The Instigator
chrisman8
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Relativist
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

global warming

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...
Relativist
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 396 times Debate No: 49713
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)

 

chrisman8

Pro

should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?
Relativist

Con

I accept. I thank pro for the challenge.
============================
"should all countries do a better job in reducing carbon emissions?"


No, they shouldn't. Converting to green energy is realistically 3-5 times more expensive and the energy capacity from green industries yield 3-5 times less than conventional resources. This step is a disastrous move especially for poor countries. The Brandt report(http://churchillhigh.wikia.com...) illustrates how poor countries managed to only collect 1/5 of the world's income. They cannot afford such expensive technology that yields very little results. Poor countries, or countries in the south are shown below.




So the question of ALL countries adopting it is sheer fantasy.

I await pro's response.



Debate Round No. 1
chrisman8

Pro

chrisman8 forfeited this round.
Relativist

Con

FF. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
chrisman8

Pro

chrisman8 forfeited this round.
Relativist

Con

FF. Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
chrisman8

Pro

chrisman8 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
chrisman8

Pro

chrisman8 forfeited this round.
Relativist

Con

Full Forfeit by Pro.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
chrisman8RelativistTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Jevinigh 2 years ago
Jevinigh
chrisman8RelativistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I will award points for argument, but the argument is pretty weak against the big picture of what is at stake with climate change.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
chrisman8RelativistTied
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: The debate resolution did not reflect the arguments made in this debate, but nor was it specific enough. Con was the only one to provide arguments, so argument points go to Con. Con's only source was strong, so that's enough for source points. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit.