The Instigator
danjr10
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Citrakayah
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points

developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change

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...
Citrakayah
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/4/2012 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,250 times Debate No: 26002
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

danjr10

Con

I will be using the social contract where a country only has an obligation to its self

"The EPA Has been funded highly in the last 10 years but has come up with little to no change to the environment what so ever" 2010 BBC Article

I stand in firm negation on the resolution, Resolved: Devloped Countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

My case is backed by two contentions: Developed countries already fund unsuccessful environmental programs

Contention 2: There are other issues that are a higher priority to developed.

On to my first contention, According to the Library of congress the EPA gets an annual budget of eight billion dollars a year, and rarely if ever come up with successful solutions to pollution or climate change. The BBC has reported multiple time of the success rate of the Epa and The british environmental conservation agency stating that both programs are failures and taxpayers should not be paying for them. As I have shown, developed countries have Environmental programs, countries like the USA, Britain , Canada, Australia, France,Spain and Portugal all have developed environmental programs, so countries have already accomplished the resolution. Also according to the British Environmental Conservation agency, climate change is only studied 3 months out of the 12 as stated by professor Martin Anthony of Cambridge university " what is the point of studying climate climate change if there is no way to control it. So if there is no way to control climate change why should developed countries make it a priority.
This brings me to my next contention: Developed Countries have higher priorities. NASA States that climate change is a natural occurrence and as Professor martin Anthony of Cambridge university stated that there is no way to control climate change. Why should climate change be so high on the agenda? It shouldn"t, so the money used to fund these environmental agency"s in developed country"s can be used elsewhere, such as war effort, poverty and healthcare, the eight billion dollars that goes to the EPA can be used to minimize poverty, fund wars and fund healthcare. Climate change should not be a high priority in today agenda.
In conclusion I have proven that Developed country"s already have funded programs that involved in environmental study and that climate change is not a priority to developed countries.
With that I urge a vote in negation on the resolution. Thank you
Citrakayah

Pro

My thanks to my opponent for the debate, and I look forward to a fascinating dialogue. I must apologise for the poor quality of my response; I managed to misplace my AlphaSmart and shall be unable to locate it until Monday at the soonest.

Firstly, I would like to ask my opponent for his sources; I am unable to locate the BBC article and the only Martin Anthony I could find teaches at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Note that Con's arguments will be labeled C1, C2, C3, etc.; mine will be labeled P1, P2, P3, etc.

C1: The EPA does not only deal with climate change. It also deals with endangered species (though not to a great extent), hazardous waste disposal, and non-climate related pollution[1]. Furthermore, the efficiency of the EPA is irrelevant to a debate as to the moral obligation to mitigate climate change, unless it is showed to be common to all attempts to deal with climate change.

C2: The greenhouse effect is well supported[2]. We emit greenhouse gases. If we stop emitting greenhouse gases, and even possibly start removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then logically this would reduce the greenhouse effect, lowering the amount by which the world warms.

P1: The Maldives are currently trying to buy land in other countries, as they expect to be underwater if nothing is done about global warming. If they do purchase land (in, for instance, Australia, which is one of their potential targets), then they shall definitely cause a problem as they, and the country surrounding them, adjust to having another sovereign country in the middle of them. Not to mention the possibility that some people living there might not take kindly the Maldives moving in.[3][4]

1. http://www.epa.gov...
2. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
3. http://news.bbc.co.uk...
4. http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
danjr10

Con

I would like to pull through my points on the already funded programmes that are unsuccessful. It does not make sense to keep throwing money at a programme that does not work. also NASA stated that climate change is a natural effect. Also, according to the Social Contract no nation has an obligation to any other. Why should America care about what happens in Congo? They don't have to. Which is why I urge your vote in CON.
Citrakayah

Pro

Again, I must reiterate my desire to see Con's sources.

C1: Citation, please. Secondly, regardless of what NASA thinks, 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are altering climate through carbon dioxide[1]. Nor does my argument rely on humans causing the increase in carbon dioxide; we can remove carbon dioxide from the air regardless of the source.

C2: Firstly, this says 'developed countries' not 'USA'. Secondly, regardless of whether or not developed countries care, other countries will, and may (if they feel threatened enough) decide that they should enact sanctions on developed countries, or band together to attack them. Or present us with an embargo on their oil.

Furthermore, global warming is predicted to cause:
*negative effects in agriculture (wildfires, droughts) including to areas such as the Western United States and the Colorado River Basin
*increased spread of mosquito born diseases (dengue fever, malaria) to places including the United States[2]
*negative effects on ecotourism incomes as coral reefs die off (think Australia)[3]

1. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
2. http://www.nrdc.org...
3. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
Debate Round No. 2
danjr10

Con

The statement from the professor was from a BBC newscast in august of 2010. The articles are from BBC magazine. Unfortunately I can not post them online so we will scratch both these sources. My opponent stated in his last speech that the United States is not included as a developed country. Wikipeidia confirms that the United States is a developed country. My opponent also stated that my point on the EPA is irrelevant, This point is completely relevant because it is a organization funded by a developed nation which has come up with no successful solutions to climate change. My opponent has also not attacked my second contention so I assume that my opponent has accepted that developed nations have other bigger priority's.
My opponent stated in his first speech that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment. If these gases are so harmful, how come there is no law banning them? Why are they still being pumped into the atmosphere? I would also like to pull through my point on NASA ( climate.NASA.org) stating that climate change is a natural cause.
Lastly I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. No matter who wins or looses it was great fun.
Citrakayah

Pro

C1. Thank you for the citation. Unfortunately, it led me to a page I have taken a screenshot of and saved to my pictures[1]. Substituting 'gov' for 'org' I reached a page which I then, after one click (the 'evidence sidebare') arrived at a page where NASA agrees that global warming is both happening and is 'very likely human caused'.[2]

C2: My apologies to my opponent; I intended to say that the United States is not the only developed country. Thus, for example, my references to Australia. Australia is a developed country.

C3: I would like to state that humans are sometimes idiots and have been known, on occasion, to not ban things that were harmful. Examples include literally everything that has ever been banned; logically these thing would have had not to be banned at one point.

Secondly, the wording of the resolution assumes that greenhouse gases are hurting the environment; if they weren't no one would have any particular desire to mitigate the effects.

My thanks to my opponent for the debate.

1. http://www.debate.org...
2. http://climate.nasa.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Pro was dominating in the first and second round, and unfortunately came out kind of limp in the last. Regardless, this was a clear win for Pro. Con's arguments were either blatantly false, or mis-applied to the resolution.

For instance, that the EPA is unsuccessful is a policy question, not a moral one. Even if one type of mitigating program is unsuccessful, that doesn't address whether or not a moral obligation itself exists. Pro was also right in pointing out that Con never showed why program to mitigate climate change were conceptually doomed to fail. Therefore, the refutation is only of certain types of environmental regulation, not environmental regulation per se or the existence of moral obligation to mitigate climate change.

Con's social contract argument was incredibly muddled and unclear. Furthermore, he never responded fully to Con's refutation arguing that Con was ignoring the detrimental effects of climate change on the U.S. (thus social contract theory would support obligation to stop it within the U.S. Con's NASA point was equally false considering that Pro showed that (a) most scientists agree to the fact that climate change is mostly man made as well as the fact that (b) NASA has itself acknowledged the existence of man-made climate change.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
In Round One, Con began by revealing that he would be using the "Social Contract Theory" to frame his argument, which I could appreciate, being a devout Utilitarian, myself. He also anticipated a number of counter attacks, and presented counter arguments to them pre-emptively, which is an unorthodox tactic in this game. I was interested to see how this strategy might work out.

The debate, for me, hinged on the inclusion of the word "moral" in the premise, which negated most potential counters from the start. To me, this was tantamount to arguing that "all things being equal, if a developed nation is reasonably able to mitigate global climate change, that nation should attempt to do so." This framing caused me to foresee a very difficult burden for Con to overcome.

This advantage was aggravated somewhat by the verbiage used by Con in Round One. I prefer to write at about an 8th grade level, in order that I might be clearly understood by the largest number of readers. I feel that readability was lost in the Open by Con, due to a tendency to pedantic language. Ironically, this was not the case with Pro"s presentation, despite his having asked for consideration in this matter due to technical issues. Notwithstanding these difficulties, I found Pro"s entire argument very readable, almost regal.

In his First Counter, Pro (perhaps inadvertently) launched a brutal attack on Con"s sourcing; pointing out that his opponent had over-relied on the testimony of a possibly dubious source. Otherwise, he engaged in a variety of distracting flank attacks " which did not seem to weaken his opponent significantly in my opinion. This sourcing attack seldom works in my opinion, and is daring; it can backfire terribly into a long list of potential logical fallacies. (How many fallacies can we find in the following: "You got that from FOX News/MSNBC? And I am supposed to take them seriously?") This time was a notable exception.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
In Round Two, Con seemed to almost forfeit his turn, making a few quick-strike unsupported assertions. These included the allegation that some efforts to stem climate change do not work, and that developed nations are not required to defend weaker peoples. I viewed these as barely more than insults.

Pro, perhaps now realizing the vulnerability that he had exposed in Round One, began to assault Con"s sourcing much more aggressively. Since Con had used these sources to defend much of his R1 Opening gambit, the destruction of these sources represented a major factor in the debate.

Con never recovered from this. Pro proved to be a remorseless adversary, and never showed any mercy for the mistake. Several times, Pro ran up the score by presenting more flanking attacks, which were never answered or defended. These were barely needed; the outcome of this contest was not in doubt.

I feel that this was a decisive win by Pro, who did not seem to use much effort in securing this victory.
Posted by Citrakayah 4 years ago
Citrakayah
Yes, I got that, but can I have a link, or at least article name?
Posted by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
BBC Magazine published by the daily mail and WH Smith
Posted by danjr10 4 years ago
danjr10
sorry mate my sources are from a magazine from over here in london.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
danjr10CitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
danjr10CitrakayahTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: I have explained my voting in the comments section.