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

Governments need to take radical action to combat 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,045 times Debate No: 117220
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




The governments of the world need to wake up to the reality of man made global warming which is leading to climate change. The planet is getting hotter every decade and this is leading to more radical and extreme weather patterns. This is and will continue to bring about more droughts, More flooding, More storms and more natural disasters. This will not only kill people but also severely impact economies and put our societies at grave risk.

97 percent of the scientific community and all scientific authorities support the theory of man-made climate change. Therefore we must trust our scientists and the overwhelming body of evidence and take action to reduce emissions.

We can use more renweable energy, Ban certain exhaust fumes, Eventually ban diesel cars, Put into place taxes on carbon and have stricter environmental controls.

This will help to reduce our cause of global warming and thus is a necessary and workable solution to this very grave threat.

Good luck to my opponent.


The ways you suggest to ending climate change aren't the only ways. Most industries that pollute are subsidized b\y the government. All we have to do is abolish the government and those industries will stop polluting. Nd we wouldn't even have to regulate anything.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm confused.

You don't seem to actually be opposing my motion that "governments need to take radical action to combat climate change".

What I did in my opening statement was gave a few suggestions about how governments could combat climate change. Instead of actually disagreeing with me, And arguing that governments shouldn't take action, You merely stated that there are other ways of doing it.

I agree. There are lots of options. Thank you for your suggestions. But since you have just provided other forms of action instead of challenging the principle of taking action, Is this really a debate?

We don't seem to have any disagreements.

You're proposal to combating global warming is patently radical government action - ending government subsidies of polluting industries.

So, I'm glad to see that we disagree nowhere.


Taking action against climate change includes economic regulation.
Debate Round No. 2


yes it does. Correct.

What is your point?


You feel the government should regulate while I feel the government should, In lack of a better term, "unsubsidize" corporations.
Debate Round No. 3


They can do both.

Anyway even if we disagree over what kind of government action should be taken that doesn"t matter because both count as radical government action so you"re not even disagreeing with the title of the debate.


https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=d1vSlNz0PaA
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
They should practice what they preach before I take them seriously on alternative energy.
Posted by LoveRichardDawkins 3 years ago
Your point is?
Posted by asta 3 years ago
I have never seen a computer powered by a bike. Also, Most of the people who advocate for clean energy don't have it themselves.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
asta, It sounds like you should except this challenge. By the way, I'm powering my tablet with an exercise bike, So pound sand.
Posted by asta 3 years ago
Why don't the people that advocate for more clean energy to protect the environment get alternative energy themselves so they aren't hypocrites?
Posted by lolusuk 3 years ago
lol, Climate change is not real
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 3 years ago
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made and explained his arguments in a clear fashion. Con did not, nor did Con give any reasons to really refute Pro (So far as I can tell)

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