args

Climate Change is real and caused by humans and can/should be stopped!

I am surprised that such a novice at debate and at fact, yet you have such a large vocabulary. Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that Your arguments seem to fly all over the place, I can only compare it to the videos on "illuminate confirmed" that to be funny try to find connections between pretty much everything and the illuminate. You explained that climate change is not real by explaining evolution isn't real and you explained ozone isn't real by saying the earth isn't more than a couple thousand years old. When you are wrong or made a mistake in your argument instead of admitting it (a mistake about how you formed your argument), you are arrogant and reply with some vulgar word. You seem to believe that nothing can exist without you or the church seeing it, or without someone physically seeing it. This is false, if a tree falls in the forest with no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? YES. If there is a lightning storm, and no one is there to hear the clap of thunder, does it still happen? YES! I refuse to argue with someone that cannot argue against the current subject with any tactic besides somehow changing the subject or by saying you don't see it so it can't be real or by forming something from your imagination or form somewhere you read online (such as your fire example, fire needs oxygen, but it does not take in unlimited amounts, unless the planets atmosphere was for the most part lacking oxygen, fire would not be attracted to leaves as they don't need a new source of oxygen, they are getting there need).

The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

Lack of scientific understanding

The threat of Climate Change is exaggerated

We’ve been here before

Jail climate change deniers.

We could also find out years from now that children aren't harmed in the production of child porn even though the evidence right now is substantial and overwhelming children are being harmed by child porn. Even though that remote possibility exists it does not mean we shouldn't jail child pornographers.

Jail climate change deniers.

We can't in good conscience risk the lives of potentially hundreds of millions of people because of an extremely remote chance the scientific consensus is wrong. You want both sides to be able to debate-- but there is nothing really to debate

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

Thanks opponent for a nice argument. i would like to point out that my opponents are bringing up unreliable evidence like the wikipedia, answers.com, free dictionary, and many others. Since we do not have the reliability of these, sources, you, the Judge, can disregard them. Adapt- Adaptation to climate change is a relatively new concern, but it can call on a rich tradition spanning many decades of practices to reduce disaster risks. [1] is more reliable. This specifically says to reduce. Since mitigation is to reduce, adaptation and mitigation are the same thing. Second, my opponents bring up the moral obligation point If you look at my weighing mechanism, we can see that deontolgy is the moral obligation definition. As the pro, I have the burden of showing the Judge/judges that there is at least one instance where there is a moral obligation. We as the Pro save lives. I gave you several pieces of evidence about how many lives we save, while my opponent gives none. Since we have the moral obligation to save lives, we should win. Again, oil is indirectly funding terrorism, not causing it. Thus we have have the moral obligation to save lives from terrorist, (12,000) whether the people do it, or the government does it. The government has talked about switiching to alternative fuels. already.

Climate Change is man caused

Thank you very much, I thank you for this debate.