The Instigator
Shader609
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Kreakin
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Why Global Warming Could Destroy Planet Earth

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 3 votes the winner is...
Kreakin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 856 times Debate No: 42957
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

Shader609

Pro

Round 1 Acceptance.
Kreakin

Con

I accept. Please state your case.

I look forwards to debating this interesting topic.
Debate Round No. 1
Shader609

Pro

Shader609 forfeited this round.
Kreakin

Con

Awaiting opponents argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Shader609

Pro

First off, let me start off by saying sorry for not having my round two. This was going to be a three round debate but I accidentally clicked on four. Let's start with the topic at hand, Global Warming. Global Warming, as we know it, is killing planet Earth. For you who do not know what Global Warming is Global Warming is rise of average temperature in Earth's Atmosphere and oceans. From around the world, Global Warming is having different effects. In the Arctic, many animals are going without food and having shelter. Without the glaciers and ice, animals that live in these areas will go extinct. The retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice are constant effects of Global Warming. Besides the Arctic, the rest of the world have had a vast amounts of negative impacts on their environment. In the United States, the Eastern Coast of America was hit with 70 degree weather in the middle of December. How does this happen? This happens because of Global Warming. If everybody just did their part in recycling and reducing the amount of energy used, this would not be an issue around the world. Heat Waves, Droughts, Extreme Weather are all causes of Global Warming. Because of these various factors, Global Warming could be our downfall if we do not do our part. For more insight on the effects of Global Warming, check out these sources.
SOURCES
http://www.chevron.com...|pcrid|19965520129|pkw|global%20warming|pmt|p
http://www.nrdc.org...
http://www.ucsusa.org...
Kreakin

Con

Thank you to my opponent for his statement above addressing his resolution:

"Why global warming could destroy planet Earth".

First off I need to say, I disagree that planet Earth would be destroyed.

As far as Global warming I contend that our planet has been shown to fluctuate in temperature, so in as much as it warms it also cools(1). This is my only concession to the existence of global warming.


Next, I would like to look at my opponents statements starting with:

"Global Warming, as we know it, is killing planet Earth".

This is a bold statement in that he ascertains that the planet Earth is alive and is being killed.
As we know it is not alive, however I would not contest life exists on and within the Earth.
All life could cease to exist on Earth and this would not mean the planet had been killed, it was never alive..


"In the Arctic, many animals are going without food and having shelter. Without the glaciers and ice, animals that live in these areas will go extinct."

I would contest that this is relevant to the debate and that it would not kill planet earth. The extinction of creatures in the wild is a naturally occurring event that has gone on since life started to reproduce, it is no evidence of global warming at all. (2) Unless you are saying it is a Mass Extinction.



"Besides the Arctic, the rest of the world have had a vast amounts of negative impacts on their environment. In the United States, the Eastern Coast of America was hit with 70 degree weather in the middle of December. How does this happen?"

Weather has fluctuated to extremes since it has been measured and recorded, was the heat wave in 1921 due to global warming too? (3)



"If everybody just did their part in recycling and reducing the amount of energy used, this would not be an issue around the world."

I challenge my opponent to make a sensible case from this statement.



"Heat Waves, Droughts, Extreme Weather are all causes of Global Warming."


This statement is unusual, please provide proof that heat wave, droughts and extreme weather cause global warming.



To this point I would state that my opponent has not even begin to explain or defend his resolution "Why global warming could destroy planet Earth".

Instead he has focused on a point of proving global warming exists, which in the nature of good will I have indulged.

I would also suggest that my opponents arguments so far appear to have been hastily written and the due time & consideration required for a serious debate has not been given.




1 http://www.sciencedaily.com...
2 http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk...
3 http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Shader609

Pro

Shader609 forfeited this round.
Kreakin

Con

Opponent forfeited, please vote as opponent does not deserve a draw!

Thank you!
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Kreakin 3 years ago
Kreakin
Thanks! If you would like to debate the resolution "global warming exsists" or similar I would be happy to play Con to your arguments? We could have a proper debate : )
I wish you a very Happy New Year!!
Posted by Shader609 3 years ago
Shader609
I am sorry about not posting my round of debates. Because of the holidays and everything, I did not poat anything. Even I would vote for Con.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
DON"T Ff
Posted by TheBigBambino 3 years ago
TheBigBambino
Here about the scientists who went out on a ship to prove global warming exists and then got stuck in the ice? LOL.
Posted by Shader609 3 years ago
Shader609
Is this better?
Posted by MoonGod 3 years ago
MoonGod
Do you mean Man Made?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Shader609KreakinTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Shader609KreakinTied
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 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: Well argued (I agree that we're not going to destroy planet earth, no matter how bad global warming is) by Con, and the forfeits seal it for him as well.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 3 years ago
MassiveDump
Shader609KreakinTied
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 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: What can I say? Well, I can say a lot of things. "Derp" could be my entire RFD because frankly, that's what this is. Conduct goes to Con not only because of the forfeit, but because apparently Pro only wanted a three-round debate, so he forfeited Round 2. This is one of two things: A) a ridiculous, unsportsmanlike excuse, or B) a terrible way to deal with an accident. If you accidentally make four rounds, you'd better debate four rounds. Pro's sources were pretty, but they were just bait to make it look like he actually researched his argument. Maybe he did, but unless he uses them to tie into his argument, I would much rather see him show no sources. Arguments also go to Con because Pro never linked anything he said to destroying planet Earth, only to being bad things. Con duly pointed this out.