The Instigator
THEmanlyDEBATER
Pro (for)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Korezaan
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

BUILDING UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS WOULD NEGATE THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE HUMAN POPULATION

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 4/12/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,269 times Debate No: 3606
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (11)

 

THEmanlyDEBATER

Pro

THIS IS COMMON SENSE! IF WE HAD UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS THAT COULD SUSTAIN THE EFFECTS OF THE PRESSURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING BEING A PROBLEM TO US AS THE SEA LEVEL RISING WOULD HAVE NO CRUCIAL IMPACT ON PEOPLE WHO LIVED UNDERWATER.

WE COULD HAVE OUR DOMICILES IN UNDERWATER DOMES. FURTHERMORE, SINCE 75% IF THE PLANET IS MADE UP OF WATER, THAT WOULD JUST BE MORE SPACE FOR US AND OVERPOPULATION WOULD BE SOMEWHAT NULLIFIED FOR A WHILE. THIS IS A PRETTY GOOD PLAN.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE STUDENT CONGRESS HERE TODAY THAT WE SANCTION THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERWATER CIVILIZATIONS PRONTO!!!
Korezaan

Con

It would be common sense....
-If we could actually build things on the bottom of the oceaon
-If we could actually sustain such large areas with normalized pressure
-If we had the materials to do that
-If we had the money to sanction it
-If we had the money to enforce the sanctions
-If there were actually that many companies willing to do it

But none of the above are true, so you can drop the PRO case.
There is no offense going for him, so he's lost the round.

CASE:

Negate is defined by dictionary.com as "to deny the existence, evidence, or truth of".

My opponent claims that by putting the human population underwater, then we wouldn't feel the effects of global warming anymore, as sea levels rising wouldn't affect us at all. Okay sure, WE HUMAN BEINGS wouldn't be affected IF we could live on the ocean floor, but the rest of the ecosystem will be. And since we're consumers and not producers, we still need to eat other living organisms to survive. We can't do there unless we have land for growing crops and a place to have our livestock... oh wait, all of that is WASHED AWAY BY SEA LEVELS RISING CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

So even if we all can live underwater somehow, there is going to be a DEFINITE effect that people will notice (more than just the entire human population being displaced), and since people will notice a change, building underwater civilizations would NOT negate the effects of global warming on the human population, you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
TYPING IN ALL CAPS MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A TOTAL PRICK.
Posted by XsamacadoX 9 years ago
XsamacadoX
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWSOME!
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER
ARE YOU SERIOUS?!? HOW CAN YOU NOT LIKE THE B-MAN?!?!?!
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
I'm sorry; Barney has never been all that appealing to me.
Posted by THEmanlyDEBATER 9 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER
GIVE IT KOREZAAN. LIKE MY GOOD LOOKS, MY LOGIC IS FLAWLESS. YOU CAN'T WIN.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by draxxt 9 years ago
draxxt
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Koni11 9 years ago
Koni11
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by roycegee 9 years ago
roycegee
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by joetehgirl 9 years ago
joetehgirl
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ronnyyip 9 years ago
ronnyyip
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 9 years ago
HempforVictory
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by HadenQuinlan 9 years ago
HadenQuinlan
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
THEmanlyDEBATERKorezaanTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03