We should avert climate change rather than adjusting to it
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 9 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
No information
Climate change is no longer some far-off problem. It is happening here, and it is happening now
To meet finance needs and avoid an adaptation gap the total finance for adaptation in 2030 would have to be approximately six to 13 times greater than international publicfinance today
the winters are hell in Cleveland i'm looking forward to warmer weather
a warmer climate is really helping the wine industry in ohio
WE CAN ADJUST we always have
global warming is a punishment sent by god or nature etc.
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.
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.
Got it. Thanks man.
It's how you treat your opponent. If you're rude, that's bad. Thanking them for the time and effort is a good way to win conduct if the other person isn't rude, but isn't actively being a good participant either. I probably should have given you the point, but I think your overall score accurately describes how I thought you did. I could have gone into more depth about conduct in my vote, but It was getting long already.I wouldn't personally put as much effort into conduct as making sure you've researched well. Your argument is first and foremost important as it's worth the most points.
Oh, and I would also like to thank you for your insightful review/vote. It really helped me think about what I have stated and I will certainly keep that in mind for the future.
Question however:
I though conduct was the way you introduce your opponent. Thanking them for the time and effort at the beginning and end of a debate certainly counts, does it not?
Sources for my vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_biodiversity
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth104/node/1345
Nah, I agree with you on the grounds of human pollution.
Hmm... intriguing inquiry. Would you be open for a debate with me on this exact issue about global warming? DM me if you're interested...
Global warming (and climate change) are loaded words in today's politics. There are natural processes that cause trends of heat and cold over time. These natural processes can't really be averted by any human means I know of. If you're speaking of global warming as caused by human pollution, and you establish it pollution as bad (which it is), then it should obviously be averted. It's an open and shut case. Either global warming is a natural process, we can't avert it, and we had better try to adapt, or global warming is caused by human pollution, as should be averted.
So the real question being asked here is whether humans are causing global warming.
Paul, I just wanted to respond to your last point.
"well look at it this way no one is doing anythng to stop it we may as well get used to the changes because they are now unaviodable"
The motion is to assume that people are going to do something. The motion is giving us a choice, whether we should avert, or adjust to climate change. It is not referring to the current state of people's wishes. And yet if it were, you have not provided any evidence backing this up...
Oh yeah, sorry I didn't clarify on that. Climate change more specifically as global warming.
climate change is god judgment on a wicked humanity we cannot escape his wrath for our gluttony
what definition are you using for climate change?