args

PRO

• PRO

  The laws and regulations are at issue. ... There are a...

  Show full argument

  Global climate change should not be a major factor in US energy policy

  "Global climate change" means the climate effects, whatever they might be, of humans introducing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. "US" is the United States of America. "US energy policy" in this debate means prohibitions or incentives provided by the US government with regard to the US development or use of carbon-based fuels for energy. This includes outright prohibitions on the development of oil, oil shale, tar sands, natural gas, and coal, as well as disincentives and obstacles aimed at minimizing their use. Energy policy includes subsidies and mandates for use of non-carbon alternatives. Restrictions or incentives aimed at other purposes are not a subject of this debate, nor is the funding of research projects. The US does not have an official energy policy, but it has many laws and regulations that constitute a de facto policy. The laws and regulations are at issue. A "major factor" is one that may determine a policy outcome, as distinct from factors that might either accrue as side benefits or weigh as disadvantages of a policy. Standard dictionary definitions are used, with the context used to select the appropriate definition. In this debate, "flow through sources" are allowed. If a blog, book, popular article, or Wikipedia is used as a reference, and if the data cited is referenced from another source the implication is that the original source is referenced. Sometime a blogger plots some data in a convenient form for presentation, so it's helpful to reference the graph. The data is argued from it's source. Cited opinions stand or fall on their individual merits as being authoritative or not. Reference lists or arguments beyond the debate 8000 character limits are not allowed. The first round is for acceptance and definitions. There are a total of four rounds.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-climate-change-should-not-be-a-major-factor-in-US-energy-policy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.66

    climate: 13.95

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 6.08 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.08)

    change: 8.39

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 2.29 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.91)
• PRO

  An independent study published the same year found that...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real and is Manmade!

  In ROUND 1 my opponent provides us with numerous sources (primarily a list of doctors and Ph.D's with apparent expertise on the subject) that discredit the claim that global warming is happening or that it is a human created phenomenon. If we pay close attention to what these sources are saying, we'll find that they're actually arguing two different, incompatable things--revealing that my opponent isn't solidly defending exactly where elevations in surface temperature are coming from. One of his sources asserts that the gradual increase in the Earth's surface temperatures can be hocked up to "flawed temperature measurements", because of expanding cities and urban development, which traps heat; hence recordings that show an elevation in Earth's surface temperature over the years are actually showing spikes in artificial heat caused by expanding city development. His other sources argue that global warming is a natural phenomona and that the measurements of gradually rising temperatures are authentic but should be attributed to natural long-term climate patterns on Earth. From these two positions we see that my opponent is arguing that global warming is either (1) not happening, or (2) happening but not human created. In this debate I will demonstrate why the third option--global warming is happening and is manmade--is the best, most credible point-of-view, particularly in light of the multitude of scientific data [1]. The Overwhelming Majority of Climate Scientists and Climate Experts Say Global Warming is Real, Manmade In ROUND 1 my opponent cites an impressive but brief list of "experts" that claim global warming is either not real or isn't human facilitated. Here he's using the fallacy of appeal to authority to sell us his position, particularly since he's not posting any solid data (only assertions) to back up his claims. How can I possibly defend myself against his impressive (but brief) list of experts? Simple. By posting an even larger list of climate scientists and climate experts that hold the opposing view. Of course if I did only this I would be commiting the same fallacy. So I must also provide data and solid evidence to demostrate that global warming is both authentic and manmade. My opponent posted a seemingly impressive list of "experts" to show that there are scientists and capable professionals that oppose the popular view on global warming and climate change. (Some of those "experts" he cites have no qualifications in climatology and meteorology.) So how many authentic climate scientists (the ones that actually do research on this subject) believe in anthropogenic (manmade) global warming? According to the surveys and studies conducted to answer this, virtually all of them do [2][3][4]! The truth is the experts my opponent cites belong to a tiny but vocal minority (the ones that actually do research in this field, I mean). A study published in 2013 that quantified the scientific concensus on manmade global warming in scientific literature found that an overwhelming 97% of all scientific research studies that investigated the issue in some way agreed with or confirmed anthropogenic global warming [2][3]. The authors that conducted the study meticulously sifted through 12,000 research journals published over the span of decades to reach their findings [2][3]. An independent study published the same year found that 2259 peer-reviewed climate articles authored by 9136 scientists agreed with manmade global warming; only one author out of all the climate articles reviewed in that study rejected anthropogenic global warming [4]. And the world's foremost authorities on climate change--like the UN's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS), and the Japanese Metereological Agency, to name a few--all insist that global warming is real and manmade [5][6][7]. The UN's International Panel on Climate Change is by far the world's leading authority on climate change; made up of 195 member nations and consisting of 900 contributing scientists that investigate and report on the impact of a warming Earth, the panel is now 95% certain that global temperatures are rising and that humans are at fault [8][5]. Irrefutable Evidence that Global Warming is Authentic and that Humans are to Blame There is a plethora of unassailable evidence to show that global warming is real. Graphic data provided by the IPCC in one of its climate reports shows that most of the Earth's surface experienced an increase in temperature between 0.2 and 1.0 degree celsius between 1970 and 2004 (some places experienced a greater temperature increase; few places saw a temperature decrease): North America in particular has seen a dramatic increase in temperature (about 1 degree celsius) between 1955 to 2005, as depicted here (with some locations observing a more severe increase): To affirm the IPCC's data on the global temperature trend, data from the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (NASA GISS) shows that with comparison to the base year 1945 (taken as the surface temperature average), temperatures have been increasing since 1910, and have been increasing more rapidly over the last 3 decades (see graph directly below) [1]. This data is consistent with other global temperature records provided by the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the Japanese Metereological Agency and the Met Office Hadley Center [1]. Since the base year 1945, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 0.56 degrees celsius; since 1910, the Earth's average surface temperature has risen by 1.02 degrees celsius [1]. NASA shows that 2013 was the 7th warmest year on record, with the years 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2010 only being hotter--and the hottest years being 2010, 2005, 2007 (in that order) [1]. Data shows no reversal in the Earth's average temperature change, toward the 1945 base year average. The Japanese Metereological Agency shows global warming data almost identical to NASA's: The NASA website has a lengthy page devoted entirely to the evidence for anthropogenic global warming [1]. Like the IPCC and the Japanese Metereological Agency, the NASA website asserts that global warming is a real phenomenon impacting the globe. And what evidence is there of this? A lot. Satellite data shows that 2012 had the lowest quantity of Artic Sea Ice on record--a shocking 3.62 million square kilometers, or less than 50% of the quantity recorded in 1980 (see graph immediately below) [1]! Since 2012, some of that Artic Sea Ice has returned, but year-to-year oscillation is to be expected. NASA's Grace satellites "show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing more than 24 cubic miles of ice per year since 2002" (see graph directly below) [1]. And satellite sea level measurements show oceanic sea levels rising rapidly--with the trend accelerating in the last two decades. Data from NASA missions Jason-1, Jason-2/OSTM shows oceanic sea levels rising on average 3.16 mm per year from 1993 to 2013; this is nearly twice the oceanic sea level increase from 1870 to 2000 (see graph immediately below) [1]. NASA points out that increasing sea levels is caused by two factors: "the added water coming from the melting of land ice, and the expansion of sea water as [the Earth] warms" [5]. As you can see, NASA takes the issue of global warming seriously, and the impacting effects of disappearing land and Artic Ice and rising sea levels refute the notion that global warming is only a metropolitan heat Island phenomena--one of the arguments that my opponent makes in ROUND 1. As data provided by the UN's IPCC, the Japanese Metereological Agency and NASA confirm, global surface temperatures are indeed rising. The 10 warmest years on record have occured in the last 16 years. The warmest year ever directly recorded was 2010--just four years ago [1]. The effects of global warming continue to be felt and show no sign of halting. Sea levels are rising, coastal land is disappearing, polar sea ice is vanishing, land ice is melting. And the greenhouse gas with the most radiative impact in the atmosphere--CO2--continues to be churned out at crippling levels [1]. Year after year the concentration only increases and the Earth gets hotter [1]. In ROUND 1, my opponent falsely claims that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are caused by global warming--that they do not contribute to it. These are his exact words: "Rising CO2 levels are a result of global warming, not a cause of it." But here he's being blatantly dishonest. It's a well-established scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas; its heat-trapping effects have been studied in laboratories throughout the world [9]. With the boom of the industrial revolution, which continues to expand into and dominate new countries on a yearly basis, human-induced global warming--through such actions as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation--has led to an unprecendented increase in CO2 concentrations. Never in the last 400,000 years has the CO2 concentration been quite so high, as the graph below provided by NASA indicates [1]. This is something I will go over in the next ROUND. [1] (http://climate.nasa.gov...) [2] (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) [3] (http://iopscience.iop.org...) [4] (http://www.policymic.com...) [5] (https://uk.news.yahoo.com...) [6] (http://www.giss.nasa.gov...) [7] (http://www.data.kishou.go.jp...) [8] (http://ipcc.ch...) [9] (http://en.wikipedia.org...)

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real-and-is-Manmade/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.37

    climate: 8.46

    premises: 7.23 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.51)

    sourceText: 1.23 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.07)

    change: 3.11

    premises: 2.74 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.06)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.98)

    real: 10.80

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.52 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.96)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.84)
• PRO

  Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real

  Ok well if you really want to start this. 1. "There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man." You must not read a lot! There are a MILLION scientific facts about global warming. 2. "Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012." There, right there, you literally just proved my point that global warming is real. Arctic ice has been up to 50% when it should be up to 100%, but there, it's not. 3. Climate models may have been wrong over and over, but they have also been right over and over. Nothing you have said has disproved the giant hole in the ozone above the arctic. 4. "Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong" What predictions! There's been A LOT of predictions, some wrong, some right! Oh right, this "Sorry, I couldn't hear what you were saying. I think you were saying something about how climate change exists" Yeah, you probably couldn't hear what I was saying, because you didn't disprove anything!

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real/11/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.36

    climate: 8.14

    premises: 6.92 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 3.13

    premises: 2.77 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.97)

    real: 11.10

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    premises: 2.81 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.07)

    sourceText: 0.34 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)
• PRO

  That was part typo and part stupid mistake. ... 3....

  Show full argument

  The American government should take an active role in stopping climate change

  Thank you for your response! "Before I get into my opening statement I need to already correct a statement made by my opponent." I certainly hope that you read my source #2 (relisted here for your convenience as source [1]). That very clearly spelled out what scientists know. The burden of proof therefore lies upon you to disprove those facts laid out by the EPA. "This is exactly what has happened with global warming. People made statements that humans are to blame and then when questioned about such things they comment that the other side has no proof that it isn't true." I bring you, again, to the EPA site that I sourced. "So before we begin talking about regulations we must understand 1) there is no clear proof that global warming has started or continues due to humans and 2) the burden of proof is with the accuser and has yet to be shown beyond a reasonable doubt." I have addressed both these claims. "I need to comment and request that we not use such false statements as fact until clearly proven, which is not the case currently." I totally agree. Luckily I proved it. "For starters, in 2009, NASA has proven that we had the fastest growth of ice production in the Arctic" Check your link. I find it completely unnecessary to address this argument, but I will just for fun. August of 2008, as of when this article was written, was the month that saw the fastest loss of Arctic ice in recorded history [2]. "Until that point is more proven, we cannot advice to regulations on an unproven fact." That is an argument that I've never understood. If there is any speculation at all that humans are a major cause of global warming, shouldn't we stay on the safe side? If it turns out it wasn't caused by humans, we won't really be affected (other than maybe being a little smarter, healthier and happier), and if it is caused by humans, well, we would have saved the planet. On the other hand, if you choose not to protect the environment, if you're right then nothing will happen, but if you're wrong then you will have allowed something horrible to happen that was largely or completely preventable. We only have one planet, so we should respect it. "I will continue with other points brought up by my opponent as he talks about regulation of "3 million people". My guess is that he is talking about American People and also that he meant to type a number closer to 305 million." I apologize. That was part typo and part stupid mistake. I often argue this for Oregon, which does have approximately 3 million people. In any case, I meant to say 300 million, and that only makes my point stronger. "If that is the case then yes I agree it would be hard to have 305 million people all change the way they live for something which they don't know to be a reality, but I do not agree that government regulation on their private lives is acceptable." Time out. I never said the government should regulate their private life. The government can't do that. The reforms which I proposed were all corporate and governmental. Through availability and convenience, the people will naturally change what they do. "Couldn't these people simply pay the extra fee and continue their way of life as they currently are?" Obviously they won't completely go away, I'm not an idealist. But I can guarantee you that their use will diminish very substantially. If you have to pay for every single bag you get from the grocery store, obviously people will be much more inclined to reduce and reuse. I don't think anybody could truthfully deny that. "So if extra taxes are not the correct answer, what is? Should the government have the right to enter everyone's home and remove items they feel are not environmentally friendly?" Taxes are the right answer. Even if they weren't, it would probably increase recycling substantially if all states had deposits on their bottled and canned beverages (I have gotten quite a bit of money returning cans and bottles). But taxing would work. And your "idea," well, see the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. "When something so unproven and unclear is being discussed, I find it quite naive to already discuss regulations on the American public without proof of a problem." See my argument about taking initiative. "Arctic Ice has actually increased about 43% from 1980 to 2009 (http://nsidc.org......) and I am strongly against regulating the American public on a fallacy." First of all, that link shows Antarctic ice. Arctic ice has decreased. Also, I really don't know what to say to those statistics, other than the fact that 2009 was an El Nino year, which affects different parts of the world differently. In the case of Antarctica, it actually cools it down a bit. Now, here is where your logical fallacy comes into place. El Nino events are caused by the heating of the East Pacific. We have seen more El Nino years than ever recently, and the only explanation for that is climate change (and that is exactly why I don't call it global warming, even though the mean temperature had steadily increased [3]). The fact is, you have very little evidence rejecting climate change, yet there is as plethora of evidence supporting it [Every single source I posted]. If you don't believe me, ask Mohammed Nasheed, the president of the Maldives, who has to handle a very unique situation. See, the country that he leads is very literally in danger of disappearing to rising sea levels [5]. "In addition to this, while it is argued that Americans are causing more of this problem than most, it is agreed that they are still a small percentage in relation to the rest of the whole world." Not per capita. Yes, the whole world needs to change, but America is grossly overstepping its bounds, so it is high time that we lead the rest of the world in changing what we do. "So why should America be punished if the rest of the globe is not?" You seem very set in the idea that we're being "punished." It is not in any way a punishment to lead our country in doing the right thing. "And I would also request my opponent to cease with his scare tactics such as "how it (global warming) will kill us"." You may call them scare tactics, but, as Mohammed Nasheed or any Maldivian will tell you, unless people realize the full scope and potential of the issue, people will die. There will be very real devastating effects of climate change. You may write them off as scare tactics, but I am simply stating very blunt facts in a very blunt way, and I feel that that is warranted. I could mention that warmer oceans make more (and stronger) hurricanes and other extreme weather events [6], but I'm not going to because those are "scare tactics." I am eagerly awaiting your response! 1. http://www.epa.gov... 2. http://www.treehugger.com... (look familiar?) 3. http://www.stormfax.com... 4. http://www.newscientist.com... 5. http://news.bbc.co.uk... 6. http://www.epa.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-American-government-should-take-an-active-role-in-stopping-climate-change/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.36

    climate: 11.85

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.96 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.10)

    change: 9.23

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 3.10 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.20)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.10)

    real: 1.28

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.75)
• PRO

  2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change...

  Show full argument

  ManBearPig is real.

  Round two arguments Picture of consensus studies. [1] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [1] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [3] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [4] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [5] Human fingerprint picture. [6] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. Sources. 1. https://skepticalscience.com... 2. http://www.climatecentral.org... 3. https://www.epa.gov... 4. https://skepticalscience.com... 5. https://skepticalscience.com... 6. https://skepticalscience.com...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/ManBearPig-is-real./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.26

    climate: 8.51

    premises: 7.48 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 1.03 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.73)

    change: 4.34

    premises: 4.02 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.56)

    sourceText: 0.32 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.73)

    real: 9.40

    conclusion: 9.05 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.27)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.89)
• PRO

  Tuscon Citizen. ... September 30th, 2010: "The alleged...

  Show full argument

  Reduced emissions from RES may have no impact on climate change

  Jonathan DuHamel. "National Renewable Energy Standard Will Mean Higher Electricity Bills." Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES Tuscon Citizen. September 30th, 2010: "The alleged rationale for RES is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thereby forestall global warming (now “climate disruption”) although there is no credible evidence that reduced emissions will have a measurable effect on climate."

  • http://www.debatepedia.org/en/index.php/Debate:_US_National_Renewable_Energy_Standard
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.24

    climate: 15.97

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 8.14 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.70)

    sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)

    change: 6.09

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.89)
• PRO

  Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down...

  Show full argument

  Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

  WE ARE Smart and there are tons of great technology to help us. Fusion power, hydroponic farming, helium 3, high temp gas reactors, etc can solve a lot of the problems with climate change and limited resources BUT most/majority of those are YEARS, some decades, away from being a viable and widespread tech with enough influence to balance climate change and environmental collapse that at best we only have 15-20 years if we keep running as business as usual and maybe 30-35 running under Paris Agreement and the sustainable energies and policies we got now. IF world governments poured the BILLIONS and BILLION of dollars they spend on warfare, fossil fuel production/subsidies/research, pork barrel projects, ect AND REPEALED LAWS AND POLICIES that kept pouring those billions and billions into those expenditures .... THEN maybe MAYBE those technologies would have a chance of being developed so they can save the environment and our place in it. But since the likelihood of BOTH or even ONE of those things happening is practically nil ( shrug) Oil, chemical, GMO, car maufactuers, big agriculture, ect ( businesses and companies that benefit from the pollution/chemical/pesticided and general all bad spewing nonsense),status quo have MILLIONS AND BILLIONS of dollars to lobby and bribe our politicians with cushy high paying jobs for their families, friends, and them when they retire. These great technology will never be fully realized to their potential as long as they are in power and/or companies hold power. To the case in point desalination on such a large scale to produce drinking water for a large and growing population would eventually destabilized the salt content of the oceans and ruin swaths of ecosystems that we depend on for food. Also increasing the amount of freshwater into the water cycle would cause dramatic climate change from the reduction of large-scale mixing of water " thermohaline circulation " throughout the oceans. A larger layer of fresh water then current level ( 3% fee and not locked in ice) would slow or prevent normal thermohaline mixing and would affect the currents offshore from Greenland and Newfoundland. The oceans have a delicate balance of dense salt water and lighter fresh water flowing through its currents, that the earth weather and ocean fish and animals depend on. Worldwide thermohaline circulation has abruptly shut down and recovered in the past, causing climate to flip-flop from warm to cold to back again. If such an event happened today, there could be crop failures in Canada, England, and northern Europe. And I'm not advocating TERMINATING birthrate - more maintaining a balance with the available resources at this time. Even with the best technology at current disposal an acre of land can only sustainable support a family of four at normal usage of utilities and food for a year, maybe 6 if being highly efficient. Now if your want to bring in tons of chemicals, hormones, pesticides ( all advances in technology ), run up a huge electricity bill ( burning tons of oil/coal), waste a lot of water, and cram animals together like big INDUSTRIAL farms do, THEN you could do maybe 20-30 people an acre. But your creating more waste and pollution to feed THE MORE PEOPLE. There no getting around that basic fact. MORE PEOPLE = MORE NEEDS = MORE DRAIN ON VIABLE LIMITED RESOURCES. My personal policies for mentioned were mostly end all last ditch efforts that if we push technology research, world wide affordable commercialized, and repeal hindering laws and policies, HOPEFULLY we would not need to implement. As I said I understand majority of them fly in the face of most religious teaching ( I have a opinion that the "to the be fruitful and multiply" tenet in most religions is a power play using greater numbers in order to overcome other religions but I digress lol ) So in the best case scenario a sustainable energy and technology push , curbing consumer habits, and these measure would fit more comfortably perhaps ? 1) Contraceptions are free and widely available 2) Sex education is mandatory for middle school and high school graduation unless the school is private and/or has a religious charter ( if the shame of sexuality is removed people r more likely to use contraceptions : if kids know what is going on with their bodies during puberty and the real consequences of a sexual encounter ( diseases, pregnancy and its hardships) they r more likely not to "try it out " out of curiosity : also with #4 consequence, less likely to take risk and parents more likely to rein them in check least the parents have to pay the fine and jail time themselves also ) 3) Marriage before the age of 25 is illegal and comes with a heavy fine ( the human brain is not fully developed till 20-25 so we are poor equipt to map out long term consequences such as a pregnancy and its financial burdens,physical toll with you having to work and/or go to school as well as take care of a baby, ect ect : the age 25 also gives ample time to complete of near complete college - children of a college educated parent benefit greatly. Higher levels of parent educational attainment are strongly associated with positive outcomes for children in many areas, including school readiness, educational achievement, incidence of low birthweight, health-related behaviors including smoking and binge drinking, and pro-social activities such as volunteering. They are also likely to have access to greater material, human, and social resources through their parents higher wealth from better paying jobs that they got cause of their higher education. 4) Sexual activity and/or pregnancy outside of marriage exempting surrogacy is illegal and heavy fined and can be charged as criminal rap ( Infidelity is seen as a sin by most religions and there are many government and religious laws against it though they are very rarely in force in the US and rarely against a man in a lot of foreign countries ( DBL standards ) 21 states have adultery laws, most consider it a misdemeanor (in Maryland you pay a $10 fine) a few, it is a felony ( in Massachusetts it can get you 3 years in jail) and adults having an affair routinly becomes so swept up in personal needs and those of the outside partner that that parent becomes incapable of focusing on the child's needs, both emotionally, mentally, and physically, and its effects. Children also have an acute awareness of a parents behavior even when very young ( it's biological human evolution trait to create family bonds since a baby/child is helpless and needs protection for years) and even if the truth is hidden and can lead to feeling of rejections, anxiousness, defiance, and lead to bad behaviors and majority to affairs themselves perpetuating the cycle ) Religions may have a problem with the contraceptions and the sex education but if it goes against their religious belief THEY DONT HAVE TO USE THEM or ATTEND THE CLASSES. They can't FORCE their beliefs on other and PREVENT others from getting them or attending class. And Im sure they CAN AGREE to the " no sex before marriage" .... "Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It"s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does." Since clean technology and efficient use of space is not widespread nor affordable to everyone at this time due to the formentioned causes, WE ARE PRODUCING HARMFUL ENERGY AND WASTING SPACE therefor we are causing pollution lol check out these links http://cgge.aag.org... It is a paper of formulas and theories on population and environmental impact http://www.childtrends.org... this deals with children of educated parents research http://www.nytimes.com... psychological effects of affairs on the offending parents child

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Population-control-MUST-be-part-of-climate-change-sustainable-policies/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.94

    climate: 12.49

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 4.70 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 1.16 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.95)

    change: 8.23

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 2.13 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.83)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.95)

    real: 1.22

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.26 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.39)
• PRO

  Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than...

  Show full argument

  The world should focus on climate change than on global economy!

  Most of people seems to focus on the global economy than on climate change.note am a new debator

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-world-should-focus-on-climate-change-than-on-global-economy/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.93

    climate: 15.56

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 7.68 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.60)

    sourceText: 1.24 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 6.12

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.05)
• PRO

  Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely...

  Show full argument

  Reserved for FollowerofChrist: Climate change is real and a massive threat to humanity.

  Maurice You still haven't proved that he's a criminal, and all I have is that he slapped his name on a few things. Not the first instigator, not by a long shot. And even if he was a criminal, it doesn't disprove the science. Isaac Newton had people killed(he was in charge of killing counterfeiters), should we discredit all of his findings? This is nothing but an ad hominem. 2. Mauna Loa This point, apart from being extremely childish, is basically appeal to the stone. Also, see: https://skepticalscience.com...; 3. Sea levels. This is appeal to authority to the max, and you didn't even back up the authority that you gave him. And you still have clearly not even clicked on my sources. (#4 doesn't exist for some reason) 5. Appeal to authority. Jesus christ, I shouldn't have to link this to explain, but here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org...; Nota bene: when your argument begins with "Drrrrr????" and ends with "lol," you should probably rethink it. Aaaand then it's topped off with a juicy false equivalency. NOAA and IPCC are groups, do have peer review, and use the scientific process. Individuals are not subject to this. CONCLUSION I strongly urge a vote for affirmative(pro), as my opponent has not provided any real evidence, nor countered my own points, his arguments devolving into personal attacks, proof by assertion, and childish rhetoric.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Reserved-for-FollowerofChrist-Climate-change-is-real-and-a-massive-threat-to-humanity./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.85

    climate: 7.89

    conclusion: 6.64 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.11)

    change: 6.13

    conclusion: 5.74 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.73)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.09)

    real: 7.83

    conclusion: 5.19 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.73)

    premises: 2.33 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.89)

    sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)
• PRO

  You know what 1850 was? ... I will leave you to suppose...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is real, get over it.

  "You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring." Temperatures after ice-ages will rise, but they do not normally rise by almost a degree in 150 years! It is an incredible rate of change (on a global scale) and points to something much more servere than 'only a little temperature rise'. "The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS)" I've got no idea what GISS is, but i'm not sure there entirely accurate. The British Antarctic Survey has found the antarctic peninsula to be "one of the fastest warming parts of the planet". http://www.antarctica.ac.uk... "Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven." The temperature is rising...this is the only way to begin a shift in the way the climate works. I will leave you to suppose that, hyperthetically, you had to imagine a world where climate change was happening... what would you look for? A sudden rise of temperatures? Yearly 'hottest year ever' awards? Polar ice caps beginning to melt? Hmm the reality isnt that far away is it.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-real-get-over-it./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 21.66

    climate: 9.58

    premises: 8.36 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.74)

    sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 4.58

    premises: 4.20 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)

    real: 7.50

    conclusion: 7.20 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)