The Instigator
Vane01
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BrendanD19
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Paris Accord is bad for developing nations.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 2 votes the winner is...
BrendanD19
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/19/2015 Category: Health
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 84121
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Vane01

Pro

1. It harms economy
BrendanD19

Con

I will contend
1) The accord is nonbinding and therefore will have no effect
2) Dirty energy is not necessary for economic development
These will be fully elaborated in round 2

I would like to clarify several rules
1) As in all debates, the Con shall have presumption, and the Pro must meet the burden of Proof
2) No new arguments in the third round, only rebuttals and conclusions.
3) Finally, No Climate Change Denial. We are debating the Paris Agreement, not the existence of climate change.
Debate Round No. 1
Vane01

Pro

1. It harms economy by stopping or decreasing production.
2. IT is unhealthy for the citizens by raising poverty levels
BrendanD19

Con

First Contention: The Agreement is Nondbinding
The agreement reached in Paris is not legally binding, and participation is voluntary. There will be no punishments for nations who do not fulfil their duties. Therefore it will have no impact and if a nation percieves the agreement as "hurtful" it will simply not implement it.
http://thinkprogress.org...
http://time.com...


Second Contention: Fossil Fuels are not necessary for development
Coal, Oil and Natuaral Gas are not necessary for economic development. While historically economic growth has dependended upon fossil fuels, there is no evidence to believe that development in the 21st century requires fossil fuels. Green Growth is on the rise globally and the OECD states that Green Growth is allowing for more sustainable and equitable growth in nations including Cameroon, Nambia and Uruguay. In all these nations Green Growth has increased GDP and GDP per capita, and reduced poverty.
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.oecd.org...


Lastly, it would appear that the Pro has simply made a contention, without elaboration, and has shown no interest explaining his contentions or meeting the burden of proof. Any unsupported arguments are not argumetns and shoulld be disregarded.
Debate Round No. 2
Vane01

Pro

Vane01 forfeited this round.
BrendanD19

Con

By foreiting this round the Pro has conceeded my arguments and dropped all of his contentions.
I extend all of my arguments
Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
Vane01BrendanD19Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
Vane01BrendanD19Tied
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: FF