Instigator / Pro
14
1566
rating
29
debates
56.9%
won
Topic

We should avert climate change rather than adjusting to it

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
6
0
Sources points
4
2
Spelling and grammar points
2
1
Conduct points
2
2

With 2 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...

DynamicSquid
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Nature
Time for argument
Two days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
5,000
Contender / Con
5
1337
rating
26
debates
9.62%
won
Description
~ 0 / 5,000

No information

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con drops all of Pros points in the debate, some of them key points include the cost and safety benefits of averting. Con states that in Ohio the wine industry will prosper. But as Pro points out, there will most likely be less wine production world wide, as well as production of other food plummeting, Pro has completely flipped this argument into his favour. Con also points to humans ability to adapt, but Pro again flips this into his favour by pointing out how obscenely difficult it would be to adjust to global warming which grows at an exponential rate. Then we see Pro's new argument about how adverting climate change may also stop natural disasters get dropped as well. Con wraps up the debate with an unsubstantiated claim that humans can't avoid climate change, which falls flat compared to what Pro offered.

Now for the point by point breakdown..

Food Production-Winner=Squid

Con looks to the new opportunities for Ohio wine production, even though Pro proved hat overall production of wine and other food like grapes would plummet world wide. Con never addresses this, Pro wins.

Cost-Winner=Squid

Dropped by Con.

Safety-Winner=Squid

Dropped by Con.

Indirect Problems-Winner=Squid

Dropped by Con.

Humans Can Adapt-Winner=Squid

Con lays out an unsubstantiated claim about how humans can just adapt, but Pro flipped this by looking to the exponential growth of global warming, Con dropped Pro's rebuttal. Pro wins.

5-0 in favour of Pro for arguments.

Added:
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better spelling and grammar
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

To make things simple for myself, I'm going to summarize the main arguments.

Pro:
1. Aversion is cheaper
2. Aversion is safer
3. Aversion solves indirect problems.

Con:
1 Cleveland winters are hell rn
2 Ohio's wine production is up
3 Humans have always adapted and always will

Rating:
P1. I don't like when a claim is made, but without facts or statistics behind it and you have to look in the sources to actually get the argument. The sources are your corroboration so that people know you aren't just spouting gobbledygook. Furthermore, Pro lists "electricity or hydro power" as alternatives to high carbon energy sources. This demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject at hand. Electricity is not spontaneously generated, but is produced mainly (81% of global energy) through the use of high carbon energy sources such as coal, gas and oil.
3/5 for this argument.
P2. Pro says "Adapting to climate change is a long term solution, while averting climate change is a short term solution." I believe that Pro misunderstands the terms "short term solution" and "long term solution." A short term solution, as Pro labels aversion, indicates a problem that only works in the short term, not solution that takes relatively little time to solve. Similarly, a long term solution indicates a solution that works for a long time, not a solution that has to be constantly applied to the problem.
4/5 for this argument.
P3. The idea that global warming causes more natural disasters is an easily documented fact. Rising sea levels, wetter years, heightened erosion, and more extreme heat are all proven effects of global warming.This is common sense to anyone with a basic understanding of earth science, though an expert might be able to explain greater nuance behind that.
5/5 for this argument.

C1. The issue at hand is global warming, not Cleveland warming, so the argument is mostly irrelevant. Very few people will care what winter is like in Cleveland.
2/5 for this argument
C2 Once again, local effects are not strong evidence in the case of global phenomena.
2/5 for this argument
C3 Technically, yes humans have adapted for as long as they've been around (not always, mind you, but I'll give it to you). This is not strong evidence that they always will. There are an estimated 5 billion extinct species compared to an estimated 2-10 million alive today. Statistics show that the vast majority of species do not always adapt. Pro did not present these counterarguments however. Their counterargument stated that "global warming grows at an exponential pace, not at a linear curve. That means that global warming will advance faster than our current technologies, and adjusting to it will soon be impossible." Which is not supported by any data I know of, and furthermore, I know for a fact that technology does advance exponentially (look at phones over the last 150 years and tell me otherwise)
Since no valid argument was made, and no valid counter argument was given, I'm ignoring this point.

Totals:
12/15 (4/5)
4/10 (2/5)

Arguments to Pro

Sources to Pro as Con used none, and Pros were relevant to the topic.

Spelling and grammar to Pro as Con literally neglected all punctuation and capitalization rules.

Neither participant was rude to the either. Conduct is tied.