Is Paris Accord Bad for Nations
Debate Rounds (3)
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
2. Everyone will be happy because the atmosphere will be happy!
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
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.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by famousdebater 1 year ago
|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|
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.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.