The Instigator
AMok
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Buddamoose
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

North America Needs to go Green.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,223 times Debate No: 21071
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

AMok

Pro

It is no secret that our world governments (including Canada and America) rely on oil for their infrastructure. Oil is still affordable by the general public and is relied on heavily. We in North America use oil, the burning of fossil fuels, and petroleum based products for so much. A few uses are: plastics, powering vehicles and machines, and trade.
Despite all of the positives associated with oil, it has devastating negatives. These negative aspects include: it is bad for our environment, rising in cost, relatively rare, and running out fast. The Canadian and American governments still rely on oil anyways- so why is this?
Well, sources have said that the cost of making the whole world green would be about $42,000,000,000,000 ($42 trillion). So governments can argue that going green would have catastrophic affects to their nations- but consider this. The day when oil either runs out, or becomes too expensive to purchase will put world governments in a much larger state of catastrophe than $42 trillion ever could.
I ask that somebody can argue why going green/moving away from oil take part in this debate. I want somebody who is serious, and respectful- as I will be towards them. You can consider the above text to be my opening statement.

*No matter what is said during this debate- or the outcome afterward, I would like to thank those that participate and want them to know that I respect and value your opinions.*
Buddamoose

Con

Thank You for starting this, this is quite an interesting topic for my first debate on this website.

Anyways, onto my argument. I will prove in this that "going green" is something you feel that should happen immediately. Therefore I will argue that it is not a task that need be completed immediately.
I will base my position on the financial negatives to "going green" and why it is most certainly not needed in this sense. I will also base my position upon environmental reasons as well, as to why it is not necessary to immediately implement these plans. As the severity of impact of continued usage of carbon-based fuels has not been conclusively determined) Finally I will also base my response upon the limited supply of carbon-based fuels, and how it is not necessary to immediately go green. As even in this country we have untouched/unused resources.

Thank you and I look forward to this debate.

P.S.- I have to ask, why is the character count so short?(1000)
Debate Round No. 1
AMok

Pro

Thanks for accepting this debate. To start: you said that going green was something that did not need to happen immediately. Well why not? The longer that we put little attention on renewable energy sources as a way to power our nations, the more we will pollute and destroy our planet. Do we have to wait until the day that oil runs out?
If we were to begin converting our energy sources into renewable ones such as wind, solar and geothermal, we would be ahead of other world nations. This would include Russia, and China who still rely on fossil fuels and oil. This is a huge advantage, considering the stress between Iran and Israel that is present right now.
We know that oil will run out, we know how to go green, and if we develop a plan and go into a bit of debt we can go green "today". Besides the financial downside, there is no bad aspect to a green way of life.
*P.S. I left the character limit low because it is my first debate, and I didn't know who might accept it.
Buddamoose

Con

My peer in this has stated asked, " Do we have to wait until the day that oil runs out?" Here(no offense) (s)he projects a basic misunderstanding of economics. It is common knowledge that there is of course a limited supply of oil. As production(supply) dwindles, prices will inevitable raise due to sustained, even increased demand. However, one must keep in mind, that as prices raise, demand will lower as well. We are already seeing this in gasoline(gasoline, not crude oil) which was our top export for 2011 because of a massive surplus due to decreased demand, caused by, higher prices.

http://www.usatoday.com...

To undertake a 42 trillion dollar project, is foolish as the market will correct itself as people make or find cheaper better alternatives to carbon-based fuels. No government, nor group of governments need undertake this mission, especially considering the recession, as this would result in bankruptcy.
Debate Round No. 2
AMok

Pro

AMok forfeited this round.
Buddamoose

Con

Debate has been restarted under: "Resolution: The United States must fully and immediately implement Green Technologies."
Debate Round No. 3
AMok

Pro

AMok forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by AMok 5 years ago
AMok
Alright sounds good. I'll get on that tomorrow when I got a fresh look at things. If you want to start before that feel free to challenge me, otherwise I will get on it tomorrow. Thanks.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
7k char limit as well?
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
With the format: Round 1- Opening statements. Round 2- Economical Round 3- Refutations Round 4- Environmental Round 5- Refutation and closing statements

If this sounds good please feel free to re-issue the challenge, if not, then let us continue.
Posted by Buddamoose 5 years ago
Buddamoose
Amok, might i suggest restarting the debate with a higher character limit? As this debate is quite expansive and 1k characters per round is simply not enough to properly debate a topic such as this? If you agree then feel free to re-challenge me upon this debate.
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
Global warming does exist.
Posted by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
lolol global warming? I'm sorry Contra, but it doesn't exist.
Posted by SinSyto 5 years ago
SinSyto
i say we be fair and dont discuss the matter just yet....not until amok arrives at the very least....but i cant stop you^^
Posted by Contra 5 years ago
Contra
I guess "going green" is not a right-wing policy then, I should of expected. You guys want to drill now, and develop green energy later, but what about global warming?
Posted by SinSyto 5 years ago
SinSyto
may i ask to clarify exactly what i would be against and or for?(sorry about this its just i am not quite sure what id be speaking for or against entirely)
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
Well not immediately, fund drilling everywhere for economic while slowly making green energy work. Then slowly convert.
No votes have been placed for this debate.