All CO2 emissions should cease immediatley, to save the planet.
Debate Rounds (3)
Completely cutting off CO2 emissions would actually harm the world. Also, the planet itself is not in danger. If there was nothing but CO2 in the atmosphere, there would still be a huge rock floating around the sun at the pace of 365 days, just without a lot, if not all living things. "Saving the planet" is the wrong term to use. The planet isn't going anywhere. The planet is fine... The people are the ones in trouble.
CO2 is destructive to the OZone layer, and hetrotrophes on the planet, there's no doubt. But this rock evolving around the sun will be hear no matter how much CO2 is in the air. The lives on the planet may go away, but the ball going aorund the sun will not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct. S&G - Con. Pro made several grammatical errors which outnumbered Con's. Arguments - Con. Pro failed to present any coherent arguments, and instead simply shared opinions and potential threats while failing to provide any proof for these claims. Con was able to refute every point raised by Pro whereas Pro failed to present any proper counter-arguments to maintain the burden of his position. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.