The Instigator
SlimeSquasher
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
chubbypanda
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Global warming is a bigger issue than World Peace

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 880 times Debate No: 87063
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

SlimeSquasher

Pro

Global Warming. It is our biggest issue. I didn"t choose world peace because we were always be fighting. For as long as we have lived, we have fought. And yet, we are still alive and "healthy". Global warming, on the other hand, is a new problem. A new problem that isn"t going away. Our ice caps are melting, raising our temperatures and killing hundreds of arctic animals. By raising temperatures, it"s evaporating more water, making the ground dryer, making it harder for plants to grow. Less plants, less food, less people. Not to mention the fact that it"s incredibly uncomfortable to be in super hot weather. Plus, if global warming is stopped by no longer burning oil, there is no longer the danger of what would happen if there is no more oil to burn. In short, wars will always be a problem, but it will never threaten our extinction. Unless stopped, global warming will.
chubbypanda

Con

I'd like to thank Pro for giving me this opportunity to have this debate.

As for the topic of the debate: I do believe that global warming is not our greatest issue. World peace is an issue of the utmost urgency. Pro states that despite having wars, "we are still alive and 'healthy.'" However, I'd like to point out that our world is in turmoil today. Global warming only causes fiercer storms, while the agitation in the world produces a much sharper hunger for a reaction.
Debate Round No. 1
SlimeSquasher

Pro

First, this is my first time debating, so apologizes for some mistakes

Argument: Hunger you say? That's going to be hard to fix if all the plants are shriveling and dying because of the over-livable heat! Many websites say that if global warming was stopped, it would help world peace a lot. Oil and coal are major contributors in a strong economy, and can be a large point in a war. If we stop global warming by not burning and using the resources, we no longer have that strong reason to go to war. Also, global warming is causing a lot more than fiercer storms. Lots of people may die in wars, but how many people are dying by abnormally large tsunamis and hurricanes, which are larger due to global warming. War happens once every 20 or so years and kill a few ten million each time, which is a lot and is inexcusable. Global warming, however, kills about 400,000 people a year[1] (through means of tsunamis, hurricanes, etc.), and that number is constantly growing. True, it currently doesn't kill as many as wars do, but what about in 50 years?

[1] http://goo.gl...
chubbypanda

Con

First off, Pro states that plants would be shriveling and dying because of the greater temperature. I'd like to point out that while that is a sobering possibility, it wouldn't be happening anywhere in the near future. According to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, the global temperature has risen 1.53 (Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution. In about two and a half centuries, our global temperature has only gone up by that non-remarkable amount (0.00612 per year). In 50 years, our global temperature will have risen only .3 degrees Fahrenheit. I don't believe that's a large enough amount to carry any significance in it.

As for the prospect of weighing human lives on a scale, so many more lives would be saved if we were to have world peace. Pro states that wars only occur every 20 or so years and cause tens of millions of inexcusable deaths, however, global warming causes 400,000 deaths a year. I'd like to point out that these figures are questionable, and that even if tens of millions of people did die in these "superwars" that occur every other decade, the proportion of deaths per year is greater by that of which caused by war. (ten million / 20 = 500,000).

Next, wars don't occur just every 20 years. Especially from our developed country's biased eye, we love to twist figures. Our globe is in chaos right now. Just look at the Yemen Civil War or the infamous ISIS fight. It doesn't take an extremely bloody war to capture our attention.

We have the power to destroy ourselves right now, and the only thing stopping us from doing so is the knowledge that others contain that power also.

War is a terrible thing, and world cooperation would be the easiest solution to our problems.
Debate Round No. 2
SlimeSquasher

Pro

Sorry for my long delay, I have been busy

Argument: While it is true that currently the climb of global warming is slow, just wait for the "point of no return." Haven't heard of it? There are multiple website talking about it, so go search it up. Anyway, the point of no return is basically the fact that when global warming reaches a point of badness, it will tumble, pick up speed, and there will be no way to stop it. One example of this are the polar ice caps melting. As more ice melts, there is more water to attract warmth. As the water gets warmer, the ice melts faster. See how that could tumble out of control? Now, how does this have to do with anything? Well, there will be a "runaway" in global warming. What is currently a really small amount increase per year, could very well become catastrophic, maybe even 0.5 degrees a year. And it will be near impossible to stop it. If things don't change by 2020, we will hit the point of no return by 2042. Rising temperatures can cause major drought and wildfires (just look at California,) and it can even cause computers to over heat. Imagine what would happen if hospital machines, machines keeping people alive, over heated because of the 120 or so degree Fahrenheit temperatures that could be seen if we don't stop global warming from tipping to the deep end. If all of a sudden, there were no more wars, how would we get everyone to get together, be friends, and stop global warming in such a small time frame. Remember, most of the world's economies rely of burning coal and oil, which causes global warming. So, even if everyone unified all of a sudden, which isn't very likely, there would be a huge risk of destroying all economies to fix it. And if everyone destroy's their economy to fix global warming, how can they help the others with dead economies. Huh, not very black and white, is it?
chubbypanda

Con

Alright. First things first (I'm the realest..gosh that song's old), if we were to ensure the cooperation of our world organization, then we could accomplish so much more! Our world is run on money and competition. Greed is embodied into our human nature. However, if we were to collaborate, we could tackle this problem of global warming together. Thus, world peace places a higher priority on our list than global warming.
Next, let's again remind ourselves that the rate of increase in temperature is 0.00612 degrees Fahrenheit per year. This minuscule figure tells us that we should have nothing to worry about. Therefore, I'd like to kindly remind Pro to chill out (pun intended) and remember that the world isn't anywhere near falling over the pit yet.
Because of our natural urge to want more for ourselves, yes, we do fight wars over resources. Pro states it himself-they can contribute to the fire that fuels the flame for a war. However, we are nowhere near burning up.

Therefore, I conclude my argument, and thus, the debate, with the notion that our society as the human race should focus on discontinue our quarrels and turn our eyes to the greater issues. After all, what good is trying to organize countries at war?
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by SlimeSquasher 8 months ago
SlimeSquasher
Oh no, 11 more hours, and no one has voted :(
No votes have been placed for this debate.