The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 762 times Debate No: 119632
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)




===== 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 =====

1 ========= My Argument #1
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? )

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. Every penny of the up front costs Q will be wasted. By definition, Q + P > P.

Therefore, I recommend that we not spend Q.

2 ========= Defining the CATASTROPHE
When you accept the debate, Please include a description of your understanding of the impending catastrophe arising from the globe's current warming trajectory. Please be as specific as you can: number of degrees of extra heat, Inches of ocean rise, Number of climate-related deaths, Etc. I will try to use your description as the authoritative CATASTROPHE throughout the debate.

(1) The link is 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


Happy to think with you today.

With such a character limited debate (3k) I'm going to have to be brief on each of these complex points. If it feels I'm being terse, Please understand that is why.

The debate over climate change does not exist. It is changing. The debate is on how much of an effect humans have on it. 98% of climate scientists say we have an effect.

The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. Some catastrophes are worse than others. If we can diminish a $4T catastrophe to a $2T catastrophe by spending $1T this is worth it. And that is only if you're prioritizing MONEY not MORALS. The more we spend now to diminish the catastrophe the more we save in the long term when the catastrophe peaks. And again, As a species, Much less a country, Preserving our environment ought to be a priority. It is not about money itself. So, Saying 'delayed' is wrong. It is about the magnitude.

A 1. 5C increase in global climate temperatures will be a small catastrophe. A 3C increase is massive. A 4C increase would see much of our current pleasures destroyed.

Here's a bit of a list of consequences. Feel free to select several to expand on.

1. Sea levels rise. This reduces available land. It puts many coastal cities underwater, Causing many people to be forced to move and many billions in damage over the course of the next 100 years.

2. Saltwater increases globally due to the melted ice. Freshwater may become tainted. Results in less drinking water.

3. The reduction in land will swallow up many islands, Forcing entire countries to become refugees. If you think we have an immigration problem now, Wait until the crisis occurs.

4. Animals go extinct or have habitats reduced drastically. Breaking the food chain can have consequences all the way up that chain, Including us.

5. The reduction in land decreases available farmland. The increase in climate temperature changes the locations of optimal growing areas for crops. Resulting in associated moving costs, If there is even optimal farmland available. This results in lower food production which results in famine and malnutrition.

6. The increased distance of sea before hurricanes hit land would empower hurricanes as well has have them hit locations that are not used to hurricanes. Associated costs, Again. More powerful hurricanes than we've seen before.

7. Increased temperatures would likely lead to droughts and increases in wildfires. Resulting in less trees to absorb pollutants and give us oxygen, Increasing air pollution. Associated costs can already be felt in California where the air is causing real human problems.

These are a small fraction of the problems. All of which can be reduced or empowered based on the decision of the US.

To say that terraforming the planet that we live on, That changing the global climate is an issue that should be a LOW priority for the US is absolutely absurd.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 1


1 ========= My Argument #1
First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link.

Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop.

2 ========= CATASTROPHE
It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. "

You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those:
1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA).
3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant.

3 ========= My Argument #2
There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever.

While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths:
--- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means)
--- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means)
--- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1)

Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually.

Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs.

(1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.


1. I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical.

2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify.

The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling.

The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera.

Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane.

3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use.

4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily.

5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found.

6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution.

Again, This is not a LOW priority.
Debate Round No. 2


1 ========= Up Front Costs Are a Waste
You rescinded any claim to P savings after Q spending.
Your only source that warming will ever end is the term "eventually. "

3 ========= There are no solutions
You respond that "Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. " Low level research into everything (including the climate) is getting done. This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to various folks to see if they can make some miracles. If somebody somewhere in the world ever actually finds a possible solution, The USA (and all nations) should make a deliberate choice about how to implement it. If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority.

But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low.

4 ========= My Argument #3
You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument.

This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress.

Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would change their tune at all. They would still say the sky is falling and spout their moral imperatives to "keep the climate stable. " This politics of alarmism worked for the first decade or two, But now it fails to generate enough public support to rise beyond low priority.

Therefore, Since costs to date have made zero progress so far (I call them a "bottomless pit"), The USA should keep its Q investments low.

Source: According to "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017" on the Climate Policy Initiative. Between 2012 and 2016, Just under $2T USD was spent, Including government and private investments.


1. I didn't rescind the hypothetical. I said there was no specific study to say yet, And commented that such a study with extremely specific numbers is probably not possible. Also, That it is only considering money and not morality, Or even human QoL.

Everyone in the science community talks about "A 2C Peak to global temperatures" or "A 4C peak to global temperatures. " I can give you sources for the global temperature cycle, The natural climate change that happens over time to show you there are peaks and valleys if you want. The peak may not every stop if we don't address our effects on the climate. By pumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere we are terraforming our planet. I can give you arguments for why pumping large amounts of essentially poison into our atmosphere is also bad for human health.

Here's a source that shows you people talking about trying to keep a 2C peak, And how our emissions have to change to achieve that peak.

eciu. Net/assets/peak-emissions/

If you don't want to accept that then I can't force you to, But this is what the scientists speak of.

The fact is if we keep it at a LOW priority and we don't address it head on, The graph above shows 2C peak will probably be unavoidable after 2040, And if the peak doesn't happen before 2025 we will have to get negative emissions to prevent going over 2C. Most people consider this fairly impossible, But not addressing it would lead us to a 4C world. Perhaps higher.

Now, If your claim is that we're all doomed anyway, I guess the US could keep it a low priority. We COULD just accept that the climate is changing, Lay down and die, But your arguments as to why we SHOULD just die fall flat.

2. We set a goal to get to the moon. We didn't KNOW we could. Research was done at a high priority for no better reason than a childish spat with Russia. If we can't get above a low priority for the terraforming of our planet as far as research goes, I can't give you a better justification. What's more critical, Spats with other countries or the instability of our climate?

All the scientists are suggesting many ways to pull gasses out of the atmosphere. You're asking us to trust your diagnoses that the probability is LOW but you are no authority in this matter. Even if it IS low, It should be a high priority to avoid a 4C or worse world. You have no argument to oppose this, And you have no argument to oppose the fact that increased research funding would more likely lead to a solution, Or a mitigation, Particularly when so many SCIENTISTS disagree with you. I've linked the Harvard mitigation solution already, What more do you want?

It currently seems that unless I'm able to tell you precise numbers for the catastrophe and give you a 100% pure solution prior to research being conducted then your position is that we should all lie down and accept an infinitely warming climate and that it is no big deal.

If you call this a LOW priority what are your high or med priorities?

Debate Round No. 3


I will use this round to respond to your sources and claims.

--- 1. 1 --- "Peak" warming
You suggested that I should focus on "peak" (instead of "delayed") warming. In Round 3, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit was your source. But it discusses peak EMISSIONS not peak WARMING, And it supports my position not yours!

If emissions had peaked in 2015, ECIU says world emissions must be ZERO FOREVER starting in 2070 to achieve "2C max rise forever. " What ECIU calls "net-zero, " I call "returning to the stone age. " Since emissions still haven't peaked, It says we will need negative emissions for half the Century.

ECIU's best idea to achieve net-zero: plant trees. This is laughable, But I will accept planting trees as a high priority. The other good idea (storing CO2 underground) "offers limited potential, " aka won't work.

--- 2. 1 --- Earth's History
You said, "In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age. " In effect this says natural climate change matters more than man-made climate change. It also suggests Science can provide a "global thermostat" regardless of Nature's prerogatives.

--- 2. 2 --- Solution: Dimming the sun?
You provided a Guardian article about solar dimming. But for $10B per year, The Guardian expects a "complement to--not a substitute for--aggressive emissions reductions action" that "destabilizes things" so that scientists can't predict its benefit (or harm).

--- 2. 3 --- Solution: Solar alone?
I provided a source that says solar CANNOT scale to replace oil. Your response: yes it can (but no source).

--- 3. 1 --- Some "poison"
CO2 is not a poison, Neither is Methane. Unless you also think that sugar, Salt, And water are poisons. After all, Too much of any of these will kill a person.

--- 3. 2 --- "Lay down and die"
Your description of the CATASTROPHE did not include mass deaths. You mentioned human costs, But nothing concrete. I think a source for how many people will die globally under the status quo would greatly improve this debate. Do you have one?

--- 3. 3 --- Moon Landing
Your comparison supports my position not yours! We agree that this should have been a low priority.

Between Kennedy's challenge and the moon landing, The USA spent $47B on NASA (1). That's $325B in constant 2015 dollars. The USA has already spent about $177B (2015 dollars) on fixing the climate (2). I'm willing to fund another $150B MAX on it.

--- 3. 4 --- Precise numbers
How can climate science forecast increases in hurricanes (or whatever) with CONFIDENCE, But not forecast decreases in hurricanes AT ALL? Are they not equivalent calculations?

I did not ask for "a 100% solution. " I asked for evidence of results from $2T. Even small results would help your side show the size of the problem. Why is there no answer?

(1) theguardian. Com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel
(2) climatedollars. Org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/


1. It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide.

If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere.

This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe.

I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now.

2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects.

3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority.

4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all.

5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate.

6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs.

mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world"

Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start.

May your thoughts be clear,

Debate Round No. 4


Closing Arguments

A === Minimal Scientific Consensus
Two times (here and in another debate of mine) you referred to the consensus from "98% of climate scientists. " But all Science tells us for sure is that there is some warming and some of it is our fault.

Beyond that, There is no consensus. Science does not agree on the size of warming--neither overall, Nor from humans; not on the CATASTOPHE--not P and Q costs, Climate-related deaths, When it will occur, Or lost hectares of livable and arable land; not on the path forward--neither an emissions target, Nor viable ways to achieve it.

B === Your Pathetic Solutions
You seem unfamiliar with solutions to what you call "the highest priority for any country. " You cited 2 kinds of solutions: known failures (solar dimming, Storing CO2 underground, Planting trees), And preposterous ideas (Sahara Desert solar panels, Dyson Spheres). I said I'm willing to spend money on planting trees. I consider this very different than "fixing the climate. " If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do we need ANY climate research?

C === Open Questions
You seem unfamiliar with world progress against what you call "the highest priority for any country. " I ask again, What has $2T bought us so far? If nothing, Then we should not waste any more money, Or we should fall back to planting trees. If it is unknown, Then environmentalists are not really concerned with progress, And climate spending is a bottomless pit.

In Round 4, I expressed willingness to cap future USA spending at $150B. You retorted that this qualifies as "high priority. " Is the USA halfway done then? I doubt you believe that.

D === Power?
One of the main reasons I don't want to pursue fixing the climate is the transfer of power from people to government. The most common "solutions" offered in politics are raising taxes and government spending. These all have dubious benefit to the climate, But they CERTAINLY increase the power of governments. Clearly the politics of climate are questionable. This is a serious concern for many people in the USA.

E === Better Priorities
While you think that "fixing the climate" should be THE highest, There are many other projects that are should be higher, Considering both the money and moral sides. The moral side is based on life-and-death consequences. The financial side is based on immediately viable solutions and low cost per saved-life.

The TED talk "Global priorities bigger than climate change" provides the following recommendations. The U. N. Estimates that for half the cost of "fixing the climate, " we could solve all these world problems and more:
--- AIDS --- $3. 4B prevents 3. 5 million new AIDS cases per year
--- Malnutrition --- $12B buys health for about half of cases worldwide
--- Poverty --- Reducing tariffs in USA and Europe (no govt spending, Just higher prices in the 1st World) raises 300 million people out of poverty in five years
--- Malaria --- $3B buys about 1 million saved lives per year


As a reminder to the judges and my opponent, The debate is on whether or not the US should make the terraforming of our earth a LOW priority or a med-high priority. I'm going to rephrase some of my opponent's arguments to be yes/no questions. See how many you agree with.

1. Scientists are sure there will be a catastrophe, But since they can't us exactly how many trillions of dollars it will cost it should be a low priority.

2. Since I as a non-scientist deem the scientist's proposed solutions unappealing, We should not fund their research fully until they have already developed solutions that appeal to me 100%.

3. If there isn't ONE solution to climate change we should not take the proposed solutions seriously. I don't think 20 different solutions that get us small portions of the way there is a viable way to deal with climate change. IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from solar, Wind, Geothermal, Or nuclear. We can't use all of them.

4. I think when climate research is funded that money disappears off the face of the planet instead of being circulated back through the economy. All $2T of research (if that is true) is completely gone off the face of the Earth. (This is not how economies work)

5. I said funding for climate change should be the equivalent of the space race which was high priority but that doesn't mean I conceded that climate change should be high priority.

6. It shouldn't be governments that have to answer to the people that should deal with the terraforming of our planet, It should be private companies who aren't answerable to the people.

7. Other problems exist. We can't solve those other problems at the same time as we solve climate change, Because the scientists who study those problems definitely stop studying those problems and working on solutions to those problems and focus instead on areas of research outside of their field of study. Definitely.

This is the problem with my opponent's line of reasoning. There need not be ONE solution to climate change. If something gets us 5% of the way there, That's great. If research is funded for solutions, We will find better and more practical solutions as well, Which may allow us more control over the climate in case the climate scientists are wrong and the climate starts cooling. Solar power CAN give us more than 100% of current power requirements easily. I'm not sure why he is pretending it cannot. I gave sources for this. The sun is a literal fusion reactor many times the size of our planet. I couldn't even get him to concede this point. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. I can list hundreds of different problems. The sad fact is most of them don't lead to catastrophes. Diseases, Malnutrition, Poverty, And malaria in particular would all be significantly increased with a warmer climate. No economist agrees with tariffs and those can be gone whenever Trump wants.

The negative terraforming of our planet is the most serious problem we face today.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Please inform me of any strawmen I used. The statements I put in were taken directly from Pro's statements.
Posted by Leaning 3 years ago
https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=0AW4nSq0hAc
Heh, South Park
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
nasa. Gov/topics/earth/features/upsDownsGlobalWarming. Html
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Addtl source for reading and expanding on the brief synopsis I was able to put into 3k characters

eciu. Net/briefings/net-zero/net-zero-why
Posted by Red_Fox 3 years ago
I tried everything you said and it still didn't work. What appears to have finally worked were updates to the apostrophes. When I copied the text in, They turned into quotes (i. E. , Let's became let"s). When I changed them back, The post stuck.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Could be something vaguely profanity related or anything with too many underscores or too many numbers. Anything that doesn't nearly perfectly resemble words.

From your R1 the way you stylize your stuff that might do it
Posted by Red_Fox 3 years ago
I have now posted several times, And it only shows as posted for a few minutes. I have no URLs, So it's clearly not that. I saw a comment that this happened recently on another debate. I'll keep trying.
Posted by LOL98700z 3 years ago
@Red_Fox: I guess the CNN truly did forgot to mention something very useful: The EAST: Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak. A device that is, On theory, Able to work nuclear fission. Unlike Nuclear fusion, It is much better choice than any other.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
Looks like you posted a R3 and it was deleted, Just fyi. Don't use URLs in your arguments, It is not worth it. Just put 'em in the comments. I've had 3 debates deleted for it. I refuse to put 'em in anymore. It's a bad policy by the site but that's life.
Posted by Thoht 3 years ago
R2 Source

US scientists launch world's biggest solar geoengineering study "The Guardian"

You can look up Harvard Solar Dimming and see the ideas they're testing. This buys us time for further research. It's a bandaid not a full solution.

There are other companies harvesting CO2 from the atmosphere. There's nothing that would make us think that it is not possible for solutions to exist. Either way, The priority is not low on instability.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by andymcstab 3 years ago
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought pro made by far the better arguments and con lost conduct points for overtly using straw men in the final round.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
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 found Con more convincing by examples such as the Moon being given high priority, implying why can't we give a CATASTROPHE more than low priority/ Pro appeared to accept global warming existed and had 'some man made cause. Pro then appeared to try to niggle all of the CATASTROPHE and it's effects away as not worth more than low priority. Con gave examples of many possible solutions as well as a number of implications of global warming. RFD given is more so my vote doesn't get pulled than my actual thoughts. I hate going over with a fine comb on near any argument and having to thoughtfully craft together a reply on every single statement for what I think it is right or wrong and why. Main gist is I read the arguments, unconsciously put together a tallymark scoreboard in my head that told me Con made a better argument.

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