global warming
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: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 774 times | Debate No: | 49713 | ||
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)
 Pro  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. |
 |
|
Pro chrisman8 forfeited this round.
|
 |
|
Pro chrisman8 forfeited this round.
|
 |
|
Pro chrisman8 forfeited this round.
|
 |
|
Pro chrisman8 forfeited this round.
Con |
 |
Post a Comment
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 7 years ago
| chrisman8 | Relativist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - |  | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 4 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Jevinigh 7 years ago
| chrisman8 | Relativist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 3 |
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 7 years ago
| chrisman8 | Relativist | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
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.
