The Instigator
Nate1000
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
danthor9
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should global warming or global poverty be a priority

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: 3/3/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 366 times Debate No: 87562
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Nate1000

Pro

Do you think solving global warming is more important or global poverty/education/hunger

(Pro side- I'm voting for global warming
danthor9

Con

Stopping global warming might seem as if it should be prioritized, and it is certainly an important issue, but stopping global poverty should without a shadow of a doubt be prioritzed. Poverty is an issue that most of the world has to deal with, or has dealt with before, in comparison with the negligible and marginal impact global warming has had on humanity. The world's climate is warming up - yes - but we have already taken measures to stop its proliferation. Governments around the world have instituted laws banning the use of fossil fuels significantly, such as liberal states like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. And with the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement implemented, countries now have even greater reason and initiative to stop using coal, gas, and oil. The fossil fuel industry is on the verge of collapse, meaning new technologies will grow in relevance, stopping the global temperature from rising eventually. Meanwhile, people are dying of starvation, disease and warfare, direct consequences of poverty. We must look both into the future and into the present, but the present should of course be prioritized. People are dying from poverty, not global warming (a negligible number), and therefore to save the lives of men, women, and children at the moment, dying from starvation, disease, and bloody conflicts, we must prioritize the combatting of global poverty.
Debate Round No. 1
Nate1000

Pro

True but it'd take years and years to have at least half of the population of the u.s alone to switch over to green power with eletric cars, green energy homes. Also there's a new invention called solar roads where eletric cars can drive while charging. Imagine that, but replacing just one country's roads is going to take a lot of time, money although across the world will skyrocket= poverty solved
danthor9

Con

This reply does not make any sense. What you are saying is that global warming can be solved with the implementation of "solar roads" You even refuted your point, saying it would cost a lot of money? If you are for the combating of global poverty, then why would you go against your own stance momentarily.

To continue my point, I would like to reiterate that stopping poverty must be stressed over stopping global warming because of the fact that it is a current problem, as opposed to the long-term problem that global warming is. Right now much more people are dying from destitution, not rising oceans, a number reaching the hundred of millions. Children are unable to survive to adulthood because of their extremely poor conditions. These are problems that must be solved as soon as possible, while the problem of global warming can wait, and is already being dealt with sufficiently.
Debate Round No. 2
Nate1000

Pro

Nate1000 forfeited this round.
danthor9

Con

The fact that you forfeited means that you have now become aware of the fact that global poverty is a much greater threat to human survival than global warming. You have attempted to make succinct responses and points, but not only have they made close to no sense, they have been contradictory.

Stopping global poverty is a current issue, as opposed to the future and distant concern global warming is. Therefore, it has to be prioritized, for the good of the people of this world. Thanks for debating with me
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
Oil would take a beating on the stock market but it wouldn't be a vacuum. it would be replaced by soaring green energy stocks.
Posted by Nate1000 1 year ago
Nate1000
Wouldn't there be a crash in stocks if we depend on green energy instead of fossil fuels. Green energy is incredibly important but it's going to be very hard to make a switch and convince everyone to play along because there's always a group that thinks green energy is pointless and costs to much. I also have a big question, would green energy survive some sort of attack like emp or power plants shut off because the civiliazation is in ruins?
Posted by matt8800 1 year ago
matt8800
Global warming = widespread agriculture failure = future starvation for many millions
No votes have been placed for this debate.