Edeb8.com WODC:THBT Geoengineering Should Be Implemented To Reduce global warming
The resolution is affirming that Geoengineering should be implemented. I have no burden to show that this should be implemented by any specific entity, only that the world would be better off with Geoengineering that is responsibly done. It is my opponent's burden to either show that it can't be responsibly done, or that the world is better off without a responsible Geoengineering program taking place.
Geoengineering as defined by wikipedia is
The particular type of Geoengineering I'd like to advocate for is a form of what's known as solar radiation management, and more specifically a stratospheric Aerosol method that has been determined to give us the most bang for our buck in terms of safety, effectiveness and cost efficiency, as determined by the Royal Society. 
Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering isn't really some scary new thing. It's performed by replicating the effect of a volcano, which shoots sulphuric acid into the atmosphere. For the most part, we know what these effects will be, and we can take the process slow to start with, so we can adjust for any negative feedback in the system. A study published in science magazine has stated that injecting these sulfates into the atmosphere from time to time (every 1-4 years), will result in the same amount of sulfuric acid pumped into the air by Mount Pintatubo in 1991. This is not a super scary thing with absolutely no precedent. We see it happen during the occasional big volcano explosion. It's a thing that has been extensively studied and is ready to be implemented.
Global warming's current effects
The Earth is gradually heating and there are a ton of negative impacts that will come and just smack us in the face. Here is the story of the boiling frog for anybody who is unfamiliar with it;
This is what's happening to the Earth and who knows when or where the tipping point is, that will make us the boiling frogs (metaphorically speaking).
The projected effects of global warming from decades ago, are starting to bear fruit.
Global warming is a threat to our energy infrastructure with extreme weather being able to destroy the infrastructure almost out of nowhere.  There seems to be almost exclusively negative economic impacts. The Stern review estimates that global warming will decrease global GDP by 5% a year, every year. From mass migration to increased allergies, flooding of business districts and droughts faced by farmers. There is a lot to be worried about.
Besides what global warming is doing to us currently, there are some extremely negative effects, approaching at a rapid pace.
Floods and droughts will become more common. Rainfall in Ethiopia, where droughts are already common, could decline by 10 percent over the next 50 years.
Less fresh water will be available. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Peru continues to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands of people who rely on it for drinking water and electricity without a source of either.
Some diseases will spread, such as malaria carried by mosquitoes.
Ecosystems will change"some species will move farther north or become more successful; others won"t be able to move and could become extinct. Wildlife research scientist Martyn Obbard has found that since the mid-1980s, with less ice on which to live and fish for food, polar bears have gotten considerably skinnier. Polar bear biologist Ian Stirling has found a similar pattern in Hudson Bay. He fears that if sea ice disappears, the polar bears will as well."
That's right I brought the Polar Bears into this.
Cutting emissions is not enough
Taking care of the symptoms, doesn't mean we have to ignore the root of the problem. There is a misconception that we have to choose to attack the root of the problem or the symptom of it, which is just false. We can attack both simultaneously. We don't do one thing and completely neglect the other.
According to a study cited by The Conversation, and costing $35;
They showed that under all emissions reductions scenarios, even slashing emissions to less than 4 billion tonnes CO2 each year, (greater than a 90% cut in current emissions) is insufficient to limit warming to 2C."
If we want to stop the damages from global warming, cutting carbon emissions is not enough. We need to start implementing the best Geoengineering technology around.
We can end global warming in our lifetime.mankind can do something great in this generation that will have an amazing impact for the future of mankind. It is better we implement this technology now, and in an extremely controlled manner, than waiting for Greenland to fall into the ocean and having to make desperate Hail Mary attempts at fixing this damage. The sooner we implement something, the sooner we can avert disaster, and the less extreme we have to get in how we attack the problem.
My opponent’s case is predicated on a fatal assumption: that it is proper to act to disrupt causal necessity for the supposed “benefit of mankind”. I will aim to reveal the repulsiveness of this doctrine based on the principle that, if A entails B, B cannot be avoided given A, and any attempts to do so are merely wastes of time.
The Undoubtable Principle of Reciprocity
The foundation of logic is the premiss that an action will beget an effect. When a billiard ball strikes another, the affected ball shall move. When a man severs his veins, he shall fall dead. When a man severs the veins of another, his character shall morph into that of a hellish being. Causality cannot be escaped, no matter how hard one tries (let my opponent see if he can argue otherwise without relying on the notion that his arguments will act as a cause for a change in opinion!), and must be embraced completely and in all of its light.
What effects, then, must Man accept? We must look at what Man has done in order to determine these, and, before doing so, we must look at what Man has acted upon (this being the good).
The Holy Sanctity of Nature
What is the Good? It is clear that that which is eternal is much closer to the Good than that which is merely temporary, as the eternal, like the Good, is more primary than the temporary (that which is eternal will always have preceded that which is temporary, by definition). Therefore, it is clear that things eternal in nature must be regarded as better than all others, and these things must take moral precedence over all others.
Nature (or reality) encompasses all that is. If something can be conceived, it can be conceived only as part of nature, as nature is defined as the totality of existents. Therefore, there cannot be anything outside of nature, and, by extension, there cannot be an external cause of nature. If this is the case, then nature is eternal, and is therefore the embodiment of the good.
Humanity, on the other hand, is a phenomena that has a finite duration. There was a time before humans, and there will almost certainly be a time after them. They are relevant only in passing when compared to the grandeur of nature’s eternal grace, and, given this, putting the concerns of humans above nature is morally abhorrent, while existing with a respect for nature is the definition of virtue.
Man as Either Perfect or Worthy of Death
There are, therefore, two possible descriptions of our current world, both of which negate the resolution:
1) That we are not actually harming nature, in which case we’re already living in harmony with the good, meaning that there’s no legitimate problem to remedy, and therefore there’s no benefit to geoengineering,
2) That we are harming nature, in which case we deserve to pay for the logical consequences of our actions, and therefore we should actively avoid geoengineering.
Both choices completely strip Pro of any ability to affirm that we should implement geoengineering – at most, “1)” implies that geoengineering is morally neutral (meaning that it should neither be pursued nor avoided).
My opponent must choose whether we are harming nature or not, and, since his case is built upon the assumption that we are, I will spend my time addressing this.
Sins must be paid for. By definition, an action is morally wrong if it should be avoided, implying that there is some reason to avoid the consequence of the action. Therefore, in any case wherein a man is morally deviant, he is doing so fully accepting the effects of this choice. The fact that immorality necessitates ill effects is undebatable, making the claim that humanity should simultaneously avoid these effects (via means such as geoengineering) and pursue their causes (living in opposition to nature) self-contradictory. One should always desire that which is desirable (i.e. produces desirable effects) and avoid that which is undesirable (i.e. produces undesirable effects), so positions like that of my opponent, which claim that it is proper to desire that which produces undesirable effects, is incoherent.
If we should disrespect nature, we will feel the consequences, no matter what we attempt in order to mitigate them. The fact that we must even consider geoengineering shows that we have accepted to take the poison that it was meant to remedy, making geoengineering nothing more than a half-hearted attempt to refute causality. It cannot solve the problem of our immorality – we must accept what we have brought upon us, and, like Jesus, our blood must act as currency to pay for entrance to heaven if we shall ever hope to be forgiven for our trespasses.
Given this, I have shown that it is impossible for Pro to fulfill his burden of proof without first refuting my framework.
I know judges typically use Tabula Rasa judging on DDO, but I'm going to urge them not to in these circumstances. Tabula Rasa judging has some fatal flaws. For example; when people are seriously debating policy and are looking for solutions to a problem, you'll never hear them say "let mankind pay for their sins and die off". Allowing these types of arguments, destroys the spirit of debate. If anything should be preserved it is the spirit of things. Once the spirit of an action goes, we're just left with empty gestures or actions. The reason why it's illegal to eat Icecream on Sunday's in North Carolina is unknown by me, but fit with the spirit of the social contract back when the law was enforced. Just like it would break the spirit of what the law is intended for today, by having police officers raid Icecream stands in North Carolina, it would break the spirit of debate to take any of Con's arguments seriously. (All of which deviate from the spirit of debate)
My opponent talks of mankind as if it is a single entity, but it is not. Mankind is a collection of individuals. Not only is it a collection of individuals, but it's a collection of individuals from the past present and future. The only time one man has justifiably paid for the sins of another is when Jesus Christ died on the cross to spare mankind from having to pay for their sins. Here is what my opponent says about Jesus.
"we must accept what we have brought upon us, and, like Jesus, our blood must act as currency to pay for entrance to heaven if we shall ever hope to be forgiven for our trespasses."
I want to thank my opponent for presupposing the existence of Jesus and the truth contained in the bible. However he has one thing wrong. We don't have to pay with our own blood to enter heaven. Jesus has paid for our entrance with his own blood.
""For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 http://biblehub.com...
"He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God." Romans 4:25 http://biblehub.com...
The one innocent man, be him from the future or the present who has absolutely no carbon footprint should not have to pay for the sins of the rest of mankind. According to Jesus and the bible the men responsible for global warming shouldn't even have to pay for their own sins, Jesus has already done that.
Nor should the innocent creatures who inhabit the Earth have to pay for their sins. My 5 cats did nothing to cause this global warming epidemic, and it's unfair that they should be punished by having to face the consequences of my actions. The bible confirms this is true.
"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." Ezekial 18:20 http://biblehub.com...
The individuals that make up mankind should not let little babies who haven't even contributed to global warming in any way be punished for our sins. We should pay for them, by having to put in the work necessary to solve the problem.
The Holy Sanctity of Nature
The big problem with my opponent's argument is that man is not living in harmony with nature. I've provided evidence last round that we are destroying nature. Our intervention is what messed up nature, and we need to intervene again to restore the proper balance to nature. If nature is holy, than we need to use the technology we have to restore Earth to it's natural state. We need to use Geothermal engineering to restore Earth to it's pre industrial revolution "natural" temperature. By my opponent's own logic, we need to implement Geothermal engineering, to repair the harms we done to nature.
Another problem with my opponent's nature argument, besides the fact that it is self defeating, in that we're already destroying nature and ignoring the problem makes it worse, is that nature doesn't qualify as an eternal thing that he defines as good. Everything is constantly changing. At one point only matter and energy existed, and at one point everything will end, except for matter and energy.
This isn't just about mankind as a whole, but the innocent children who have yet to harm the environment intentionally as we have, if at all. People who have yet to come into being but exist already in the mind of the creator have yet to contribute to global warming and should not have to pay for the sins of their fathers. My 5 cats at home, Blade of Truth's cat, and the relatives of Cecil the lion should not have to pay for the sins of man. Also Tabula Rasa judging should be amended or disregarded so my opponent's off topic arguments don't even count. Thanks
Voters should, as usual, decide which side fulfilled their BOP. It is not the job of voters to decide what the “spirit of debate” is, nor should they discount certain classes of arguments (such as the philosophical) out-of-hand as long as the arguments either affirm or negate the resolution.
If my opponent has proven his case, he should be awarded the points. If I have proven my case, I should be awarded the points. No other considerations are necessary.
This only matters if it is shown that each man is not, by necessity, a sinner himself, answering only to his own crimes.
Scripture directly confirms that the concept of sin was not erased by Jesus – one can still be wholly evil even after the Lord’s sacrifice if one rejects His offering.
“Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” – John 3:18-20
In this way, the only truly innocent man is he who accepts God completely, meaning that he does not reject Him to any degree. I accept my opponent’s premiss that such a man would not have any need to face punishment. What I do not accept is the idea that such a man is possible.
The nature of any individual is to be a parasite and an agent of change. Along the evolution of life from primordial sludge, one thing remains constant: self-directed creatures destroy the established order of things. Going back to my previous dilemma, either this is morally repugnant (in which case all life inherently sins and is therefore not innocent, refuting my opponent’s hypothetical objections), or there is nothing wrong with any change or affront to the eternal, in which case there’s nothing to fix via geoengineering. My opponent’s response only holds water if he can show that a sin-free being is possible, and, if he cannot, he implicitly agrees with the fact that all are sinners.
My opponent says that Jesus has paid for all’s entrance to Heaven – this is directly refuted by the fact that one can refuse to live according to His doctrine. Heaven is only an option for those who live virtuously:
“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire” – Mark 9:47
If such virtue is impossible, it logically follows that all must perish in hellfire.
The Holy Sanctity of Nature
My opponent misinterprets my definition of “nature.” Examine my usage in R2: “Nature (or reality)“. Nature does not mean only the particular existing manifestations of substance (such as our planet), but rather the totality of existence, including all potential future states. In this way, nature must be eternal.
Pro argues that geothermal engineering must be used to repair nature. However, even if there are some similarities between the repaired state of nature and the original (pre-sin) state, it cannot be ignored that we can never fully fix what we have done. We will never eliminate all traces of our tampering with the Eternal. Any attempt will be in vain, only a pitiful act done out of fear and desperation, lacking any real impact.
What is done is done. We have destroyed nature. As I argued in my first round, we cannot escape that basic fact of causality, and it shall be our burden unto death.
This is a bare assertion, and I've explained in the last round why this is not true. The judges may dismiss bare assertions out of hand. The most popular form of judging debates on this site is Tabula Rasa, and a true Tabula Rasa judge will accept my reasoning for why they should depart from Tabula Rasa judging in order to keep the debate fair. I'll ask that the judges consider my arguments for why the should depart from or abandon Tabula Rasa judging and look at the debate as if this is the only arguments they have access to and they have to decide whether to implement Geoengineering or not, and quite honestly most policy makers have their own personal philosophies and will ignore those types of arguments, while looking at the pro's and cons offered on Geoengineering. My opponent ignores the hypocrisy of asking a Tabula Rasa judge to ignore my arguments, with a wave of the hand. My opponent may not add new arguments in the final round, so his attempt to ignore my arguments against Tabula Rasa judging is fatal. Judges should count that as a dropped argument from con, which means my arguments against Tabula Rasa stand and all of his philosophical/religious arguments fail. Without those arguments, the only arguments standing are my arguments from round 2, and they Stand unaddressed. I win on this alone. Judges should keep with the spirit of debate and award me the win.
Let's not forget what brought up the topic of Jesus. It was the fact that my opponent made a statement that every man must pay for his sins. This of course leaves out little babies who have not harmed the environment and the innocent plants and animals on Earth that have also not contributed to global warming. So I quoted some biblical verses that showed that man should only pay for his own sins, the innocent non polluting babies should not pay for my sins of contributing to global warming by using too much hairspray, nor should any frogs or penguins pay for my mistakes. My opponent of course drops all of my points about the innocence of children and animals and instead goes into wonderland.
My opponent points out that living sinless is impossible, and to this I agree. If it were not impossible the sacrifice of Jesus would not be necessary. Jesus died so our sins would be forgiven. The fact that our sins are forgiven, means that we don't necessarily have to pay for our own sins. This notion of "completely accepting God or Jesus" is wrong. It borders on the no true Scotsman fallacy. Either you accept Jesus/God or you don't.
"23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Romans 3)
My opponent's definition of nature is kind of unclear, and I think I fully grasp it now. The definition is self defeating.
"Nature (or reality) encompasses all that is. If something can be conceived, it can be conceived only as part of nature, as nature is defined as the totality of existents. Therefore, there cannot be anything outside of nature, and, by extension, there cannot be an external cause of nature. If this is the case, then nature is eternal, and is therefore the embodiment of the good."
My opponent has just defined nature as literally everything and every conceivable thing. This doesn't even require a rebuttal, since nature is everything and encompasses "all that is" or "there cannot be anything outside of nature" than man is part of nature. If man is part of nature than whether he creates a warmer climate of fixes global warming he is still acting in accordance with nature. Man is still doing good either way. If everything man does is good than he should do what is most good and causes the least amount of damage, which is the Geoengineering like I've argued.
My opponent has literally defined the word nature out of existence here, but it still works to affirm the resolution either way.
"Either there is no problem or all are the cause of the problem (thus leaving no innocents). My opponent has chosen to tackle the latter horn, but has yet to show that an innocent being is possible, thus negating his arguments about the negative impacts of my case."
I have in fact shown an innocent being is possible. I've mentioned the innocent plant an animal life on Earth that is being effected and will continue to be effected by global warming. I've mentioned little babies that have just been born, in a biblical sense they're born with original sin, and the wages for that original sin is death, but they haven't sinned against the Earth and should not have to face the consequences for the global warming they've never contributed to. Future persons have not sinned yet and they shouldn't be punished.
My opponent has dropped my arguments that Tabula Rasa judging should be suspended for this debate. He's dropped my arguments that plant and animal life are innocent and don't deserve to be punished for the sins of man. My opponent has dropped every single impact I've made in round two, and since no new arguments are possible now, I should win this debate no matter what my opponent brings up in the final round.
My opponent mistakes me – I have not set out to justify why tabula rasa voting is preferable to the alternatives. I have only pointed out that it is the way voting is done on this site, and no arguments made can change the fact that it is only appropriate to vote in the way that I have described. This is not a topic of debate, merely a clarification of the standards of voting on DDO (which do not allow for the biased sort of voting my opponent is advocating).
“little babies who have not harmed the environment and the innocent plants and animals on Earth that have also not contributed to global warming [are excluded from having to pay for their sins]“
This begs the question completely – I have directly attacked the assumption that these groups are sinless. As such, since my opponent has not defended his claims that innocent beings exist, this argument is wholly irrelevant. In fact, my opponent has given me even more help – quote:
“My opponent points out that living sinless is impossible, and to this I agree.“
He has completely dismantled his own case. He builds his argument on the idea that sinless creatures exist that should not be punished for that which they have not done, before immediately saying that sinless creatures do not exist. By his own admission, his arguments fail.
My opponent says that “[t]he fact that our sins are forgiven, means that we don't necessarily have to pay for our own sins.“ He asserts this while completely ignoring the verses I quoted in the last round. He has dropped the argument that Jesus’s death did not remove the punishments for sin (and the possibility of sin at all). Quoting John 3:18 once again:
I accept my opponent’s interpretation of nature, but the implications he tries to draw from it are flawed. He states the following:
“If man is part of nature than whether he creates a warmer climate of fixes global warming he is still acting in accordance with nature. Man is still doing good either way.”
I have not ignored this possibility. In fact, I directly offer this route of argumentation to my opponent in the first round:
“[It is possible that] we are not actually harming nature, in which case we’re already living in harmony with the good”
However, my opponent does not recognize the argument against this that immediately follows:
“meaning that there’s no legitimate problem to remedy, and therefore there’s no benefit to geoengineering”
I have already dealt with this in the first round! If it is true that we are not harming nature, as my opponent is now saying, then there is no reason to state that we ought to implement geoengineering. My opponent’s impacts rely on the assumption that there is a problem, but, if there is not and our current state is completely fine, then there can be no normative reason to do anything like what my opponent is advocating.
My opponent then says the following:
“If everything man does is good than he should do what is most good and causes the least amount of damage, which is the Geoengineering like I've argued.”
This itself rejects that which immediately preceded it! My opponent just said that man cannot harm nature – here he is saying that not implementing geoengineering would “cause damage”. He can only choose one or the other; as it currently stands, he has defended neither thread of argument sufficiently enough.
I have addressed my opponent’s claim that innocence is possible (“self-directed creatures destroy the established order of things.”), that sin is not necessarily punished (the various quotes from scripture I have given), and that man is somehow simultaneously moral and damaging. None of his points remain standing, and his last-minute attempt to throw out universal voting standards is wholly irrelevant to the debate, since fair voting is fair regardless of what debaters say about it. Given this, it would only be fair to vote Con.
|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||3|