The Instigator
JaPak
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Yraelz
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

The world should adopt our plan to significantly combat climate change

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,020 times Debate No: 5325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

JaPak

Con

What the hell kind of resolution is this?

The climate is forever changing and having the entire world follow suit in our specific plan is a total crock. There is no way in shape or form for us to be able to substantially have to entire world follow us in adopting our plan.

Not to mention... maybe... half of the world hates the very exsistence of the US...

I understand that safety and all things that matter plays an imperative role, but countries all vary on those rules and I know that some of them are indeed draconian with how they care for it's citizens, but in all actuality, no matter how many people you send to a country to reform them, it's in their very own power to change... In Example...

THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!
Yraelz

Pro

The fact that this is a 5 round debate makes me just a little sad. However I haven't actually done anything on his site in a very very long time so I figured I'd launch back into. I thank my opponent and hope that his/her arguments are insightful.

That being said it's time for the definitions:
-----------------------------------------------
Climate: the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. (Dictionary.com)

Change: to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone.

Combat: To oppose.

Significantly: Of consequence (Dictionary.com)

Resolutional Analysis:
========================
The resolution calls for a plan to significantly combat climate change. In other words the resolution calls for a plan to oppose (combat) possible future courses that are different (change) of consequence (significant) in the prevailing weather conditions of any given region (climate). A.K.A A plan that would prevent drastic change to the weather patterns of regions of the world.

CASE:
===================
Harms:
===================
A. Nuclear wars would cause massive climate change! The possibility of a Nuclear winter or even the increase in radiation during a nuclear war would be of such a great consequence that it would have the ability to effect the entire world through every climate region.

B. Nuclear war has the potential to destroy the entire planet and through it every climate system in the world. This is very very significant! Without the world all humanity ceases to exist. This is obviously going to be the largest impact in today's round. An impact that I will very much doubt my opponent can outweigh via any negative rebuttal.

Plan:
=================
1. Get rid of all the nukes!

Solvency:
==================
A. Without nuclear weapons in existence there could be no possibility of nuclear or planet annihilation.

Advantages:
==================
A. Nuclear terrorism. One of the number one threats in the last decade has been that of the terrorist. Ever since 9/11 we have lived in constant fear of terrorists, in part, because terrorists are willing to sacrifice all in order to attain their goals. This means that while another nation might not throw out a nuke for fear of the backlash a terrorist very well might. We can look to the empirical example of the Soviet Union, when it fell some of it's Nuclear Warheads went missing. The same could happen now, a nation falls, warheads go missing, terrorists acquire and nuke. The easiest way to prevent this is of course to simply decommission all nuclear weapons.

B. Soft Power. For the longest time the United States has seemed to be the nation that forces it's ideals on others. We go in, we invade, we take what we want. We possess the nuclear weapon and if we want to we can destroy you. The fact that we are proposing to end all nuclear weapons is a step back from our power hungry pose. Instead it appears to others that maybe in the future we would favor a more diplomatic approach. This thereby will increase our ties with other countries.

C. Economy. The Manhattan project alone cost us over 20 billion dollars. And for what? We nuked Japan twice, anything else? And that number has just increased since then. We have 45 million people in this country without health insurance. Gas prices at record highs. Poverty on the rise. There are certainly better things that we could be doing with this money in order to help ourselves and the world.

Anyways, that's my case for now. Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
JaPak

Con

JaPak forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Well, my opponent apparently has forfeited his second round, so I'll be here waiting for his response. Consider my points.
Debate Round No. 2
JaPak

Con

JaPak forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Once again my opponent drops his arguments and thereby concedes to me thus far. I'll await to see if he has anything else to say in the future.
Debate Round No. 3
JaPak

Con

JaPak forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

My opponents silence hints at his stunning yet inevitable agreement with my case. Vote foh me!
Debate Round No. 4
JaPak

Con

JaPak forfeited this round.
Yraelz

Pro

Yraelz forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
For one nation to say it knows best and to just react knee jerk is EXTREMELY dangerous. Significant tests have to be conducted to make sure that measures put forth do not futher exacerbate the problem.

Example is the use of tires to create artificial reefs in Florida (http://www.msnbc.msn.com...) This proved to be disasterous.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. We must make sure what do is logical and also in the best interest of the environment and not just to percieve that we are doing right
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
So your position is that the world should not adopt an American plan to combat climate change? (Sorry it isn't immediately clear).

If so, I think the majority of people would agree that global emissions should come under the auspices of internationally binding agreements (such as the Kyoto Treaty, of which, sadly, the US was a non-signatory b/t/w).

This is a fairly obvious position to take though - and nothing to do with anyone being anti-American. Global warming affects, necessarily, the whole planet and the problem should be tackled, as far as possible, with a global consensus - rather than one country, no matter how powerful, dictating what to, and what not to do, to everybody else!

I hope the US will engage more positively in the future with regard to environmental issues, rather than denying it exists, or if it does exist it isn't mankind's fault as Republicans tend to.

As the US is the world's biggest polluter (yes, I know China is catching up fast) I suppose what happens to the environment rather depends on who wins the next election.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
"What the hell kind of resolution is this?"

THIS.

YOU TELL ME WHAT THE HELL KIND OF RESOLUTION IT IS, MR. FRAMER.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
JaPakYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
JaPakYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:07 
Vote Placed by burningpuppies101 8 years ago
burningpuppies101
JaPakYraelzTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07