The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
Geekis_Khan
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

Global Alarmists (aka liberals) are causing the global food crisis.

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: 4/15/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,328 times Debate No: 3650
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (33)
Votes (17)

 

shwayze

Pro

Al Gore and the idiot libs who have so passionately promoted this hoax of global warming (aka bigger government and control) have at the same time caused an even more urgent and real crisis in food shortages around the world. Aren't the libs just so compassionate and brilliant?
Geekis_Khan

Con

I'll accept this debate. It sounds interesting. Thanks to my opponent for starting it.

First off, I'd like to point out that my opponent seems to be a bit of an extremist, pointing the finger at seemingly all liberals who believe in global warming.

However, since my opponent has not actually put forth an argument yet, I will wait until he does, as the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic.
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

You guys are a joke. You deserve the equal blame for the troubles in the United States with the politicians because you elect these idiots into congress and the house. And i'm not targeting all liberals in general, I'm only targeting all the liberals in Washington D.C. The biggest disaster in the last 8 years isnt President Bush, it is the Congress, UNDER BOTH PARTIES, who have spent like drunken sailors and expanded government at a historic rate. I also blame the fake conservatives like John McCain, George Bush, and the other repubicans in the House and Congress for this food crisis problem.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, editor of International Business, said "the mass diversion of the North American grain harvest into ethanol plants for fuel is reaching its political and moral limits." "The reality is that people are dying already," said Jacques Diouf, of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). "Naturally people won't be sitting dying of starvation, they will react," he said.

The UN says it takes 511 POUNDS of corn to fill a 50-litre car tank with ethanol. THAT IS ENOUGH TO FEED A CHILD FOR A YEAR. Last week, the UN predicted "massacres" unless the biofuel policy is halted. (This is the UN by the way that so firmly champions the global warming cause as well.)

Pritchard said, "We are all part of this drama whether we fill up with petrol or ethanol. The substitution effect across global markets makes the two morally identical."

Mr. Diouf says world grain stocks have fallen to a quarter-century low of 5m tonnes, rations for eight to 12 weeks. America - the world's food superpower - will divert 18% of its grain output for ethanol this year, chiefly to break dependency on oil imports. It has a 45% biofuel target for corn by 2015.

The EU has targeted a 5.75% biofuel share by 2010, though that may change. Europe's farm ministers are to debate a measure this week ensuring "absolute priority" for food output.

"The world food situation is very serious: we have seen riots in Egypt, Cameroon, Haiti and Burkina Faso," said Mr Diouf. "There is a risk that this unrest will spread in countries where 50% to 60% of income goes to food," he said.

-Haiti's government fell over the weekend following rice and bean riots. Five died.

-The global food bill has risen 57% in the last year. Soaring freight rates make it worse. The cost of food "on the table" has jumped by 74% in poor countries that rely on imports, according to the FAO.

-Goldman Sachs says the cost of ethanol from corn is $81 a barrel (oil equivalent), with wheat at $145 and soybeans $232. It is built on subsidy.

-"The idea that you cut down rainforest to actually grow biofuels seems profoundly stupid," said Professor John Beddington, Britain's chief scientific adviser.

-Whatever the arguments, politics is intruding. Food export controls have been imposed by Russia, China, India, Vietnam, Argentina, and Serbia. We are disturbingly close to a chain reaction that could shatter our assumptions about food security.

_The Philippines - a country with ample foreign reserves of $36 billion (Britain has $27billion) - last week had to enlist its embassies to hunt for grain supplies after China withheld shipments. Washington stepped in, pledging "absolutely" to cover Philippine grain needs. A new Cold War is taking shape, around energy and food.

-The world intelligentsia has been asleep at the wheel. While we rage over global warming, global hunger has swept in under the radar screen.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

ALL THIS, IN THE NAME OF GLOBAL WARMING.

-Do we not remember what happened when all the libs in the house banned DDT in africa for the good of the environment??
Geekis_Khan

Con

First, I'd like to say that in order for your argument to be truly valid, you must disprove the merits of fighting global warming. As has already been stated in the comments section, 95% of scientists believe in global warming. i think they know more about the issue than you do.

Second, ethanol is more than just being used to reduce pollution. It's also an alternative fuel source, cutting dependency on oil. Keep this in mind throughout the debate, it's very important.

Third, this problem doesn't stem from people trying to fight global warming, it stems from overpopulation and scarcity of resources. My first piece of evidence for this is this time line:

http://news.google.com...

Those are news articles about a food crisis. As you can see, they've been happening since the mid-1940s, decades before anyone started talking about global warming. This problem has been around for decades. You can argue that global alarmists are making the problem worse, but you can't argue that they CAUSED it. Since this resolution argues that they caused the problem, you must negate.

But, continuing, what is causing this problem? Like I said, it's simply scarcity of resources versus overpopulation. Look at resources such as oil and food. Now, we have a scarcity of both. However, if we try to fix one of the problems (scarcity of oil), it winds up making another problem worse (scarcity of food). This is basic economics. It's not the fault of anyone in particular, it's simply trying to find a balance, which should be our goal.

And yes, this could result in starvation if it continues down the track (NOTE: the track that is NOT being caused by global alarmists), but what will that result in? Less overpopulation.

This is simply natural progress when a society becomes to overextended or overpopulated, natural forces (such as scarcity of resources) "act" to fix the problem. What you're seeing is not the fault of global alarmists. It is simply natural rise and decline. It simply man's natural tendency to find a balance between population and resources.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

"As has already been stated in the comments section, 95% of scientists believe in global warming."

The question is not whether scientists believe in global warming (aka climate change), its whether they believe in man made global warming. That statistic sounds about right. I tend to believe the earth is warming (even though there has been no increase of temperatures since 1998, and that 2007 was the coldest year in the last decade). I really dont want to get into a debate over whether man made global warming is legit or not.

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com...

http://acuf.org...

"Those are news articles about a food crisis. As you can see, they've been happening since the mid-1940s, decades before anyone started talking about global warming. This problem has been around for decades. You can argue that global alarmists are making the problem worse, but you can't argue that they CAUSED it. Since this resolution argues that they caused the problem, you must negate."

I agree that food shortages have been happening for the last half-century, but the recent food crisis of the last 5 or so years has been drastically worse (notice the riots and deaths over food shortages in Haiti and other countries). I attribute this VASTLY to the global warming alarmists, who are apparently more concerned about the sun than they are about the people.

"But, continuing, what is causing this problem? Like I said, it's simply scarcity of resources versus overpopulation."

The problem is that governments are using the battle cry of global warming hysteria to subsidize and take over the wheat and corn fields, driving up demand and prices in food, ALL IN THE NAME OF GLOBAL WARMING.

"Look at resources such as oil and food. Now, we have a scarcity of both. However, if we try to fix one of the problems (scarcity of oil), it winds up making another problem worse (scarcity of food). This is basic economics. It's not the fault of anyone in particular, it's simply trying to find a balance, which should be our goal."

The problem I have is that we have an abundance of oil in the United States that the libs in the senate are blocking from the oil companies. ANWAR, the Great Lakes, off the coast of Florida, and now in the northern sheets under Montana and North Dakota, there are BILLIONS of barrels of oil. Yet the lib senators and congressman continue to block the oil companies from drilling in these places. If you take a step back and look at it, liberals do not make any sense at all on this entire issue.

My friend Mason, a former lib, said it best:

"Hippie freak environmentalist nut jobs are going to kill us all. Pull your head out of your butts and start to use your brain. Drill the oil that has been placed on this earth for us to use you stupid liberal idiots. Global warming is a farce and you are all being duped. What is it going to take for you to realize this? We are not bigger than this world. The next time you are in an airplane look down on this world and notice how miniscule and meaningless we are to it. We are not as important and influential on mother nature as you think. We are nothing but a little species out of millions on this earth. Everything goes in cycles and the planet has an uncanny ability to repair and regulate itself. My god you dumb a** liberals will cling on to any cause pressented to you because you are ignorant and unable to think for yourselves and come up with your own conclusions. I SHOULD KNOW I WAS ONCE ONE OF YOU!!!!!"
Geekis_Khan

Con

You know what? It doesn't matter whether global warming is man-made or not. I can prove my point without it.

"I agree that food shortages have been happening for the last half-century, but the recent food crisis of the last 5 or so years has been drastically worse (notice the riots and deaths over food shortages in Haiti and other countries). I attribute this VASTLY to the global warming alarmists, who are apparently more concerned about the sun than they are about the people."

The topic isn't whether global alarmists are making the problem worse, it's that they're causing it. This argument is irrelevant, because all you're proving is that they're making the problem worse, not that they're causing the problem. If the problem has been happening since before global warming was ever theorized, then obviously global alarmists didn't cause it.

And even so, it's not necessarily them that's making the problem worse. It's people trying to find a balance between resources, and trying to reduce dependency on oil. (And, in turn, reduce economic dependency on foreign countries and reduce pollution. I think you'll agree that controlling pollution is a major concern whether or not global warming exists and is man-made. After all, it doesn't matter how much food you have if you can't breath the air.)

"The problem is that governments are using the battle cry of global warming hysteria to subsidize and take over the wheat and corn fields, driving up demand and prices in food, ALL IN THE NAME OF GLOBAL WARMING. "

You've provided no link of evidence for this. Claiming that they're using global warming as a tool to reduce the world's food supply (Which, by the way, doesn't make sense) isn't sufficient to prove it. This is not a self-justifying clause.

However, I can give evidence that it is simply scarcity of resources. Thomas Malthus first predicted this problem IN SEVENTEEN HUNDRED NINETY-EIGHT. Why? Because food production cannot possibly keep up with population growth.

So, what is the problem here? Overpopulation. This is just natural "economics" evening things out. So, in a way, a food shortage is a positive. It thins out population when it becomes overextended.

So remember:

Ethanol reduces pollution, which is important whether or not global warming exists.

Overpopulation is the actual problem, and this is just nature correcting it.

He hasn't even supported the topic, that global alarmists have CAUSED the food crisis. At best, he's proven that they've made it a little worse, and maybe sped Mother Nature up.

And I refuse to respond to condescending insults that is nothing more than partisan slander. If you want to be taken seriously, quit blaming everything on liberals. If it wasn't for liberal thought, you wouldn't even be allowed to debate.
Debate Round No. 3
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
if people actually saw left-wing liberalism for what it was, the GOP would win the White House every election.
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
yes but it's the democrat part of congress screwing over the free econmy in the name of global warming...not tosay its only democrats.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
George Bush has fallen for it. So has John McLame. They are both fake conservatives.
Posted by cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
for corection. . .the democrats are the main idiots faling for his scam not republicans.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
precisely my point: http://www.nysun.com...
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
http://www.foxnews.com...

...thank you Al Gore and the rest of the idiot libs and repubicans who follow in his footsteps.
Posted by shwayze 8 years ago
shwayze
global warming is the biggest scam in history. mark my words.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
The way data is acquired is under attack too.
There is a project that checks if the weatherstations across America fit the criteria.

Quite some fail and if you leave them out, the result is totally different.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"and your counter evidence is...
"

Counter evidence to what? The only counter necessary to any evidence of global warming I've ever seen is "correlation is not causation." Other counters are of course available, such as a paper I saw noting that most models of climate fail to account for water vapor, or one alleging (I don't know whether this is true) that ice core data is deliberately fudged, by means of making it standard practice to reject high readings on old data and low readings on recent data), etc. But they aren't necessary in the face of lack of science.
Posted by Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
correction: Al Gore isn't even a scientist at all. :D

and it is an outright offense to science that there are out there who completely go by very basic concepts like causality of correlation. (or: what is the cause, what the effect)
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 Ramper0987 8 years ago
Ramper0987
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 Oolon_Colluphid 8 years ago
Oolon_Colluphid
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 ss0987 8 years ago
ss0987
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 dave23456 8 years ago
dave23456
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 mrbill 8 years ago
mrbill
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 colbert4prez 8 years ago
colbert4prez
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 Shorack 8 years ago
Shorack
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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 JBpixie 8 years ago
JBpixie
shwayzeGeekis_KhanTied
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