The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 494 times Debate No: 84122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




1. It saved enviornment


I will be saving my argument for round 2...
First: I would like to define some terms as my opponent did not...

"Paris Accord"- This I believe is in reference to the "Paris Climate Accord"
Bad- not such as to be hoped or desired
Nations- plural for nation- a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory

Some questions for my opponent:
how did it save the environment?
Is there any measurable proof of this?
What are your grounds for bad?

Round 1 topic analysis:
While the topic places the BoP on me... The Con put out the first contention this places 2 burdens, I have the BoP but he/she/it also has the "Burden of Clash". So, in simplicity he must prove all of my contentions wrong, or they flow throughout the rounds ending up in my victory... If he does fulfill this "Burden of Clash" he/she/it wins.

refuting my opponents 1st claim
Opponent's Claim: It saved environment
Counter-Claim: There is not been enough time to prove this
Counter-Claim 2: This agreement may fail like they have over the last 25 years
Counter-Evidence: There has been 25 years of failed climate talks and agreements before this event... There is no proof that this is any different than the previous 25 years
Counter-Claim 3: This assumes that climate change is man-made
Counter-Claim 4: This agreement assumes that humans can do something about climate change.
Counter-Claim 5: This agreement assumes that climate change is occurring

So, now using my definitions lets read the topic

The Paris Climate Accord was not such as to be hoped or desired for a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.

As my opponent has not determined which "nation's" this topic applies to I will choose...
I choose to put this debate in the framework of the Kurds and of the Russians

Thus, a fully revised topic reads The Paris Climate Accord was not such as to be hoped or desired for the Kurds and the Russians

Source- The oxford dictionary
Debate Round No. 1


1. Saves environment by preventing greenhouse gases.
2. Everyone will be happy because the atmosphere will be happy!


Opponent Claim: Saves environment by preventing greenhouse gases.
Counter-Claim: Due to the fact that we have not had enough time to examine the effects of the Paris Climate Accord we cannot make this assumption
Warrant: Nullifies my opponent's claim

Opponent Claim: Everyone will be happy because the atmosphere will be happy!
Counter-Claim: An atmosphere cannot be happy, it is inanimate...
Counter-Claim 2: The Kurds will not be happy as ISIS slaughters them, The Russians will not be happy because it slowly reduces the price of oil, which is an important part of what alters the value of the Ruble.
Warrant: As it will not make everybody happy, and an atmosphere is inanimate this ought to be nullified

Contention 1: The Paris Climate Accord does not help the Kurds
The Kurds are a nation who do not have a demarcated area... In one battle alone 800 Kurds were killed by ISIS, the Paris Climate Accord does not benefit them, and is bad for them because it wastes time talking about Global Warming, while ISIS continues to slaughter them

Contention 2: The Paris Climate Accord will destroy the Russian economy
As Russia is a major exporter of oil and has an economy that is dependent on it, any drop in the price of Crude Oil will harm the Russian economy. Thus, as the Paris Climate Accord is designed to slowly reduce the need for oil, the Russian economy will slowly collapse. Thus, the Paris Climate Accord is not beneficial for Russia

As, I have refuted my opponent's only argument, we will go into the voters round with only one clear decision... A victory for Pro

Source: CNN
Source: AEI
Debate Round No. 2


3. It will decrease the amount of time spent on social media.


For anyone who judges this debate please look at the fact my opponent has not offered any evidence supporting his/her's/its "contentions". The contentions he brought up have been refuted by me... He has offered no sources, evidence, and he/she/it has not refuted any of my cases...

Thus, the only decision that can be logically made is a Pro victory.

Note- Ignore his final argument, not only is it unsubstantiated, but this is the voters round, no new info can be brought up here.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 10 months ago
>Reported vote: mc9// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Retroz didn't provide a link but provided a source and actually elaborated on his arguments whereas con just stated things.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to point to specific arguments made by both sides and explain why they were or weren't significant towards the result. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter cannot merely say that one side presented a source and the other side didn't - it has to be clear that the source was important to the debate.
Posted by retroz 10 months ago
Anybody want to vote on this debate? Should be a pretty obvious decision...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 10 months ago
Vane01, you should work on elaboration. Just stating something isn't sufficient in a debate. You'll need to explain further, as well as source it.
Posted by donald.keller 10 months ago
"It saved (the) enviornment..."

Kind of jumping the gun, don't you think?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 10 months ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: All of pro's arguments were dropped by con. Furthermore, con's arguments were bare Assertions with no evidence or sourcing. They were all responded to with logical and well sourced responses that bared weight because of this. Due to the fact that pro was affirming, he held the BOP and none of his arguments were responded to do his burden is met due to no contesture to his arguments.