args

Developed Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

AFF- I want to thank the oppoent for their time Honorable Judges Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change. Definitions First, we offer the CIA World Factbook's definition of "developed countries," which includes just over thirty nations that are generally first-world and feature service-oriented economies. Standard- The standard of today’s debate, or weighing mechanism, should be deontology. Since this topic is about moral obligations and deontology is about the morality of actions and its justification, we believe that the team that adheres to this standard should win this debate. 1. Adaptation Adapting is the correct way to go in the process of mitigating. Since today’s topic is about mitigating the effects of climate change, and not mitigating climate change, as the affirmative team, it is our ground to be able to “adapt” to the effects of climate change. According to epa.gov, some of the effects of climate change are that heavy rainfall or flooding can increase water-borne parasites that are sometimes found in drinking water. These parasites can cause, in severe cases, death. One instance to mitigating the effects of climate change includes vaccinating, which is cheap and extremely effective. According to givewell.org, it costs only $14 to vaccinate a child, and The UNICEF states that 9 million lives are saved from vaccines annually. The impact is clear. It would be better to adapt to the effects of climate change. One of the effects is disease, and if we can save all these people from disease by administering vaccines, for a small price of $14 per child, we should win this debate. 2. Moral Obligation Developed countries have the obligation to fix the mess that they created. After all, it is the developed country’s fault, and they should fix it. The United states is making nearly 5,500 million tonnes CO2 emissions (Guardian). Developed Countries should also have the moral obligation to not contribute to campaigns that kill human beings. For example, terrorism: It is oil money that enables Saudi Arabia [and many other countries] to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury, Stuart Levey, testifying in the Senate noted “Wealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing." - Institute for the Analysis of Global security. Over 12,000 people were killed by terrorist attacks in 2011- according to the National Counter Terrorism Center Judge, what this means is that many patrons of terrorism happen to be oil and gasoline investors. If we buy gasoline, these supporters of terrorism would earn money, and stuff their profits into supporting terrorist groups, leading to deaths inside our own country and other places around the world. But if we switch to green energy, we would significantly decrease the profits of these terrorism supporters, and as a result, save many lives. The Impact is clear. Countries have the moral obligation to solve the problems that they have created, and also to try and save the lives of their own citizens from acts like terrorism, by trying to mitigate the effects of climate change. 3. The Environment Climate Change causes the environment to be affected. All the more reason for countries to mitigate its effects. According to Nasa, Approximately 20-30% of plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceeds 1.5-2.5°C. We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson [PhD in Chemistry, Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility] told the Guardian last month.Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. The Impact is that if the Earth’s temperatures rises just the slightest amount, millions might die! We must mitigate these effects before it is too late. Thanks and please vote for the Aff/Pro

Climate Change is real and caused by humans

Just curious as to see what your argument will be! Looking forward to it. But just to clarify, I'm talking about the rising of global temperatures caused by increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leading to the greenhouse effect. Good luck!

Climate Shift

Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is primarily influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only.

Climate Shift

Resolved: Climate Shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. I will take the pro side. The BOP lies on both sides. First round is acceptance only. Second round is construction only. No new arguments may be made in the final round. No new rebuttals may be made in the final round. I'm looking for someone to legitimately and intellectually debate this subject.