• PRO

    With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon,...

    Climate Change is a real issue

    The War of 1812 was a conflict fought between the United States and its allies, And the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and its allies. It began when the United States declared war in June 1812, And ended mostly in the situation as it existed before the war when a peace treaty agreed to earlier was ratified by the United States in February 1815. Historians in Britain often see it as a minor theatre of the Napoleonic Wars, While historians in North America see it as a war in its own right; it can be considered part of the American Indian Wars and Sixty Years' War. From the outbreak of war with Napoleonic France in 1803, Britain had enforced a naval blockade to choke off neutral trade to France, Which the United States contested as illegal under international law; to man the blockade, Britain pressed merchant sailors into the Royal Navy, Including Americans. American sentiment grew increasingly hostile toward Britain due to incidents such as the 1807 Chesapeake"Leopard affair, And the British were outraged by the 1811 Little Belt affair. [10] Britain supplied arms to Native Americans, Who raided European-American settlers on the American frontier, Hindering the expansion of the United States and provoking resentment. [11] Although the debate on whether the desire to annex some or all of British North America (Canada) contributed to the American decision to go to war, The reasoning for invasion was mainly strategical. [12] President James Madison signed into law the declaration of war after heavy pressure from the War Hawks in the United States Congress. [13] Federalist opposition to the War of 1812 in the United States affected its prosecution, Especially in New England, Where it was referred to as "Mr. Madison's War". With most of its army in Europe fighting Napoleon, Britain adopted a defensive strategy, With offensive operations initially limited to the border and the western frontier, With help from its Native American allies. American military defeats at the Siege of Detroit and the Battle of Queenston Heights thwarted attempts to seize Upper Canada, Improving British morale. American attempts to invade Lower Canada and capture Montreal also failed. [14] In 1813, The United States won the Battle of Lake Erie, Gaining control of the lake and defeating Tecumseh's Confederacy at the Battle of the Thames, Thereby defeating Britain's largest Native American ally, A primary war goal. The Americans made a final attempt to invade Canada, But the Battle of Lundy's Lane during the summer of 1814 was fought to a draw. At sea, The powerful Royal Navy blockaded American ports, Cutting off trade[15] and allowing the British to raid the coast at will. In 1814, The British burned Washington, But the Americans later repulsed British attempts to invade New York and Maryland, Ending invasions from Canada into the northern and mid-Atlantic states. In early 1815, After a peace treaty had been signed, But before this news had reached the Americas, The United States defeated the British Army near New Orleans, Louisiana. [16] Fighting also took place in West Florida, Where a two-day battle for the city of Pensacola ended in Spanish surrender. [17] In Britain, There was mounting opposition to wartime taxation and merchants lobbied for the resumption of trade with the United States. With the abdication of Napoleon, Britain's war with France ended and Britain stopped impressment generally. This made moot the issue of American sailor impressment and removed one of the original causes of the war. The British then increased the strength of their blockade of the United States coast which had a crippling effect on the American economy. [15][18] Peace negotiations began in August 1814 and the Treaty of Ghent was signed on 24 December 1814. The treaty was unanimously ratified by the United States Senate on 17 February 1815, Ending the war with no boundary changes[19][20] except for the disposition of some islands in Passamaquoddy Bay, An issue that was resolved after the war. [21] A popular view is that "[e]verybody's happy with the outcome of the war. Americans are happy because they think they won, The Canadians are happy because they know they won and avoided being swallowed up by the United States, And the British are happiest because they've forgotten all about it";[22] although indigenous nations are generally seen among historians as the real losers. News of the peace finally reached the United States in February 1815, About the same time as news of the victory at New Orleans;[23] Americans triumphantly celebrated the restoration of their national honour, Leading to the collapse of anti-war sentiment and the beginning of the Era of Good Feelings, A period of national unity. [24] While Britain quickly forgot about the war, Nationalistic mythology around it took hold in both the United States and Upper Canada. Both the restoration of honour and the "Second War of Independence" are important themes in American historiography and are considered important results by historians. [25][26][27] The failure of the invasion of British Canada advanced the evolving concept of Canadian identity and of Canada as a distinct region that would continue to evolve into a nation.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Change-is-a-real-issue/2/
  • CON

    I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.

    Climate Change Is Not an Imminent Danger

    I accept, and wish the best of luck to my opponent.

  • PRO

    Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if...

    climate change is fake

    While you do have a point, it doesn't make sense. The American people tend to turn a blind eye to the topics that they are not interested. If the warming is not happening, how do you explain the strange temperature jumps that have occurred over the past few years? Also, why would the icebergs and polar caps be melting if there was no cause? As I have said, the American people won't focus on something if it isn't interesting or food. So the media spotlight drifted off to Oak Island and the Alaskan Gold Rush TV shows. The people don't care about it, so they don't pay attention. There's also something for you to think on. What happens to the chemicals that are emitted when gasoline and fuel burn? What happens when an oil rig goes down in flames, releasing hundreds of gallons of chemicals into the oceans? Coca-Cola can remove the rust of your car's bumper, what happens to all of those fumes? It's been proven that breathing in the burning chemicals poisons you, so where do the chemical fumes go?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/climate-change-is-fake/1/
  • PRO

    Can you prove that they are wrong? ... No, since they...

    The big lie of climate change

    Can you prove that they are wrong? No, since they are already happening right now over in Africa where it is hard for africans to make a living off the land and deserts across the world are already expanding, temperatures fall drastically over a long period of time in Winter and rise drastically over a long period of time in the summer. Have you looked at this year and saw that is was still 80 degrees in March and April?

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    I can prove it, just wait a 100 years. ... And I can...

    The big lie of climate change

    I can prove it, just wait a 100 years. And I can prove god: Kill yourself and see if you go in front of god in the after-life.

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • PRO

    Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of...

    The big lie of climate change

    If the world rises by: (in F) 1.8 degrees; stronger hurricanes, flooding in Northern Europe. (around Netherlands) 3.6 degrees; Shanghai will be submerged, Heat waves across Europe, Glaciers feeding India's rivers melt causing flooding, Plants become heat stressed, emitting CO^2 rather than storing it causing the Global warming process to speed up, forest fires, drying riverbeds 5.4 degrees; The Amazon Rain Forest, Also called the lungs of the world since it produces 10% of the world's oxygen, is killed off by a combination of of drought and fire. It demise release huge amounts of CO^2 into the atmosphere. Elsewher, billions starve as crop yields dwindle. Swathes of Africa, India, and China are now wastelands. Around 80% of the Aric Sea ice has melted and would raise global sea levels up by 84 feet. Submerging many low land countries like Bangledesh. 7.2 degrees; sea levels rise 3 feet year causing Britain to be a bunch of small islands. Florida and many other parts of the U.S. is submerged under water. Dessertification causes people in the Mediterranean to abandoned. In northern latitudes, the melting of permafrost increases raises sea levels yet furthur. 9.0 degrees; All rain forests are all now deserts and all ice has been melted causing sea levels to be more than 197 ft than it is now. Migrant Populations spread across the world in search of food 10.8 degrees; As oceans get warmer they can't support marine life, Stagnant seas release hydrogen sulfide that poisons the land. If flammable methane is ignited (by like lightning), huge firballs sweep across the land, causing more loss of life. Source: Talk Nerdy To Me copyright 2013 DK

    • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-big-lie-of-climate-change/1/
  • CON

    Citing that there was a point in history where things...

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

    Warming is beneficial Whether warming is beneficial or not is irrelevant. The issue of Global Climate Change (here-in referred to as "GCC") is not simply warming, it is acceleration of warming trends within a short period of time. At one point in Earth's history there were crocodiles in Canada, and at one point the equator was winterous. Whether either of these conditions is "beneficial" is not at issue here; the issue is the acceleration of warming spurred by the release of large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere. "Earth has probably never warmed as fast as in the past 30 years - a period when natural influences on global temperatures, such as solar cycles and volcanoes should have cooled us down." [http://www.newscientist.com...] During Earth's history, the atmospheric gases present were a direct result of the organisms in the biosphere. These organisms work over extremely long time-periods. Long periods allow for evolution to adjust accordingly to change. Humans obviously are able to use technology to effect rapid change that biodiversity is unable to adapt to. 1a. plants will thrive "For instance, while higher temperatures will boost plant growth in cooler regions, in the tropics they may actually impede growth. A two-decade study of rainforest plots in Panama and Malaysia recently concluded that local temperature rises of more than 1ºC have reduced tree growth by 50 per cent." [http://www.newscientist.com...] Just because plants like C02 doesn't mean they are going to thrive when all is considered. Pro states: "Because plants evolved in conditions of high CO2, they are now relatively starved." I find this very hard to believe. Of all the forests and fields of the world that are lush with vegetation, Pro would have us believe that they are actually starving for C02. Sure, we feed certain plants extra C02 in greenhouses, we keep them extra warm and humid, and we pump excess nutrients into their roots - that doesn't mean all of Earth's plants are too cold, undernourished, dry, and C02 starved. And last I checked, everything In nature is evolved perfectly into its surroundings. Citing that there was a point in history where things were different doesn't meant that things stopped evolving back then. 2. Climate Predictions are unreliable Pro states: "many now predict we are in for two or three decades of cooling" Perhaps Pro doesn't get out of the house much. We are experiencing one of the most bizarre and extreme summer heat waves on record, with thousands of records being broken and re-broken as we speak. This page outlines many of them, which are far too numerous for me to include in an 8,000 character post: [http://www.washingtonpost.com...] Pro gives sources saying that the Earth is cooling over the last ten years. At best, he's picked a small fluctuation at a convenient interval to make his assertation. At worst, he's picked a completely biased website that doesn't reflect the state of modern science at all. It appears that both of these assumptions are correct. His site claims it's getting its information from NASA, but this is what NASA has to say (notice my link is actually NASA): http://www.giss.nasa.gov... I'll let the concluding paragraph do the talking: "If we follow a 'business-as-usual' course, Hansen predicts, then at the end of the twenty-first century we will find a planet that is 2-3°C warmer than today, which is a temperature Earth hasn't experienced since the middle Pliocene Epoch about three million years ago, when sea level was roughly 25 meters higher than it is today." 25 meters > 9 inches. Perhaps the land-mass of the Earth was different back then, but I doubt that could account for the entire discrepency between the numbers NASA gave us versus Pro's claim. 3. Fossil fuel restrictions in the US will have little effect. Just because China and the developing world are going to lag behind us in cutting fossil fuel usage doesn't mean we should give up the effort. In fact, the reason why China et al. do not put any real attempts into cutting C02 is because they will be damned if they are going to cut emissions while we refrain. People in other countries have a different perspective than we do; they see America as the richest, most powerful country in the world. They see us, with 5% of the population, creating 40% of the world's waste [http://www.recycling-revolution.com...]. So it is more responsible to assert that we are one of the top-producers of C02, instead of saying "well China is 5% ahead of us," isn't it? I mean, this is similar logic to a mis-behaving child who is trashing the living room and insists on continuing simply because another sibling is slightly ahead in total damage. If the U.S. continues to decrease its C02 emissions, then China et al. will be accentuated more as the true roots of the problem. If we refrain from cutting emissions, then they will continue to hide behind our lack of effort and no progress will be made because China also has a conservative element that will use our inaction to strengthen their own denial of culpability. 4. Too expensive I reject Pro's numbers based on the fact that the resolution merely states that GCC should be a "major factor" in our energy policy. It doesn't say that we need to tear down every power plant overnight. The spirit of this debate is whether or not GCC is a serious consideration; we don't have the time or space to debate specific plans of action regarding how to address the problem. It is sufficient for me to assert that GCC should significantly affect our policymaking (based on whether or not ut is bunk science), not that it necessarily must override every economic decision we have. I have only one contention that I would like addressed: 5. The world's scientific community agrees that GCC is real and is imminently dangerous The national scientific academies from all these countries have not only acknowledged GCC as a real threat, but have explicitly urged that all countries reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to combat it: Australia Belgium Brazil Cameroon Royal Society of Canada the Caribbean China France Ghana Germany Indonesia Ireland Italy India Japan Kenya Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nigeria New Zealand Russia Senegal South Africa Sudan Sweden Tanzania Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Zambia Zimbabwe For a complete list of the scientific institutions that support GCC theory reference this page: [http://en.wikipedia.org...] There are too many to count reliably, but I saw about 70 on the list. I'm sure Pro will point out that the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation have NOT signed on, but I'm hoping that these notable absences will not distract too much. The link goes on to inform: "Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change. Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include opinions that the earth has not warmed, or that warming is attributable to causes other than increasing greenhouse gases." So, after 30+ of the world's top national scientific academies and 70+ of the world's foremost scientific institutions formally endorsed GCC as a real, anthropologically-induced threat, Pro's concerns occupy nothing more than a footnote of rogue scientists, as well as a handfull of purely politically-motivated right-wing institutions who put out data with the sole purpose of creating a doubt in the public eye that GCC is real enough to worry about, while 99% of the scientists involved have no doubts whatsoever that it is real.

  • CON

    My opponent has been a no-show, probably due to being...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    My opponent has been a no-show, probably due to being called out for his plagiarism. And now, I leave you with a YouTube video to watch, mostly because I want to test this new debate.org feature. http://www.youtube.com...

  • PRO

    Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    Not until the spread of the Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, has man possessed the ability to adversely alter, on a global scale, the geologic and climatic cycles that have existed for millennia. Planet earth, which man calls home, is approximately 5 billion years old. The science of paleontology tells us that man is a relative new comer to the planet. Modern man did not arrive on the scene until approximately 10,000 to 15,000 years ago. Developments in hunting, agriculture, literacy, and the sciences, have allowed man to thrive and inhabit nearly every corner of the planet. However, this success has not been good for the earth. The world's population has recently surpassed 6 billion and the developed countries community models and lifestyles are not sustainable. Due to rapid, unrestrained growth, housing, shopping, and entertainment construction has spread across the surface of the planet like an oil slick. We are depleting resources and altering ecosystems at an alarming rate. Only now are we beginning to comprehend the long-term effects of more than a century of environmental ignorance, neglect, and apathy.

  • CON

    How can it be a third wish if I haven’t had a first and...

    Sustainable Development And Climate Change

    Since my opponent has not questioned my argument, it stands. And now, a story: An elderly man was sitting alone on a dark path. He wasn't sure of which direction to go, and he'd forgotten both where he was traveling to...and who he was. He'd sat down for a moment to rest his weary legs, and suddenly looked up to see an elderly woman before him. She grinned toothlessly and with a cackle, spoke: "Now your third wish. What will it be?" "Third wish?" The man was baffled. "How can it be a third wish if I haven’t had a first and second wish?" "You’ve had two wishes already," the hag said, "but your second wish was for me to return everything to the way it was before you had made your first wish. That’s why you remember nothing; because everything is the way it was before you made any wishes." She cackled at the poor man. "So it is that you have one wish left." "All right," he said hesitantly, "I don't believe this, but there's no harm in trying. I wish to know who I am." "Funny," said the old woman as she granted his wish and disappeared forever. "That was your first wish..." -Anonymous