The Instigator
S_putri
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

THBT High Emission Country should Financially Aid developing countries to reduce soot

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 2 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/8/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 64822
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

S_putri

Pro

Im totally agree with this motion because
1. High emission country produced somehow big precentage of emission that polutes the earth and it is also affecting another country including the developing country because of the global climate change so the high emission country should financially aid developing country to reduce soot.

2. if the high emission country financially aid the developing countries because kenya is already apply the invent of solar power system that changes the uses of fossil fuels. but kenya does not apply it n a mssive product but in an individually way. the kenya's people apply the solar system on their house so it can produce electricity. if the high emission country help them, kenya's government will produce solar system massively . the individual techonlogy has decrease 47.8% of emission , what about if governent develop it? it will decrease more emission each year.

3. developing country will use the aid to invent renewable energy that can replace the uses of high-prices-fossil-fuel. renewable energy must be affordable and cheap. the poverty will use the renewable energy to produce something they can sell with cheaper production-cost , and then it will increase the prosperity of people in deveoping country.

4. if high emission country do not financially aid the deveoping countries, the uses of fossil-fuel , natural gas, and coal will be trippling by 2050 and will dominte the world-supply energy

4. if high emission country do not financially aid the deveoping countries, it will make the environment get worser and worser because none of them could decrease the emission rates and it would destroy our earth and biotics population due to the globl anomaly problem and
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I want to start by thanking Pro for instigating this thought-provoking challenge.

The resolution is clear: THBT High Emission Countries should Financially Aid developing countries to reduce soot.

Since my opponent is Pro, she will have the full burden of proof to show why high emission countries should financially aid developing countries to reduce soot.

On the flip side, I merely have to rebut her arguments which will negate her chances of maintaining the BOP. I will most likely include additional counter-arguments that are aimed at negating the resolution instead of merely rebutting her points.

Rebuttals

I. High emission countries affect developing countries via global climate change.

I do not know which countries Pro is talking about. I've googled "high-emission countries" and get various results depending on the source. I ask Pro to please define which countries are which and to present a list of the countries so that I know which countries to address throughout this debate. Without that list, I cannot verify which countries are being negatively affected by others. So far, this is nothing but an abstract claim backed by zero clarification or evidence.

II. High emission country financially aiding Kenya for Solar power systems.

What I gathered from my opponents poor spelling and grammar was that high emission countries should help finance a country-wide solar energy system for Kenya. I do not see a realistic means for achieving this due to many variables which seem lost to Pro. Pro fails to consider that if a country had the means to finance such an endeavor, they'd most likely have done it for their own country as well. Yet, considering they are still a high emission country, it's likely they haven't the means to even bring down their own emission levels, much less help a massive country like Kenya. First off, I'd need to know which country Pro expects to do this. Secondly, we need to consider if said country even has the means to do so. Lastly, Kenya already has a plan in motion to have the country generate over half of its electricity through solar power by 2016. [1]

[1] http://www.theguardian.com...

After reading the article, it seems like they don't need any outside help since the government has already striked contracts with the private sector to fund half while they fund the other half.

III. Developing country will use the aid to invent renewable energy.

My opponent believe that receiving aid automatically means someone will invent a source of renewable energy. It simply isn't that... simple. First off, the developing country would need to have the means for inventing a new source of renewable energy. This isn't just money either but also equipment, trained scientists and engineers, and an energy source that isn't already capitalized or controlled by entities already existing in their nation.

My opponent says "the poverty will use the renewable energy to produce something they can sell with cheaper production cost". While I'm not too sure what that means, if I take it at face value that the poverty-stricken will invent such a thing, then I can say Pro needs to prove it. Prove to both me and the audience how the poverty-stricken has the means to achieve such a feat, otherwise, this is nothing but baseless claims backed by no evidence whatsoever.

IV. ...the uses of fossil-fuel , natural gas, and coal will be tripling by 2050...

My opponent makes this claim, but never backs it up with evidence to validate the claim itself. Without evidence to support a claim like this, it stands as nothing more than an opinion. I also fail to see how this will be due to high emission countries failing to financially aid developing nations. My opponent shows no correlation or causation to back up this claim.

V. ...it will make the environment get worser and worser...

My opponent states that none of the developing countries could decrease emission rates without the financial aid of high emission countries which would then lead to the destruction of our earth and biotics population due to the global anomaly problem...

I'm not sure how to respond.

Pro has failed to provide any proof showing that these countries can't decrease emission rates on their own.

Pro has failed to provide any proof showing that our world will be destroyed if the aid isn't given.

Pro has given no references to show us what this global anomaly problem is... which after a Google search is still a mystery to me.

This entire line of argumentation falls flat due to these reasons. Pro would need to provide proof and references in the next round for this argument to be considered valid at this point.

Neg-Case Arguments

I was initially planning to spend this section providing some arguments which serve to directly negate the resolution. At this point though, due to the low quality found in every one of Pro's arguments, I will hold off on doing so until Pro can overcome the challenges presented in each of my rebuttals first.

With this said, there are three arguments I will present in later rounds should Pro manage to defeat each challenge I've presented in my rebuttals. If Pro fails to do this, she fails to maintain her BOP and will rightfully lose the debate due to her inability to affirm the resolution.

In closing,

I have provided rebuttals to each of the five arguments presented by Pro. Pro needs to present some serious proof for each of those arguments and references for other less clear aspects of her arguments such as the global anomaly problem. With these challenges presented, I now return the floor to Pro.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
S_putri

Pro

S_putri forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited Round 2.

I, therefore, extend all arguments as they currently remain standing unchallenged.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
S_putri

Pro

S_putri forfeited this round.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

My opponent has forfeited the final round.

My arguments remain standing unchallenged.

Please vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
LMAO, I meant please vote Con -_-

Pro forfeited nearly the entire debate.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
So, you are for global welfare. Make everybody welfare dependant. Why not let those countries install freedom and get rid of the ism governments they have now. Then they can afford to take care of themselves.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
S_putriBlade-of-TruthTied
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 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
S_putriBlade-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:16 
Reasons for voting decision: ff. Spelling and grammar to pro because con told us to vote pro.