args

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

You may begin, Roy.

Climate change and global warming are both total nonsense and drivel concepts.

I accept this challenge and hope for a fair (source-based) debate.

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

I apoligize, my internet has been on and off for a couple of weeks, and down till now, which means I wasn't able to create an argument this round. I will extend my argument and I hope you will do the same.

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

I once again apoligize for not being able to argue this round due to continous issues with my internet provider (Cox). I want to ask that no one votes in this debate, rather when my issue is resolved I'll challenge Pro to a final argument which can be voted on.

Population control MUST be part of climate change/sustainable policies

The fundamental flaw is that population control is downplaying the real solution: technology and equality, so let’s look at the hypothetical situation about the house that you used earlier. Say you lived in a large house which was heated by an old wood burning stove. It was enough to keep warm but created small amounts of smoke, but it wasn’t in issue then. Eventually, your brother and sister came to live with you in the house. However, the stove did not produce enough heat to warm everyone, so you had another wood burning stove installed. Later, you allow your friend to sleep in the basement because he’s a good guy and helps around the house, even though he’ll need another two stoves. Soon, other family come to live in your house. Now you have an issue, smoke is wafting through the house and irritating everyone’s eyes and the stoves are taking up space. What do you do? Do you kick out your brother and sister, or the other people? One of the inhabitants argues that you should kick out some residents, which would leave them without a home. Many protested this idea. The solution is simple: install heaters. Not only have you saved space by reducing size, they are now more efficient and much more capable of heating up the room, without the smoke. Not only this, but you decide that your friend live upstairs where he saves space and energy and where he can help around the house. Now your residents can stay happy and warm. The solution not only made the house more comfortable, it saved space, and money. Also, the friend was now in a better situation making all the residents equal and able to contribute. That is the power of technology. Now I could address every single contention,that would take time and too much words. Instead, you mention technology in your argument, saying: “Sure we are adaptable enough that we could 1) turn to draining the oceans & using desalination to produce freshwater, we could cut up sea and polar ice and melt it for drinkable water, 2) we can cut down more rainforests, clear more land for farming, develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas, 3) we can develop massive skyscraper size carbon and pollution scrubbers to create more oxygen and clean air. BUT WHY SPEND BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS AND DISRUPT A WORKING SYSTEM (that by doing so will cause more problems and require billions more to try and rectify ) THAT PROVIDES OUR NEEDS NATURALLY AND TECHNICALLY FOR NEAR FREE ?” Exactly! We could use desalination to produce water, we could develop better solutions to conserving and creating fresh water. Technology has already allowed us to do such things, and it would solve the issue of dehydration for so many thirsting populations and in arid regions, creating solution that saves lives without polar ice melt. We could develop more tech to farm in deserts and poor soil areas! Not only could this possibly solve the starvation problem for many people, but it could bring prosperity, economy, tourism, and yes, oxygen that could help the atmosphere! We can create (and are) self-sufficient homes and apartments that use renewable energy and blend with environment. Eventually, we as population would save BILLIONS and BILLIONS of DOLLARS by producing ways for more efficient and bountiful farming methods and cleaner environment and improving the lifestyles of BILLIONS of people. But why do this, when you can introduce an authoritarian way to restrict the right of reproduction and in contrast to the religions of BILLIONS of people, many who would resist any legislation to facilitate a large increase of what they consider murder of a innocent babies(Which I would agree with them and multiple scientific studies as well)? Also, you reciprocate many urges that the world is on the verge of overpopulation and a dying planet, yet, you yourself mention that it is a “working system”? AND, you consider contraception methods such as abortion and birth control pills more natural than advancing the human race into a more energy efficient and thriving society? A race terminating its birth rate (which mostly unsuccessful as I will mention in a later argument) is somehow more natural. by the way, “near free” is extremely misleading. Millions of dollars are spent in advertising, passing, and the execution of the bill, much less one that would control birth rates of BILLIONS of people, ie. the funding to create a executive body to enforce it. Basically, the human population is not what causes pollution. It’s the production of harmful energy and the waste of space that does. The human body obviously emit negligible amounts of pollution, and if we create the technology to create efficient energy it would save money in the long-run, as well as allowing us to create even more ways to help the planet, which provides us more money to advance equality and end poverty and thus lend more minds to advance technology, etc.

US Should Engage More With China Concerning Climate Change

Okay, so I know its been a while but I am finally holding a debate. Ill be con and whoever accepts this is pro. This is a policy debate round so aside from your arguments, please bring up a plan of action. So here is the round structure: Con 1- Definitions Pro 1- Plan Con 2- Refute Plan/ bring up arguments Pro 2- Refute Con/Support plan Con 3- Analyze debate, no new arguments Pro 3- Analyze debate, no new arguments Thank you! I hope to have a great debate!

The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

Go ahead and reread that "you can't just invest" in context.

The US needs to do much more to combat climate change

Interesting point. I will assume it as true for the purpose of argument. Wind and Solar are already cheaper. Well, then the only intervention for the government would be stop subsidizing the oil industry (which I am in fully in favor of). With no subsidies, the oil industry crumbles, wind and solar become dominant, and all using the capital of the private sector rather than the government, and no inefficiency derived therefrom! That would be the simplest and cheapest solution, not to mention it would appeal to both right and left!