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

The US should adopt a carbon tax

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/15/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,570 times Debate No: 93766
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)




This is for the final round of Famous's Tournament, and the first round of Bsh1's Tournament.

"Carbon tax" refers to "a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels."

Lannan should start arguing in Round 1 and waive the final round (posting merely "no round as agreed").


I would like to thank my opponent for sending me the challenge for this debate and wish him good luck.


Climate Change

Many people are becoming more and more concerned with climate change as the world is coming closer and closer to levels of no return. Generally, global warming is when Carbons would build up in our atmosphere to trap heat to help warm the planet so that life on Earth is possible. Recently, this has been becoming more and more problematic as the Ozone layer is deteriorating and Earth's atmosphere is getting thicker and thicker, warming the planet with it. This has only problematic issues stemming from it. As many nations in the West, the US has a high consumption rate of fossil fuels as it accounts for 95% of our transportation consumption and energy consumption is nearly 70% as alternative energy is slowly beginning to emerge [1]. Fossil Fuels have another job, as they are being used, they produce carbon emissions that harm our environment and our atmosphere. The World Health Organization has reported that pollution generated from the excess of fossil fuels has killed nearly 7 million people worldwide, while 70,000 were killed in the US [2].

There are several issues that this can cause and many lead to having our planet become very unhospitable. As the Earth heats up due to the constant increase in Carbon in our atmosphere where the Carbon begins to build in layers in our atmosphere. This increases the problems as it will help cause the ocean to 'burp' where the frozen reserves of Methane will be released into our atmosphere which would result in a 44.6-degree increase in our Earth's temperature at higher altitudes [3]. This would completely end all life on our planet as we know it and if we don't try to curtail this then we will be damning our children and our grandchildren. We would see decades of time where the Earth's climate is varying so severely that the plants and animals would die off due to the conflicting weather patterns leading to mass starvation. Food production will see a fall by nearly half by 2050 [4]. The Earth has already breached the 'Point-of-no-return' of 400 ppm which means that if we do not make some sort of effort through the political process of our nation, we, as a human race, will face extinction if this isn't done now.

Must be done now!

With it being 2016, that means an election is coming in November. President Obama is currently a lame duck and many people will not try to get things done in Washington. We look at the current election status in 2016 and we see Hillary Clinton spiraling out of control after the email scandal no charge occurred and Trump is continuously rising as though it seems like nothing can stop him [10]. Donald Trump is a candidate who is Pro Coal and Oil, so we already know that there will not be action to help this issue under a Trump administration. Obama still political capital to use and create a law that can change things before he leaves in January [11]. This law would have to compromise with the GOP since the Coal and oil companies would lobby against this hard. The compromise would have to be nuclear power, since many Republicans do not support the normal Clean Energy sources, a nuclear energy tax credit with the abolition of the cap-and-trade system would be enough to get the Congressional support to get this law passed. Obama would help save the planet before Trump would end up destroying it when he gets into office. His administration would not only harm it, but would speed up the process causing the extinction of humanity to happen a lot sooner.

Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy is a clear renewable energy that is sustainable. The main issues on why this has yet to be fully established and recognized on a nationwide basis is due to the lack of investment in the field. The Federal Government, nor does Wall Street offer loans for the nuclear sector due to uncertainty in the market about these groups. They received some in 2005, but it was not nearly enough to get any program off the ground [5]. The Danish example showed that the government did not tend to keep their revenue long as they returned it to the energy sector to encourage renewable energies, and in this case the USFG should fund the Nuclear energy sector [6]. This is important to help keep the American economy healthy as it will keep money away from DC to be used on a different program and this will go to something that will benefit our nation in the long run. When we do some comparisons we can see that when we look at Capacity factor by generating source, Nuclear has 92.2 to Coal and gas's 56 and 54%. This shows the highest production and effective when compared to the other two more productive energy sources [7]. Waste also shows that nuclear waste is way less than that of the traditional energy sources. Despite not having much of an amount of availability, nuclear energy makes up 64% of the renewable energy output the nation receives showing how much the country gets from it. When other nations see us doing this they will follow due to the American Hegemony in the world. Many other nations have been implementing similar measures, but when the US gets involved, it will create a worldwide clean movement to get something done [12]. Even if it isn't to nuclear, it could be other forms of clean energy and things would see a major shift.


The Carbon Tax is an effective way to go about solving the climate crisis considering how close we are to a total environmental breakdown. We can see something like a simple $15 per ton of Carbon tax would lead to an 11% reduction in C02 emissions [8]. There are other aspects that are more preferable as this makes corruption less possible and eliminates many regulations which I will get into later on. The Carbon tax puts a price on the Negative externality of pollution. This has been put forth on a multitude of occasions known as a pigovian tax. Pollution is considered a negative externality to firms as they have no need for it and it only hinders their ability to operate. This gives the companies incentive to innovate and with the government being able to give out tax credit for renewable energy, this would provide incentives for these companies to transition to clean energy. The consumer would also react in a similar fashion. It is common for the consumer to go and work to mitigate unnecessary costs and will elect to select goods which are backed by clean energy. This would be done which much conscious as these market changes are seem through price changes. With the Climate Change causing prices rising and transport rising, they would elect for the clean energy selection as companies would try to convert their energy production and lower their costs. This would reduce the amount the consumer would pay which would allow the markets to fully adapt to people wanting to select the cleaner options since they will be cheaper.

The Carbon Tax will also go and reduce regulations where in the status quo, they use the Cap and Trade where there is a limit on the amount of pollution that can be allowed. Under the Carbon Tax, they pay as they produce instead of having their production stunted due to a ceiling on the amount they can produce. This could actually lower prices in the long term as it allows the companies to produce as much as they wish and exceed the limits they once had while they pay the taxes for it which will go to renewable energy. These companies will eventually be enticed to change their production to cleaner energy which would provide a mutual benefit for all parties involved. The Carbon Tax actually stabilizes prices where in the status quo, in times of economic downturn or when demand for energy is low, energy prices would escalate [9]. This would destroy the amount of innovation that is inspired since there would be no reason to do so since their yearly production is curtailed. Under this plan, innovation can be fully highlighted as it will help them increase their production and efficiency.

1. (
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
6. (
7. (
8. (
9. (
10. (
11. (
12. ( pg 132

Debate Round No. 1


Note: I actually support a carbon tax, and am playing devil's advocate.

== Rebuttal ==

(1) Is climate change a threat?

Pro exaggerates the effects of climate change. The notion that global warming as we know it is nearly as much of a threat as he's making it out to be (e.g. "the world is coming closer and closer to levels of no return") is nonsense, and it's been shown over and over again. He first suggests that "excess of fossil fuels has killed nearly 7 million people worldwide." That claim is hilariously false. The WHO is talking about air pollution, not excess fossil fuels, and his own source concedes that the main cause is overly polluting household fuels... which has nothing at all to do with a carbon tax. He lies about the source, making it seem like those deaths were caused by climate change, which isn't the case. Pro's second source talks about methane emissions caused by "exceptionally large changes" to the global carbon cycle, which aren't even observed at the current rate of human emissions.

Most research that suggests any major rise in temperature caused by carbon dioxide emissions as they are right now relies on climate models that have been disproven over and over again. All serious scientists agree that, per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, mean temperature will rise by between 1.1 and 2 degrees Celsius. Nir Joseph Shaviv's analysis of climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide found that cosmic ray influx drove temperature rise for the most part, which, when positive and negative feedbacks were added into the equation, created an average estimate of 1.3 degrees Celsius. He also found that climate sensitivity to CO2 was between 1 and 1.7 degrees Celsius at 99% confidence. [1] That much temperature rise isn't destructive at all... there's not much damage that could result from it, because: (a) we haven't reached the point of doubling in CO2 concentration yet, and it's unlikely that's to happen anytime soon; and (b) a rise in temperature of 1.3 degrees Celsius isn't harmful at all; a certain amount of CO2 would increase plant growth, on balance, and also increase rainfall.

Most research that suggests any sensitivity higher than 2 degrees Celsius is based on climate modeling, which can be wildly inaccurate. Researcher John Christy analyzed 117 climate models, and found that the results of 114 were wildly exaggerated estimates. [2] So data from climate modeling is wildly unreliable. There's no sense in claiming that the world is in a "tipping point" or that we're in some sort of apocalyptic scenario caused by climate change. Climate change exists, and is probably influenced significantly by human activity, but it isn't really a threat.

(2) Would a carbon tax work?

Even if we were led to believe that climate change is a threat by attention-seeking "progressives" and politically correct SJWs -- because scientists who believe that climate change isn't a threat are regarded with the same level of disdain as "micro-aggressors" are in society -- there's no reason to think a carbon tax would even work in reducing carbon emissions sufficiently to mitigate the threat. Pro doesn't offer a reason to think so. A carbon tax won't cut emissions drastically, and that's already been seen in Australia.

Australia's carbon tax reduced emissions by less than 0.1%, and it isn't even proven that that's the effect of the carbon tax so much as societal norms. The reality is people are going to keep using carbon-based fuels, and the tiny impact the carbon tax would have would do nothing to mitigate the highly unlikely scenario of extreme weather events. [3]

(3) Nuclear power

Moving to nuclear power makes no sense. First, it's prohibitively expensive. According to the EIA, the average cost of electricity produced by a next-generation nuclear plant - which is cheaper than plants that already exist - is $0.1084 per kilowatt-hour. [4] The cost of nuclear plant construction averages at $9 billion per unit. [5] Conventional coal and natural gas are significantly cheaper. [4] Added to this is the cost of waste management, which, in 2008, was $96 billion. [6] Furthermore, a carbon tax would increase demand for nuclear power, which would further increase costs, and nuclear waste (which it isn't easy to dispose at all).

Second, nuclear power has dangers to it. Nuclear meltdowns aren't a common occurrence, but when they do occur, they are particularly destructive. Failures can and will happen. We've seen the impacts in Fukushima, Chernobyl, Windscale, and Three Mile Island - all supposedly impossible, but they still occurred. There's also obviously significant risk of releasing hazardous materials, which creates extreme unreliability.

Third, there's also hilarious irony to this. Production of nuclear power causes significant fossil fuel emissions. Many nuclear power plants, due to the need to mine, transport, and enrich uranium and to maintain the plant itself, are as carbon-intensive as coal plants. [7] Nuclear plants also use Freon gas, a gas more potent than carbon dioxide as a climate forcing. It is an ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon used as a coolant. In 2002, the Paducah plant emitted 197.3 metric tons of Freon. [8] Nuclear plants have been put on "low-level alert" on occasion because of Freon release.

== Disadvantages ==

There are some pretty clear disadvantages to a carbon tax, which outweigh any benefits.

Outsourcing. Carbon taxes increase the cost of carbon-based fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. Carbon-based fuels make up 80% of American energy sources. Nuclear power is also prohibitively expensive and prices will continue to rise, so companies aren't going to shift to nuclear power. This offers companies another incentive to move production outside of the United States (i.e. "outsourcing"), in addition to incentives of cheap labor. Jobs will be lost, and the supply-side will be affected. [9] This also means pollution will be outsourced to other countries, to countries like China that refuse to implement carbon pricing... which completely invalidates Pro's case.

Implementation. It's impossible to implement a carbon tax. Australia tried and failed to enforce carbon pricing. That's part of the reason Australia repealed it: it did nothing to reduce emissions, but it still took up a lot of money to enforce it.

Economic harm. The carbon tax reduces households' disposable income, and the amount of money industries have. This will provide an incentive to reduce wages and fire employees, but these unemployed people and low-wage workers will still continue to pay high carbon taxes because carbon-based fuels are needed for a livelihood, these days. So jobs will be lost, and wages will reduce, and people will be driven into poverty. [10] Imagine a world like that. That's the world Pro wants implemented. Don't buy into that.

Those disadvantages outweigh the uncertain "advantages" that Pro brings up that really barely even exist. Instead, if climate change is really a threat, we could invest in researching climate engineering (e.g. putting sulfates in the upper atmosphere to allow volcanoes to naturally cool temperature) and avoid authoritarian measures that merely compromise on human welfare.

Conclusion. Pro exaggerates the threat of climate change, and then proposes introducing a tax that would be altogether ineffective at countering it. He then proposes the alternative of nuclear power, which is even more harmful. I've shown that a carbon tax is an unnecessary authoritarian measure that reduces the disposable income of households, destroys jobs, causes companies to move, and can't even be implemented. In addition, I've shown that carbon emissions can be "outsourced," generating the same negative impact. For those reasons, vote Con.



For this round I shall go over the rebuttals and then move on to my opponent's case in the disadvantages that he brings up.

1. Environment

My opponent states that these issues are over-exaggerated, but the thing is, this is incorrect. To draw a comparison, former US Army General who served during the Cold War had drawn the comparison that showed nuclear war was simply a Spector, but Global Warming and the issues it is causing is happening here and now [1]. This is not something that we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend we can ignore as it is here and has detrimental impacts for humanity and our globe. The thing is there is a high risk for the huge impact no matter what kind of skeptic spin you wish to place on it. When we perform impact analysis we can see that mine outweighs my opponent's as he only brings up job loss while mine is an extinction argument. My argument outweighs as we can see as even though the people may lose jobs, we will see people dying and many generations down the road our grandchildren will suffer due to our mishandling and apathy towards the environment. Even if the extinction occurs further down the road, we can see that it is still important as it poses more of a risk to humanity [2].

Another key issue is that our oceans are being severely harmed. Though my opponent wishes to discard this issue, we do have to look at the ocean and if it were to burp. The ocean is currently taking in a third of the world's Carbon emissions and turning them into acid which is harming our ecosystems [3]. There will be a loss of millions of jobs worldwide and many people's livelihoods would be destroyed by the loss of many people's only source of diet and incomes. My opponent may have attempted to refute the acidification, but cannot deny the job loss and ecosystem damage that would result due to such an event that would occur. The Ocean's 30 million tons of Carbon intake is climbing higher and higher and could soon halt. Which would result in the 'burping' of the ocean. According to a source from the NOAA, they have reported that such an acidification would result in human extinction due to the total destruction of freshwater, food sources, and even simple economic resources that would occur as such a result [4]. My opponent goes on to commit an ad pop fallacy as he states that most scientists disagree, but just because that more people disagree does not make it fact. NASA had stated that this was one of their models of a 'burp' not really a simple ice cap melting or any other kind of event. I have already shown that the world is in a tipping point as we have already crossed the 400 ppm Carbon limit. This has been dubbed as the 'tipping point' by many including several NASA scientists.

2. Will it work

I would first like to go on record to say that I'm neither an "attention-seeking 'progressive'" nor a "PC SJW," so I'm going to ignore this first part.

My opponent brings up Australia, and I will bring up Australia later on, but let's look to other areas. If we look at Germany, we can see that their take reduced carbon emissions by 2.4% as well as increased jobs by 250,000 jobs. If the Carbon Tax harms jobs, then why is Germany's increasing [5]? In British Columbia, we have seen a decrease in Carbon consumptions by 16% while the GDP per capita in BC, from '09-13, leads the rest of Canada by 0.5% [6]. If anything, this shows that not only does this work, but it helps the economy, which I'll go more in-depth later on.

3. Nuclear

[T]he cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil.[7]" We can see that the cost per kilowatt-hour is quite a different story than what my opponent states. If you look at his EIA article, you'll see that the average conventional coal edges out nuclear by .1 $mwh, while the other types of coal are quite more expensive and the maximum, nuclear is cheaper.

My opponent brings up the few meltdowns, but these are rare, Fukushima inspired a new fixture which is using the same technology that they use for offshore drilling. Why is this important? These floating platforms create automatic cooling which negates the factors that would create overheating or the lack of care post natural disaster and the nuclear plants would be safe [8]. There are many myths that come out of this issue that my opponent is bringing-up. For one instant, nuclear physics have stated that coal and oil plants both put out more radiation than that of a nuclear power plant [9]. These plants even contain several shutdown mechanics that can help mitigate the effects of a meltdown even under a terror attack creating a safer environment than my opponent wishes to attack it with.



My opponent brings up how this will cause more and more companies to move overseas, but he fails to explain why outsourcing is such a bad idea outside of just stating that it will result in job loss. Many people have argued for outsourcing due to it resulting in cheaper products which many people support. We do have to observe, when we revisit the Germany example, the Carbon Tax resulted in an increase in jobs of 250,000, not a net loss. Such an outcome clearly shows that this creates job with it being a freer market option than the status quo of Cap-and-Trade which my opponent has dropped on how bad the status quo is and how much more preferable the Carbon Tax it is.


My opponent uses the Australian example, but fails that more than Australia had tried this. There are several nations and even US states that have tried this and with a success: Switzerland, Norway, UK, California, Colorado, BC, etc... Implementation may have been an issue with Australian, but it mustn't have been an issue with all of these other areas that have enacted it as they still have it and have gotten a net benefit out of this.

Economic Harm

My opponent's claims are false. The German example has shown job net gain and the BC example has shown a GDP increase due to the Carbon Tax. My opponent claims that Australia only fell 0.1%, but that was only the first year. It turns out that it later dropped to a 5% drop [10]. Australia had also reduced its income tax when this was implemented, so the harm on the average Australian was mitigated. My opponent also drops how people would make rational choices to do what they will to decrease their costs and this has been shown to happen across the board. If this tax is implemented, then we will see a net benefit for the American economy.


My opponent attempted to attack my case with these disadvantages, but we can see that these are futile and many actually help me. The economy has been shown to improve under the Carbon Tax and many of these attacks are simply mythical and non-existent. All of his disadvantages have been negated and some have actually been converted into an advantage for my side in this debate and must be viewed as such. My opponent has dropped a huge amount of my economic arguments from my previous round showing on how much the economy can benefit under the Carbon Tax. We can see that there is a significant impact that will occur if we do not enact this as our environment will suffer and can lead to a human extinction in the long run. When we look to an economics argument, we can see that the Carbon Tax wins there as well as not only does it led to innovation, clean energy encouragement, and nuclear solutions, but it increases jobs. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Pro!

1. ( pg 10
2. (
3. (
4. (
5. (
6. (
7. Hertel, Nolan E. "“Has the Time Come for Nuclear Power? Yes: It's Safe, Clean, Cost-Effective,”." Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 27 July 2008. Web. 24 July 2016.
8. (
9. (
10. (

Debate Round No. 2


Note: I apologize for the rushed round, but I'm really short on time -- like, I have no time at all and have max. 5 minutes a day on DDO -- and I've completely lost interest in this debate because I'm spending like 7-8 hours a day studying for exams.

This debate is very simple. Pro is advancing the demonstrably false notion that climate change is a significant but preventable threat to human existence. It isn't significant, and to the extent that it might be significant, it isn't preventable by incremental measures such as a "carbon tax."

Pro talks about how his impact is "bigger" than mine, because he's talking about the effects of climate change and how many people it could kill. But those aren't his impacts--those are the supposed impacts of climate change. So, even as per Pro's own flawed logic, the benefit to a carbon tax isn't saving thousands of lives, because a carbon tax isn't going to prevent all of climate change. It's barely going to reduce emissions. Even if 50% of emissions are reduced, at this point, there won't be a significant impact. [11] Researcher Susan Solomon explains, "People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide that the climate would go back to normal in 100 years or 200 years. What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years." [11] The US isn't the country with the most carbon emissions, China is. One country controlling climate change won't change anything because of the small effect the carbon tax has, and the fact that even if emissions are reduced drastically across the world, the impacts are going to stay.

Pro keeps bringing up the example of Germany, so let's look into that. Here's the reality: Germany's carbon tax failed utterly. The article Pro has is from 2004, back when Germany's carbon tax was just five years old. Now, on the other hand, prices of petroleum and natural gas are sky-high, and the reduction is very low. With regard to creation of jobs, that isn't the net amount of jobs gained - merely the number of jobs created. Jobs have, undoubtedly, been lost in coal/petroleum-related industries. [12] Also, the reduction in emissions in Germany still isn't significant at all--not nearly significant enough to influence. Furthermore, there's immense uncertainty associated with the success of the carbon tax, in that the carbon tax has had no benefits in multiple countries (e.g. Australia) except to act as an unnecessary household and corporate tax that harms the working class.

Pro doesn't prove that a carbon tax would help prevent any of those impacts. There's no solvency at all. So even if you buy Pro's flawed logic that says global warming is such a threat, vote Con because a carbon tax won't do anything but harm the working class and the people as a whole. There's nothing in Pro's case that even remotely suggests that a carbon tax will work like that. Pro also completely drops my point that, with the disastrous free trade deals that exist in the United States currently, the carbon tax will be an incentive for companies to move to countries like Mexico and China where they'll freely use as many fossil fuels as they want, having the same effect on climate change, but, at the same time, taking away American jobs and destroying the working class. So, even if climate change is a significant threat, there's literally no benefit to a carbon tax.

But Pro's case inevitably runs into another problem: climate change isn't nearly as much of a threat as the economic threats that face the United States today. It isn't really much of a threat at all. And Pro does very little to advance his case on that issue either. Pro completely drops the issue of global warming as a direct threat. He doesn't respond to any of my studies in that regard, e.g. my criticism of climate models and the study from Nir Shaviv.

With regard to ocean acidification, I don't dispute that it's happening. I dispute the cause. Pro's own source says that while there's no clear consensus on what the cause of acidification is, the probable cause is global warming because of the clear impact it seems to have, basing itself on climate models. That's right: climate models, the very form of research I refuted last round. And since Pro's own source concedes that the notion that greenhouse gases influence acidification to such a large extent relies on climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide, that means Pro is wrong about the cause, and it means a carbon tax won't have any effect. Indeed, even if the US were to eliminate all carbon emissions, the effect on climate change would be negligible/non-existent. [13] So, basically, a carbon tax would do nothing to solve that problem either.

But a carbon tax would harm the working class. It's a direct household tax, which means people are going to be forced to pay more money for an essential livelihood, which is inherently bad. It would disproportionately affect the poor too. [14] Whatever number of jobs is created for the purpose of enforcement, significantly more jobs will be lost. [15] Industries that rely on such energy will be negatively affected and competition will reduce, and companies will move. Pro drops that there's a direct tax to households which is harmful and causes job loss. Companies will be reluctant to shift to nuclear energy because of the cost. Pro says coal currently costs more, but he's wrong, because the stats I produced didn't concern nuclear energy as it is currently - only of next-generation nuclear plants. Pro also drops the costs from nuclear plant construction and the cost of waste management, and drops that nuclear power has greater impact to global warming than fossil fuels. That means they'll move.

Pro drops the critical argument I made: that if a carbon tax is imposed, companies will outsource their fossil fuel emissions. In other words, they'll move and then freely emit fossil fuels elsewhere, potentially causing even more pollution, which renders the carbon tax completely ineffective. Pro lists a bunch of countries and states where it was a "success." He's wrong about that too. He doesn't prove "success." 2% reduction in emissions, for instance, isn't success. Even if ALL emissions are taken away, nothing is going to change and climate change remains some threat.

A carbon tax won't do anything to reduce any effects of climate change or even mitigate such effects. It's a completely useless effort that will further the goal to destroy the working class, causing significantly more job loss than it creates jobs and directly harming the average citizen.



I also wish my opponent good luck on his exams that he is studying for.

Even if we throw out my own argument on Climate change, we can still see there are other advantages and other good things that can come out of the Carbon Tax if enacted. My opponent has dropped my previous argument where I showed the comparison, even though this is a long term effect, it is still going to happen unless changes are made. He has also dropped my argument that showed that US Hegemony still exists and other nations will follow our lead, even China would be encouraged to do such an act meaning we will see a curtail in this production. The environment will take quite some time to return to normal, but that does not mean that we will prevent global catastrophe in the climate. Even with the Free Trade deals we can see a lot of these are starting to fall apart as the two main candidates are calling for the end of NAFTA and the TPP, which would begin to end free trade, once again, my opponent has missed my US heg argument that shows many nations will follow our example as they have done before and will continue to do. The US enactment of this will result in the rest of the world cleaning up their act.

My opponent claims that the German jobs and power has escalated, but this isn't quite the truth. My opponent has dropped my entire economics argument from the first round and one of the arguments that I showed was that of economic innovation and this has happened in Germany as many coal plants have become economic friendly resulting in lower energy costs that help the average person [1]. My opponent has dropped innovation and under the status quo, innovation isn't encouraged, but the tax encourages it and now in Germany they are reaping the benefits. Sure some jobs were indeed lost as any economic change will result in loss and gain, but the fact is still there being a net gain even with the tax implemented and if my opponent's arguments were true then this wouldn't have happened.

I've brought up plenty of solvency when this can happen as curtailing solves global warming. This was brought up several times and dropped as my opponent only attacked the impact. There were many times were the alternative energy will result in a great loss in emissions as one has even reported that it could result in a curtailment of 11% at certain prices that I have brought up earlier in round 1 [2]. I have brought up ample amounts of alternative energy alternative efficiency that help and are better options. All dropped by my opponent. I have already addressed the economic arguments and will continue to go more in-depth when I get to it. Keep in mind that my opponent has dropped my entire economic arguments from R1 showing all the benefits that would come from it showing that I would already win this example and hence, my opponent's impact in the debate which shows that there is no other option to vote than Pro. My opponent never actually acknowledged the rebuttals that I have made since all he did was an ad pop argument by simply stating that so-and-so said they were wrong and x many people agreed doesn't make it true. He never actually explains why they are false other than these people say they are which is not a valid argument. As a result, you have to extend the Ocean Acidification argument across the table.

I did not drop job loss as he showed one instance and I showed how it still resulted in growth via the Germany example. I have also showed how it helps the middle class with a massive reduction in the income tax via the Australian example, which my opponent had brought up and seemed to hold so tentatively. He has failed to realize that there is also the rational individual and they would make rational market choices which would mitigate these issues that he has brought up in this debate, this was also dropped. I had previously brought up the argument on how nuclear waste ever produced can fill up a few stadiums while coal does way more harm. My opponent resorts back to his source, but it just states nuclear, not nex-gen. I have also brought up another article that showed that Nuclear was cheaper, this was dropped by my opponent. He also dropped all the advantages of Nuclear, so you have to extend that across the board and flow this argument to my side of the debate.

My opponent claims that they would move elsewhere, but this isn't necessarily the truth as many laws to still apply to US companies and still ignores the Heg argument that shows other places will do the same. He has previously dropped another argument that shows the companies will innovate at home to create cheaper, more efficient ways to produce energy, as well as the subsidy argument where the government helps companies convert these costs to move to a different energy sources. My opponent has also dropped my argument as to why outsourcing is good as it helps further the reduction of prices of goods which helps the middle class. It is unlikely that we would see a large exodus in these companies, but for the ones who do, it would result in the decrease of prices at home.

To conclude, in this debate we can see that my opponent has dropped an amplitude of arguments. His own impact in the debate on economics resulted in having my entire economic argument in Round 1 dropped. Not to mention that many of his own economic arguments were solved by his own arguments, so even if you do not buy my own environmental argument you can see that I have won my opponent's impact turning it into an advantage for me which means that my opponent no longer has an offensive argument and has lost an advantage of mine. He fails to address the economic subsidies that would help other energy sources that would help companies convert. He also drops the ability that clean energy has a higher and better efficiency than current energy sources. Many of my arguments were dropped which is why I urge a ballot in affirmation.

With that I thank you and urge you to vote Pro!

1. (
2. (

Debate Round No. 3


For the first time in my one year on this site, I concede, because I have absolutely no interest in this debate anymore, and I have very little time. Congrats to lannan on winning Famous's tournament.


No round as agreed upon.
Debate Round No. 4
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
Posted by tajshar2k 2 years ago
I love how Lannan's ELO score didn't even go up by 1...
Posted by Diqiucun_Cunmin 2 years ago
Yeah, good luck on the exams, IRL debates and quiz bowls, Tej. :)
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
And good luck on the exams Tej! :)
Posted by famousdebater 2 years ago
Congratulations lannan on winning the tournament. :)
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
That made me feel better too.
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
lol, true.
Posted by fire_wings 2 years ago
tejretics, look at your long time ago arguments, and they will make you feel better.
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
Sure, but I will have to post it Wednesday. Are you okay with that?
Posted by tejretics 2 years ago
I study for like 8 hours a day, then do homework, go to school, and I literally have absolutely no free time... then there's also the stress of a huge bunch of quiz bowls, and there's irl debate
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bballcrook21 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. This was a great debate up until this point.
Vote Placed by Hayd 2 years ago
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Concession. Good luck to con in his struggles though <3