The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

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: 12/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 466 times Debate No: 119346
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




===== Begin DISCLAIMER =====
This is a Politics debate.

I have no interest in debating the science of climate change. I find it tedious. I am also hesitant to debate any of the science involved. Therefore,
---1) I acknowledge "the science of the problem" without reservation: global climate change exists, Is man-made, And is leading to a CATASTROPHE
---2) If a reputable source makes (or reports on) a scientific claim, I will accept it as accurate
===== End DISCLAIMER =====

When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate.

It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the political response to it. In Round 2, I will try my first argument that the CATASTROPHE [per your description] allows for the US political response to be putting it at the bottom of our priority list.

In each of the remaining rounds, I will make an additional argument to support my thesis. In all rounds, Please do your best to rebut my arguments.


Climate technically is a big problem. Flooding would be an instant problem, And I know the solution for that is gonna be "They can build walls and stuff" BUT USA is already in debt and needs to repay countries, And to do something like that would take billions of dollars. Plus flooding could cause another problem. Power. "Oh no but we can just add more solar pannels" Yeahhhh. . . But then money. Plus overpopulation is gonna be a big problem and with less land means less homes for people. I'll state my argument here for now and see what you have to say
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for agreeing to the debate.

===We need to keep in mind the real choices before us===
Many people think that the climate choices are:
A) fix the climate, Or
B) head straight for the CATASTROPHE.

In contrast, This CNN article (1) describes the real choices:
B) best case, Hit the CATASTROPHE in 2100, Or
C) real case, Hit the CATASTROPHE some few years later (can anyone tell me how long the delay will be? )

===Let's review how the three options stack up===
If option A were really possible, Then maybe the USA could rationalize putting a lot of resources on it today. But since a slight delay in 80 years is all we can possibly achieve, The priority of necessity plummets.

If we go ahead with option B, We will certainly need to spend resources on the CATASTROPHE. But, It will be to deal with the incremental consequences as they come (let"s call these incremental costs "P").

If we go ahead with option C, We will spend a lot of time and money to slightly delay the CATASTROPHE (let"s call these up front costs "Q"). Nevertheless, Once the delay expires, We will still have to spend the P costs.

===Now, I will conclude my Argument #1===
Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P. Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q.

(1) links not working. The CNN article is called "Earth to warm 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century, Studies say" with a dateline of July 31, 2017


NoobyIsMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Anyone Else up for a Debate?


NoobyIsMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


NoobyIsMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


NoobyIsMe forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Red_Fox 3 years ago
NoobyIsMe, Thanks for accepting the debate!

Let me see if I understood correctly. You feel that climate change is "a big problem" because it will result in "Flooding", "Power [shortages]", And "overpopulation". Is that right? It would help me a lot if you could add a little more substance to your description of the CATASTROPHE, And internet sources would be a bonus so that I can review what they actually say.

I have a few questions:
-How bad will the flooding be? Inches of ocean rise? Hectares of lost land mass?
-I'm not sure how power shortages come in. . . When oil runs out? Please explain.
-I've never heard of overpopulation due to warming. Can you suggest a report/article that discusses that?
Posted by luanism 3 years ago
Posted by IsaiahWOod23 3 years ago
i agree, With all the crap in the world, Climate is just a fake burden, All for the attention
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.