The Instigator
Bricheze
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
RNG
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,357 times Debate No: 6160
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

Bricheze

Pro

Anthropogenic Global Warming is enough of a threat to take action against it. I am not certain if it is real; neither side it. But, what I do know is that if we do not take action against it as soon as possible, and it turns out to be real; we will face irreversible side-effects. I will now explain my basic and SIMPLIFIED arguments. I will expand on them as the debate advances.

Green House Gases control the global temperatures. This is what keeps us stable; unlike how it is on the moon.

We are adding to two green house gases: carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. More so carbon dioxide. Making the Carbon levels increase and raising the earths global temperature.

This is called Anthropogenic Global Warming. We can't know for absolute certain that it is really happening--but I and many other people are convinced that we have enough of a certainty to take action against it.

And if we don't and it turns at to be real then we will have an incredible amount of consequences, that include: Environmental, political, and economic collapse. As well as public health being significantly decreased.
RNG

Con

I believe we should not do anything at all right now because we don't even know if Global Warming is real or not so
1.We don't have the money since we America is in a recession and since we don't even know this is real because if we go into this full force spending billion of dollars (which will come from taxes most likely)and come to find out that Global Warming is not even real that will lead to economic crash in the U.S.
2.If the u.s. goes into an economic crash that will lead nuclear world war. The reason of that is because the u.s. is a superpower and if we have an economic crash other countries will jump all over us since we are a world power
3.If we get into a nuclear world war that will lead to extinction of the human race and i think we all can agree that if he human race becomes extinct that is pretty bad.
Debate Round No. 1
Bricheze

Pro

My opponent claims that we don't know if global warming is real, so therefore we should not do anything. What this argument fails to recognize is the risk associated with not action soon, because if we do not take action soon we will have irreversible side effects later. My point is that: we know enough about global warming that we should do something about it. Take this as an example: We do not know if we are going to be in a car accident, but we do know that it is enough of a reasonable risk to buy car insurance.

Then my opponent goes onto argue that global warming will cause an economic collapse, which will thusly lead into a nuclear war. While my findings from the Stern Report state that 'Taking action against global warming could result in a 1% GDP loss, as opposed to not taking action on global warming which will lead to a 20% GDP loss.' A 1 % GDP loss will definitely do harm to our economy, but would never start a war! However a 20% GDP loss would result in a world wide economic collapse, followed by economic chaos. And then could ultimately result in several political and world wide wars.

What my opponent really needs to prove is that, beyond a doubt global warming is not real.
RNG

Con

My opponent is clearly a clean air advocate, so all I have to say on that is, if someone is afraid of a mouse and they see one the first thing they will do is hop on something to get away from it. Even though that mouse can do no damage to anyone what so ever that person is still afraid of it no matter what. All I am saying is that if someone is afraid of something you ain't going to be able to say "that mouse is harmless it can't hurt you." because they will still be afraid of that mouse and so I just can't tell my opponent that global warming isn't real because she is afraid of it and will always be afraid of it. I just have one favor to ask her if she wouldn't mind could you please in your next argument tell me what GDP is so I am able to answer on that thanks. My answer to her saying that we should go and do something about it know so if it comes up that it is real we all already doing something about it (may not be opponents exact words). I believe if Global Warming is real that it is doing the temperature changing so slow that our bodies will adapt to it and the Earth will adapt to it so nothing will be harmed. To strengthen my argument I would like to restate every thing I did in my first argument so I will just copy and paste it. I believe we should not do anything at all right now because we don't even know if Global Warming is real or not so
1.We don't have the money since we America is in a recession and since we don't even know this is real because if we go into this full force spending billion of dollars (which will come from taxes most likely)and come to find out that Global Warming is not even real that will lead to economic crash in the U.S.
2.If the u.s. goes into an economic crash that will lead nuclear world war. The reason of that is because the u.s. is a superpower and if we have an economic crash other countries will jump all over us since we are a world power
3.If we get into a nuclear world war that will lead to extinction of the human race and I think we all can agree that if he human race becomes extinct that is pretty bad.
Debate Round No. 2
Bricheze

Pro

If my opponent is actually stating that they do not know what GDP is, then they are in no position possibly to say what taking action against global warming would do to our economy. So they can not have anyway of justifying why our economy would react so badly to us taking action against global warming. Or how the world would react to our faultering in the economy. GDP is the total market value of all the goods and services produced within the borders of a nation during a specified period. GDP constantly needs to be raising, so losing even a percent is a big deal, but losing 20% would destroy a lot of what our nation means.

By stating that global warming is just as dangerous as us being a attacked by a mouse, clearly shows a lacking in my opponents research. It is more like a human being afraid of a lion, and then a skeptic going 'Awe, he ate gonna hurt ya!' The problem with global warming isn't the warming that will get us, it is the destablization from a sudden climate change.

Our world is set-up now exactly to the climates and seasons we have. If the arctic becomes much warmer and Idaho becomes much colder; this would deeply effect the economies and politics in both regions. A large amount of our farming comes from Idaho. So if the climate shifts, and you can no longer farm there; we can not produce enough resources for our nation. And if the arctic warms, the permaforst will begin to defrost and buildings, trade-centers, homes, factories, all will be destroyed. Which would ruin the economy in over half of Canada, all of Greenland, most of Russia and a large portion of Alaska. I'm not doubting that we could not adapt to the earth going into climate change, just as in Africa humans have adapted to be surrounded by lions, but what we couldn't adapt to; is a sudden population of lions in New York, unless of we do something quickly about it (Like tranquilize them all and deport them to Africa) but if we say it isn't a problem, the human species wouldn't be destroyed in New York, it would be drastically and negatively altered.
RNG

Con

This is a waste of time. I clearly was just making an analogie with the mouse thing. The mouse thing is just saying that you can't change someones mind when they clearly are afraid of it. This whole argument really comes down to if global warming is real or not and as i said in the first round IT IS NOT REAL!!!!! So my opponent wants to take action on something that is not there and it goes back to my first argument if we go in full force and nothing is there we would waste a whole bunch of money that America does not have and if we do that that could lead us into an economic crash and as i said before an economic crash and an economic crash will lead to a nuclear world war. That would lead to extinction. I have shown why we shouldn't take action because global warming is not real i mean how do we not know this is just a meterology rotation that the world is going through for example the ice age. All I am saying is this is a meteroligical cycle.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Pro always has the burden of proof. Ask anyone.
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
If he never attacked my opinions then they didn't need proof. That's like you saying 'The color of black is a shade not a color,' and your opponent saying 'It doesn't matter.' They didn't make an attack on you opinion so you don't have to defend it. He never made an attack on my opinion so I don't have a reason to defend it. Because technically they were never disproved. So I proved them, which means as the pro in this debate; I did what I was supposed to do.
Posted by crackofdawn 8 years ago
crackofdawn
I'm not even going to vote on this because even though it was short, the debate was painful to read with the bad formats. I got to round 1 and quit. However, Con... what? Your response doesn't even make sense, and although I agree with you your debating skills need a litte refining. Pro, you didn't really bring up any proof, you just said your opinion.

So...

Epic Fail =)
Posted by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
Actually, I stated my reasons for AGW being enough of a threat. If con had actually rebuttaled any of these I would have proved them further. But without con ever making a rebutall I would of had to overly compensate with proof. And my side would have become far to lengthy.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
This was a pretty poor debate. Con rambled on about nuclear wars, and pro didn't take a clear advantage of that.

Pro writes: 'What my opponent really needs to prove is that, beyond a doubt global warming is not real.'
Sorry, but Pro ALWAYS has the burden of proof unless stated in the first round both sides must bring forward proof. Otherwise its merely Con's job to do rebuttal, which he did not do properly, instead he gave some wacky idea of nuclear wars.

Pro - You should have brought forward proof of global warmings existence with stats and so forth
Con - What you did was truly idiotic, and you're job was merely to disprove her claims, which you did not do, but had the capability of doing so.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by skyker 8 years ago
skyker
BrichezeRNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by KarateCowboy 8 years ago
KarateCowboy
BrichezeRNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
BrichezeRNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
BrichezeRNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by Bricheze 8 years ago
Bricheze
BrichezeRNGTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70