The Instigator
Torvald
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TCD23
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The world should cooperatively abandon hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) as an energy source

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: 7/8/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 807 times Debate No: 35381
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Torvald

Pro

As Pro, I shall be arguing that the world should cooperatively abandon fossil fuels in favor of clean energy sources. I will offer alternatives, suggest reasons as to why fossil fuels are economically, environmentally, and otherwise pragmatically unfavorable, and answer questions regarding the matter for my opponent, if necessary. First round shall be dedicated to acceptance. The last round shall be a closing round, and accordingly I prefer no new information be submitted therein. Video evidence will not be accepted, and any sources are just that, sources, rather than arguments; any information to be considered in the debate will be presented therein, not as links. Please do not attempt to circumnavigate the 8000 character cap, by using images of text, links, videos, or glitches. Invoking the vote of the audience (e.g. "Vote for Pro") will result in an automatic concession of the Conduct point. Preferably, all cited sources are to be reliable. Examples of unreliable sources include "Cracked.com," "Answersingenesis," "The Truth about GMOs, by John Smith-Doe," and "Backyard Sue's Guide to Spiritual Fungi." Wikipedia is acceptable, though its reliability may be disputed if prudent. New users should preferably think twice about accepting this debate, as, odds are, you will probably never even return to this site.

I await the acceptance. If there are any stipulations that a challenger may wish to add, the comment section is open for business.
TCD23

Con

The very concept of the entire world, "abandoning" anything yet alone such a base of society such as fossil fuels is one with very little basis and reason with reality. In today"s more idealistic times it may be easy to be enthused with optimism but it is necessary to recognize that any and all lasting, positive change comes about through gradual, moderate process and due course rather than quickly thought out plans. Fossil Fuels have caused for an over dependence on them that takes away self-sufficiency from nation states and as an extent its people. Yet the simple fact of the matter is that there would be no way we could abandon it the fuels in this current century in the Western world let alone the developing and industrializing world which are almost entirely reliant on fuels to keep some balance of modernization.

If we take an Utilitarian view of ensuring the greatest happiness and define it by a wage that ensure leisure then the argument becomes moot when we consider that in the U.S alone has 9.2 Million jobs created by the Oil and Gas industries. Should we chuck nigh on ten million working men and women into unemployment the cost alone would be immensely damaging let alone the lives destroyed by such a decision. It would also be safe to say that the immense number of other jobs dependent on oil such as transportation of food would cause complete havoc on a wide scale. In reality it would only be the U.S.A or China with enough power to instigate such a plan and there is little doubt that many other countries would declare war if either one tried to intrude upon a nations sovereignty. Co-operation would only come at a price of blood as nations refuse to give up their basic rights and any citizen should refuse to pay the price of war.

Last but not least is the fact that such a change should come about with reliable legislative change and as such the best solution would not be what the pro side states, but to instead investigate new renewable and clean energy sources alongside fossil fuels to make such a transition as peaceful as possible. Rationalism is always the most effective method and as such by rejecting extremism put forward by the pro side, a better future for energy is ensured and more importantly for the human race as we know it.
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Pro

Torvald forfeited this round.
TCD23

Con

TCD23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Pro

I will not be posting any further arguments due to notification that my opponent's account is no longer active. I will repose this debate challenge after this one has expired, if any qualified opponents wish to debate the topic.
TCD23

Con

TCD23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Pro

As you vote, or just read through, please comment if you're interested in debating this topic and are not a new user.
TCD23

Con

TCD23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Pro

Well, this is really boring.
TCD23

Con

TCD23 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Well, this is awkward. I think this is the first time I've forfeited, albeit accidentally. I really didn't mean to do this.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
I would have loved for you to have accepted this debate, but unfortunately it looks like I'm going to have go ahead and do this with a newb. We can resume it afterward.

To answer your questions, I'm addressing the three main divisions of fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas. Part of the connotation is that they are nonrenewable. Yes, biofuels are renewable. I'm fine with the use of biofuels as an argument. It's not a bad one either. The standard for reliability will be basically lax; blogs are discouraged, as well as extremely biased sources, such as Answers in Genesis. Preferable sources are likely ones that are either encyclopedic or can be found with Google Scholar.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
May I take this to warm up for our debate on the Big Bang? I have a few questions. What do you refer to when you say "fossil fuels"? The label fossil fuel implies that the fuels are not renewable, which denies Con an argument of renewability. For example, oil, one of the most used fuels, is renewable, and it can be argued that it is not at all organic in nature. I won"t reveal the rest of my cards at the moment (source etc.), though. Do you refer to all natural fuels or just fuels that are produced from organic decay (such as (definitely) coal)? I"m not sure if you want to restrict the term to certain processes or are all fuels under the umbrella term "fossil fuel" game? From wikipedia, the three main fuels cited are "coal," "oil," and "Natural gas." Can we have a more explicit criteria?

Lastly, what is the standard for reliability that is being used? Can I use scientist blog posts? (As in Science 2.0 data sets etc.?) Is popularity of site important?

Thanks
No votes have been placed for this debate.