args

the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change

Shared sovereignty

the Seychelles should buy territory and relocate due to climate change

Moving is an imperative

Factory Farming is the #1 cause of man-made global climate change

Thanks for responding, I thought you were going to forfeit the round. "This was that the sources of 'Cowspiracy', mainly the FAO report, as well as basically all sources of the 'report', cannot be trusted as they are, in no way, academic or trustworthy. " Con Bare assertion. You call the FAO report both non-academic and untrustworthy with no proof. "the world total, as stated here (http://www.wri.org......... a source which I trust way more)" Con Again you assert wri.org is more trust worthy without proving it. Basically Con is stating that the World resource institute WRI is more reputable than the FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "Free range This term is often found on meats, eggs, and dairy products, but the USDA only regulates use of the term as applied to poultry like chickens and turkeys. That means all beef, lamb, pork products (and so on) labeled as free range aren"t actually regulated by the USDA" "FREE RANGE or FREE ROAMING: Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." usda.gov "No signs of life were outside the buildings, and if it wasn"t for the faint sound of panicking hens from within the metal buildings the place would seem deserted." Jewel Johnson "Pro's sources regarding greenpeace and the amazon rainforest can be disregarded, as they are not linked to factory farming. " Con Based on this evidence I argue that the cattle raised in Brazil and the clearing of Amazon rain forest the qualify as factory farming. Thus the green house gases emitted by the clearing and burning of the Amazon rain forest should be counted as factory farming. The clearing and burning of the Amazon certainly qualify as man made and greepeace made it pretty clear there would be dire environmental consequences for these actions. http://www.onegreenplanet.org... http://www.fsis.usda.gov... http://peacefulprairie.org...

Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

They can do both. Anyway even if we disagree over what kind of government action should be taken that doesn"t matter because both count as radical government action so you"re not even disagreeing with the title of the debate.

Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

yes it does. Correct. What is your point?

The U. S. adopting Cap and Trade will have a significant effect on climate.

>I again thank my respected and esteemed opponent for this debate. >My opponent goes right out and asks whether or not the UN is a part of the US. Obviously it isn't but it is influenced heavily by the US. To update the disagreements: 1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059. 2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work? If yes, then please vote PRO. >My opponent has clearly noticed that "Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050." is separate from the other sub-point "Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change." Apparently, however he has not notice that they are BOTH underneath the larger title "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050." Therefore, they have been grouped together. I would now like to prove why this is true: Separate: unconnected; distinct; unique Together: into or in one gathering, company, mass, place, or body As the Obama website (http://my.barackobama.com...) clearly says, these are both grouped together into one gathering under "Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050" and are not unconnected, distinct, or unique. The above negates my opponent's claims of separation and in fact proves that these two sub-points are together. >My opponent has obviously used the logic of "can't do it here" Do it there." To take his logic one step farther, the Obama plan is global. Because it covers the entire Earth, no matter where these companies go, the Obama plan will metaphorically follow them with its wants to cut emissions around the world. My opponent has said that oil companies pay more taxes than they gain in profits. While this USED to be true, it is no longer. I would like to present figure 2: http://www.taxfoundation.org... According to figure 2, while what my opponent said used to be true, at the moment oil and gas companies DO have more money each year than they started with. Due to this, emission caps on these companies WILL, in fact, work. > So, Disagreements (myself and my opponent): 1. Will Obama's work in the US and UN affect other nations enough to create a 45.8% emissions cut by 2059. YES 2. Will the Obama Cap and Trade plan work? YES >I thank my opponent (last time) for this excellent debate.