation to the fossil record. The problem is that it has no predecessors. The fossils that look like it lived millions of years after it did. The fossils that precede it look nothing like it. It sems to be an odd creation that went nowhere knid of like the edsel ford. In addition I state again "the extreme rarity" of the fossil reord is the "trade secret of paleontology". You mention bacteria. There are more studies to be done with this no doubt. However a few points-this could be a design element which would take this debate in another direction. They could be designed to adapt to enviroments when tranposae enzymes on the pOAD2 plasmid were activated. The bigger question is if rapidly mutating bacterium were proof of evolution, then after a few billion years of evolution, the only life forms we would have would be extremly sturdy bacteria and virusis. I mean people develop tolerance for things all the time but they don't turn into new creatures. consider malaria-It is a ferocious parasite that loves to attack anything that gets in its way, However, it needs a warm climate to reproduce. If a mutant parasite evolved that could handle lower temps, it could invade areas now closed to it. It has not done that. Where is evolution? Where is the science? Now let us return to the fruit fly. On e xperiment the fly was selected for a drease in bristles and in another for an increase in bristles starting with a parent stock averaging 36 bristles. After many generations the scientists were able to lower the bristle average to 25. What happened then, the line became sterile and died out. On the other side they were able to rais the average bristle to 56 bristles in the other experiment, then they dies out. Why? because mutations are by and large bad and harmful and there limits to change. In conclusion, I want to thank my opponent. It has been fun. http://wikipedia.org... www.pathlights-fruitflies Animal species and evolution Ernst Mayr1963 Darwin on Trial Phillip Johnson The Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe
Cutting aid could produce a change in policy direction
If the West did decide to reduce aid to African states it could pressure African states to change their policies on homosexuality. Africa is renowned for the dependency on aid. Analysts claim that this dependency negates the need for African economies to reform, relying instead on foreign governments and NGOs[1]. This reliance on aid could be exploited to alter policy within those African countries that are unable to act economically independently. This policy has been successful in the past. When Britain cut £19m to Malawi in 2011 for arresting two men for marrying; there was a reversal of government policy in the African state and all anti-homosexual laws were suspended[2]. The equality created by this policy change would allow greater access to retroviral drugs and other HIV/AIDS treatment for the gay community. Laws outlawing homosexuality, and the stigma of the false connection between HIV and homosexuality, have decreased the accessibility of the gay community to treatment[3]. Corrections to these laws, from the economic pressure of aid withdrawal, would allow those with HIV/AIDS in the gay community to seek help without fear of rejections or prosecution. [1] Astier,H. Can aid do more harm than good? 1 February 2006 BBC [2] Karimi,F. ‘Amnesty: Malawi suspends anti-gay laws’ CNN 6 November 2012 [3] Anti-Gay discrimination fuels HIV/AIDS in Africa: Report Reuters 01/03/07
We need to change the way we live or we will all die
Hello minervx! First of all, Yes I mean "we" as all humans everywhere. I know it is very broad but my point is that this is a problem every human should have an interest in. First, A few arguments of yours actual prove my point. "Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, " This is exactly the argument I am making! However I understand that you believe we will get to this "change" naturally. However, This once again goes back to my Darwin point. This change will NOT occur naturally because naturally we will do exactly what the bacteria does and spread and reproduce all the way to our demise. The change that needs to occur is unnatural. Once again I have a few ideas for change in mind but that is not my point. We all need to put our minds together to come up with a solution. "we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. " Once again another point I am trying to make. We are just like the bacteria. We have all the resources we need to survive and reproduce and we have no predators. Yes it is mostly the underdeveloped countries growing but the truth is the world will still hit 10 billion in 2050. We already kill 56 billion animals a year for food and resources. This will only increase until the planet can no longer sustain us. You ask "Is it feasible to control population? ". Great question! Once again proves my point. Somethings NEEDS to be done. I don't know if it is the solution but it is something that needs to be looked into. You go on saying "And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? ". You are pointing out a lot of problems that could ensue if we do attempt to save the human race. But what is the alternative? Do nothing? You actually seem pretty keen on "we'll be fine". I will agree with you that it is possible that a very small percentage of the human race would survive if nothing is done. However, If 99% of the population dies, I see that as very worrying. The future of the human race would be in the hands of a very small amount of people. We have been given a chance to change our fate. A chance to break the natural cycle. I think we should try to take it.
Developed countries must combat climate change while developing countries have more pressing concerns
Developing nations need to be allowed to develop without the burden of emission restrictions. Developed nations have been allowed to industrialize at whatever pace they wished, and through industrialization produce emissions. Despite having been polluting the atmosphere as a result of industrialization since the early 19th Century developed nations only began comprehensively limiting pollution after World War II in order to reduce smog through regulation such as the 1955 Air Pollution Control act and 1963 Clean Air Act in the United States[1] and many developed countries have yet to regulate their CO2 emissions. Having had free reign to develop for 200 years the developed nations need to take responsibility for those 200 years of irresponsibility while giving the developing world longer to clean up its act. The developing world at the same time has higher responsibilities that come first, for example to ensure that there is no one living in poverty. In India 456 million people live on under $1.25 per day,[2] it is absurd to suggest that India despite having higher CO2 emissions than Japan, indeed almost double,[3] should have to reduce its emissions by a similar amount and at the same time industrialise to pull these millions out of poverty. [1] Environmental Protection Agency, ‘History of the Clean Air Act’, 16 November 2010, http://epa.gov/air/caa/caa_history.html [2] The World Bank, ‘New Global Poverty Estimates – What it means for India’, 26 August 2008, http://go.worldbank.org/51QB3OCFU0 [3] Boden, Tom, and Blasing, T.J., ‘Preliminary CO2 emissions 2010’, Carbon Dioxide Analysis Center, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/perlim_2009_2010_estimates.html
developed countries have a higher obligation to combat climate change than developing countries
Developed countries have a duty to lead by example
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
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.
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.
Debate.org
