Resolved: Methane: Silence the rice and save the planet
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Proponents of the Green New Deal talk about carbon footprint and CO2 atmospheric catastrophe as if its increase was the last word in climate change. In the face of reality, CO2 is not the major nemesis; it’s methane. Methane is 20-times the strength of CO2 for damage to our atmosphere. I think I know why. There’s a dirty little secret in the environment, and we are being sold a fraudulent excuse thanks to the Green New Deal, even though the hoax has been around since before we started counting CO2 in the atmosphere.
The nature of this dirty little secret will be explained in my r1 argument, and you will understand why I say, “Leave my steak alone.” You want to be a vegan, be my guest. But environmentally, attacking my right to eat a filet mignon, chateaubriand, and a good, old T-bone whenever I want is not in your purview. I suggest looking to your own footprint. Your methane footprint.
Silence: v. To cause or compel [one] to cease speaking on a particular occasion.
Rice: n. the fruit or seeds of the grass Oryza sativa, formiong one of the most important foodgrains of the world.
Save: v. Tov rescue, preserve, or protect; to make safe
Planet: n. [in this debate, specifically] the Earth as one of the eight major celestial objects which move in orbit about the Sun.
Pro: as resolved: methane: silence the rice and save the planet
Con: Against the proposal: methane: silence the cows and save the planet
3 total rounds:
R1, 2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
R3: No new argument, rebuttal, defense, conclusion
No waived or forfeited rounds. Waive or forfeiture will result in loss of debate.
Sourcing of declarative statements must be sourced by citation reference unless the statement is of obvious common knowledge.
I Argument: The Silence of the Cows
I.a Although we often think of carbon dioxide [CO2] as the go-to greenhouse gas [GHG, hereafter] of highest priority in our alleged global climate crisis, methane [CH4], pound for ton, is “…more than 20 times more powerful in its global warming potential.”[i] Global alarmists, such as the proponents of the Green New Deal point to CH4emissions, and couple their alarm to cow flatulence as the go-to crisis point. The referenced article in the above statistic is titled: Silence the Cows and Save the Planet.
I.a.1 In other words, it is cows [why just cows? – because one needs, in a campaign, a poster child. Cow images, a là Chick-fil-A [you know, “eat more chikin” ] are ready-made for the icon needed. Besides, the image used by Chick-fil-A is a Holstein-Friesian breed. They are black-and-white; the breed most used by dairy farmers, as it happens, even though we’re talking about beef cattle, which are not typically black-and-white. But the issue certainly is made out to be a black-and-white issue. Not racially, but by obvious opposing opinions.
I.b We’ve heard the complaint enough to affect the beef industry. According to the United Nations, livestock accounts for 14.5% of GHGs.[ii] A recent report from think tank, RethinkX, estimates that the dairy and cattle industries as we’ve historically known them will disappear by 2030.[iii]
I.c In several States [among them, CA and MD], legislatures have embraced the Green New Deal[iv] [hereafter, GND] even though as a resolution [it is not yet a bill, let alone legislated law], it has not yet passed muster in either house of Congress,[v] yet it set a deadline at its introduction on 7 February 2019 of ten years to achieve net zero emissions. Twenty months into the schedule, the resolution languishes, but the deadline has not.
I.d It is the unfortunate, and inconvenient truth of biology, that Homo sapiens is structured to be an omnivore: we eat both plant and animal food sources. First is the design of our dental structure: it both tears flesh [eats meat] and chews plants. Second are the digestive enzymes: they chemically address both meat and plant material. Third is our digestive track [stomach and intestines], structurally designed to breakdown meat and vegetable material, and extract the nutrients of each.[vi] Speaking of those nutrients, protein, in particular, is obtained from both animal and plant sources. There are 24 total proteins either absorbed from food, or manufactured by the body from those food sources. For of those proteins, all four manufactured by the body, depend more heavily on animal-sourced protein than plant.[vii]
I.d Therefore, the lines are drawn, the combatants are defined: eating beef, and sustaining the beef industry, as well as the dairy cow – the Holstein industry, is the declared enemy of the climate, and the solution is “Eat more rice.”
II Argument: The Scream of Rice
II.a As heavily as the cattle and dairy industry must lobby against the GND and the States lobbying for the reduction in these industries, one may be alarmed to discover something no GND, no climate alarmist, and no Democrat Progressive pining for the day of net-zero will tell you: rice paddies emit methane.[viii] Is that a nasty secret? Yes. Nevertheless, all wetlands; oceans, rivers, lakes, and natural and cultivated wetlands produce CH4 at a rate of “…100 – 250 million tonnes of methane per year, equivalent to around a quarter of total global methane emission.”[ix] Annual CH4 emissions attributed to wetlands, natural and cultivated, is 25% of global emissions, including rice paddies. Why? Well, two obvious reasons: 1. There is abundant life in wetlands, and all living things emit methane. As it happens, the gas is emitted through both ends of the consumption process and digestive track, whether one be plant or animal. Yes, plants both belch and shyte in their fashion,[x] just as animals do. Even though there are more animal than plant species on Earth, the water-borne quantity of earth amounts to 71% of the surface.[xi]By contrast, the dirty little secret is that CH4emissions by livestock is 14.5% of global emissions.[xii]. Further, the deepest deeps of the ocean are deeper than the highest heights of land.[xiii] There is simply more volume of life potential in the wetlands of Earth than its landmass, thus, more CH4 emission.
II.b So, why is the complaint about GHG emissions restricted to cows? Seems the rice is screaming that it, with the natural Earth we are trying to save from itself, is a greater problem than cows, and the numbers bear that out. Is it possible that the GND is just an agenda, food-wise, to boost the rice industry? I doubt that is its limitation, but wouldn’t that increase GHG emissions of wetlands? Just what is the GND trying to achieve? What indeed, but to inconvenience a truth that is conveniently contrary to our current model, according to the GND, vs. the natural order of things in that the natural condition of CH4emission is contrary to the GND?
III Argument: The Agenda vs the Inconvenient Truth
III.a The GND proponents tell you that we must silence the cows, as noted in argument I, above, and that we must promote rice as the alternative. That’s the agenda. However, let’s consult one source, NASA, specifically the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, to truly understand the agenda. According to the GISS, CH4 emission can be divided into two major categories: natural and anthropogenic [caused by man].[xiv] On the natural side, there are but three sources: wetlands [22%], termites [4%], and CH4hydrates and ocean [3%]. [Note the agenda disagreement between NASA and the GHGOnline organization as noted by references ix and xiv] These total 65% of CH4emissions. Whereas, on the anthropogenic side is listed Coal and oil mining [19%], enteric fermentation [digestion] 16%, rice cultivation [12%], biomass burning [8%], landfills [6%], sewage treatment [5%], and animal waste [5%]. These total 19% of CH4emissions.
II.a.1 Fine, except that a few of the anthropogenics happen to be natural occurrences, not caused by man, to wit: animal waste [5%], and enteric fermentation [16%]. The latter, even though a percentage of that enteric activity is in man, we digest naturally, not due to our intelligent innovation of a process. So these combined percentages of 21% should be transferred to the natural side, or a revised total of 86% naturally-caused methane. Further, rice cultivation began as a natural occurrence. Admittedly, the natural quantity of rice production would be much less than our cultivation of it, but man is not responsible for the full 12% attributed to anthropogenic cause. Plus, considering that the agenda includes the cultivation of rice on the good side of the ledger, GND-driven man must be at fault for the added CH4emissions that are the result.
I conclude my argument for r1 and pass the gas to Con. Excuse me.
Argument: Rice is much more essential than beef
- Beef takes up only 9% of the whole group, Rice takes up about 91%.
- Beef takes up about 36% of total CH4 emissions.
I.a Semantics notwithstanding, we can put this issue to rest right now. Con wandered off the debate resolution by inferring that “Silencing the cows” as I quoted in my r1 did not imply covering their mouths such that they cannot speak. I realize, however, that I did define “Silence” as exactly as Con interpreted it. However, by “silencing,” read “intended extinction,” as is the climate change proponent crowd’s intent. Can’t eat them, the obvious Green New Deal [GND] agenda, when they no longer exist.
II Rebuttal: “Rice is more essential than beef”
II.a Con appropriately begins his argument citing statistics. Relative to worldwide rice consumption, I’ll agree with Con’s assertion of a per capita consumption of 79kg [rounded] of rice. I verified by a separate source with effectively the same value. However, consumption, by itself, is no indicator of “essential” in a health-related effectiveness. For example, one might inquire which country consumes the greatest per capita quantity of sugary drinks. The answer is a virtual tie: Mexico and U.S.A, with 630 8-oz servings and 625 8-oz servings, per capita, respectively. This consumable also tops the list of the unhealthiest foods to consume.
II.a.1 As a result, saying that more people eat rice than beef says nothing relative to effectiveness of the consumption. There, pound for pound, weight of production and consumption means nothing in terms of effectiveness in relative health.
II.a.2 Con alleges that “Rice is much more essential than beef.” Let’s look behind “essential.” Rice is the staple food for more than half the world’s population [3.5 billion], providing 20% of all food-sourced calories. By comparison, beef provides 15% of all food-sourced calories. Protein: 7% by rice; 27% by beef. Of the nine essential amino acids needed for growth and maintenance, rice provides 8 of the nine, with an insufficient quantity of lysine to count. Beef provides all nine essential amino acids in sufficient quantity. For Glycemic Index [ blood sugar], rice has an index of 64, a medium rating. Beef has no carbohydrate content, therefore, no GI rating. Vitamin & mineral content: rice contains >15 essential vitamins and minerals. Beef contains 14 essential vitamins and minerals. Of the five factors listed here, beef exceeds rice in effectiveness of consumption in three. Thus, Con’s claim of “more essential” equating it to rice is disproven.
III Rebuttal: Ten times as much rice
III.a Con makes an error of scale to attempt to demonstrate that rice contributes more to atmospheric methane because there is simply more of it. Con has actually made two faulty claims in that argument. One, I did not say that only rice contributed the 25% of methane emissions. I said, “…all wetlands; oceans, rivers, lakes, and natural and cultivated wetlands produce methane at a rate of “…100 – 250 million tonnes of methane per year, equivalent to around a quarter of total global methane emission.” That rice contributes to that total is obvious. We do not need the chart, and the chart is of Con’s production. Therefore, it is not a legitimate cited source. Two, based on Con’s erroneous numbers [not cited but by his own produced pie charts], erroneous because he assumed that rice, alone, comprised the total CH4 emissions I cited at 25% of all atmospheric CH4, he ignores that cattle is not the source of 36% of all CH4 emission, but, as I demonstrated and cited in r1 that beef contributes 14.5%. What is Con’s source for that claim of 36%?
III.b Con claimed that “Beef takes up 9% of material [what “material?], Rice takes up about 91%,” thus arriving at ten times as much rice, and that is the reason for the increased rice contribution to the CH4 emissions. See argument III.a. above. The latter argument is the wrong conclusion. The former is a declarative statement of relative percentages with no source cited, thus violating the debate protocol in the Description. I do not recognize Con’s non-sourced opinions. Neither should readers.
IV Rebuttal: Faux issue: majority choice
IV.a Con proposes that, because more of the world values rice as a food source than beef, we should 86 the beef [“86” being a restaurant term implying they are out of stock of a particular food item], or, in the resolution term, “silence” the beef. But preferential choice is not the debatable resolution. Methane emission is the resolution, and all wetlands combined contribute more CH4 to the atmosphere than beef. Period. I don’t care if you’re counting by grains of rice, or beef ribs. Quantity of one source or the other is not a factor simply because both items, beef and rice, are just two of nearly 9 million species on earth, all of which emit methane as a natural function. Do we eliminate all life on earth to reach net zero? An absurd argument, but that is the reductio ad absurdum of Con’s argument.
IV.b Con argues that we should eliminate the source of greatest production of methane. Fine. I’ve already demonstrated above, and in r1, that, by volume, all wetlands, including rice paddies, contribute more CH4to the atmosphere than beef, by volume [25% to 14.5%]. Con is merely arguing for the lesser contributor to be the victim of silencing. What’s that about choosing the greater contributor?
I close my r2. Thank you. Reminder, no new arguments in r3.
- Because my source is not authentic enough, it should not be considered as a reliable source.
- Because my opponent can't comprehend my sources based on simple mathematics, it thus should be considered non-reliable evidence.
- My opponent agrees that my sources regarding rice and beef are reliable indeed. The problem lies in the charts.
- If I didn't explain, I will do it now: They record the parts of CH4 emitted by both the beef and rice industry. Out of both industries, the Beef industry takes approximately only 9% of the total produced mass(out of both of them, I said, and I meant), However, the beef industry makes 36% of Ch4 out of both of them.
- Since 36/9=4, thus, eating the same mass or beef emits about four times as much CH4 than rice. Beef is literally 4 times as efficient at emitting CH4 than rice. Not having the ability to read does not make you above the law. I have built this argument upon actual evidence and mathematics and you say you require a "mOrE aUtHeNtIc EvIdEnCe", what do I do, source the calculator? Do I really need to source simple maths? And if I don't need to, then why not just treat them as nothing and move on? What's bad for simple data visualization?
- Another style: The world's beef is produced in 10% mass compared to rice, but 58% CH4 emitted compared to Rice. I am not giving bar graphs for this if he thinks my graphs really are that absurd. Either way, Beef emits times more CH4 than rice when the same mass is compared.
- Rice is the staple food for more than half the world’s population [3.5 billion](If approximately half of the population considers Rice essential for their lives, then ceasing the rice industry is probably a bad idea)
- providing 20% of all food-sourced calories. By comparison, beef provides 15% of all food-sourced calories. (I don't make the rules, the people do, and shutting the rice probably causes more hunger)
- Vitamin & mineral content: rice contains >15 essential vitamins and minerals. Beef contains 14 essential vitamins and minerals. (Rice is better in minerals)
- Overall, My opponent just merely disproved me but did not prove why shutting down the Rice is a good thing.
- I shall make conclusions.
- Rice is the staple food for more than half the population, Beef can't beat that.
- Using common maths, I calculated the same mass of beef emits 4 times methane than rice does.
- Rice is produced ten times more than beef. It is definitely going to cause more hunger if it goes extinct.
- Rice is not that unhealthy compared to beef.
- Upon all the above, I compose verdict in which it is the better choice to "silence" cows rather than rice since if the cattle industry grows, it itself will cause four times more methane than rice. Shunning the food that billions of people eat daily is no good idea.
I.a Con declares in his r2 that I maintain his sources are“not authentic enough” [to what source does he refer? – detail is important here if he is going to cite a source; I cannot verify a blank]. Isn’t it curious that his r2 argument as stated does not have a supporting source to underpin his claim that “…beef is a worse choice.” Why is beef the worse source? Because Con says so?
I.b Con then concludes, “Because my opponent can't comprehend my sources based on simple mathematics, it thus should be considered non-reliable evidence.” What simple math? His unsourced, self-created pie charts? And I should not consider this non-reliable evidence? Con’s claim, along with a self-made pair of pie charts [and associated math, such as 36/9 = 4]. Yes, correct math, but, as I asked in my r2, III.a and III.b, from whence comes the numbers, 36% and 9%? There are no sources for these numbers but Con’s pie charts. Repeat: Con’s pie charts, unsourced. Con cannot be judged to be a reliable source; he is merely claiming the numbers. Whereas, my number, that all wetlands, not just rice cultivation, comprise 25% of methane emissions, is sourced. My number, that livestock account for 14.5% of methane emission, is sourced.
I.b.1 Con claims of the numbers, 9% and 36%, “If I didn't explain, I will do it now: They record the parts of CH4 emitted by both the beef and rice industry. Out of both industries, the Beef industry takes approximately only 9% of the total produced mass(out of both of them, I said, and I meant), However, the beef industry makes 36% of Ch4 out of both of them.” Parts of what? Total produced mass ofwhat?The beef industry makes 36% of CH4 out of both of what?Con has explained nothing. To what do the whatsrefer? Once again, with feeling: Where are Con’s sources for claims he makes? I will note, for the record, that in his r2, Con references two sources: one is a reference to a non-existent policy re: Kritik. So what? That subject, according to Con’s r2, he dropped. Second source is in regard to animal feed. But the broad subject [not of this debate, specifically] is human food: beef or rice. Then to what BoP that Con has is an animal feed argument supposed to accomplish relative to this debate’s resolution? Relevance, anyone?
I.c Speaking of “style” [Con’s r2, 1.b], is "mOrE aUtHeNtIc EvIdEnCe" supposed to be representative? May I note that it increases reading difficulty to no purpose. Spelling&Grammar, anyone?
I.d More math: “The world’s beef is produced in 10% mass compared to rice [which is what value?, and sourced by which reference?], but 58% CH4 emitted compared to rice [which is what value?, and sourced by which reference?]. “If I didn't explain, Con assured us, “I will do it now…” But, as noted in his entire r2, as I spelled out above, he did no such thing.
II Rebuttal: Popularity contest: Beef or rice?
II.a Con respects the beef nutritional data I cited [11 sources in my r2, to be precise]. But, “Pro's points do not prove why Rice is unhealthy.” Re-read my r2, argument II, all paragraphs. Did I claim that rice is “unhealthy?” No, I said sugary drinks are unhealthy. I acknowledged that rice is healthy food, and offered the nutritional data by sources referenced to support the claim. However, I did prove, and say, that beef has more nutritional value than rice. Not by much, I’ll agree, and the data says as much. But it refutes Con’s claim from r1 that “rice is more essential than beef.” Nutritionally, if not in volume consumed. But does that mean rice wins a popularity contest? Is this debate about popularity? About a contest? No. Con is off-topic. Moreover, Con is spiteful: “I have given sufficient information that Rice is more popular in this world and the counter I get is mere "rice emit more, blah blah blah". I did not say “blah,” did I? I cited sources. Where are Con’s sources? Conduct, anyone? “However, using valid mathematics on sufficient sources…” What sources where? Well, he says, “If I didn't explain, Con assured us, “I will do it now…” That’s where. Where?
II.b Con claims, “providing 20% of all food-sourced calories. By comparison, beef provides 15% of all food-sourced calories. (I don't make the rules, the people do, and shutting the rice probably causes more hunger) Do we presume the subject of the first sentence is “Rice?” Should we guess? The syntax would seem to make that word fit, but, again, should we presume? Then Con states he doesn’t make the rules. Correct, but who does? Once again, the rule maker is not sourced. So, is Con making the rules? That must be our presumption. Can Con do that? I contend that, and stipulated that, “Sourcing of declarative statements must be sourced by citation reference unless the statement is of obvious common knowledge.” [see Description, Debate Protocol] Or does Con wish to have us believe that [something – but we don’t know what it is] is “providing 20% of all food-sourced calories,” but that “…beef provides 15% of all food-sourced calories,” is common knowledge. I didn’t know that. Did you?
II.c Con asserts that I have disproved him [thanks for the admission], but that, “[Pro] did not prove why shutting down the Rice is a good thing.” Oh, but I did. If nutritionally, beef is more nutritious than rice, even by a little bit, and the one concession made in rice’s favor is carbohydrates [beef, as I noted, with sourcing, has no carbs], there are many foods containing carbs still available to eat, such as a steak’s ready companion, steak fries. Okay, to be more healthy, a baked potato. Therefore, I contend, strictly as a measure that demonstrates the resolution, “Resolved: Methane: Silence the rice and save the planet.” In other words, since rice, along with all other wetlands, natural and cultivated, contribute more to atmospheric methane than beef [as I demonstrated by sourcing in r1, II.a, 25% to 14.5%, respectively, by volume – regardless of mass and whatnot], rice should be 86’d. In fact, as I claimed in my r1, II, it is screaming for it to save the planet of excessive methane emission.
III Rebuttal: Con’s conclusions
III.a “I shall make conclusions.” Fine. He may start anytime. R3 is wide open, but only for rebuttals and conclusions. No new argument.
III.b “Rice is the staple… Beef can’t beat that.” Right now, correct. But if rice is 86’d to make a more significant dent in methane emissions…?
III.c “Using common maths, I calculated the same mass of beef emits 4 times methane than rice does.” Emphasis on “I,” because no other source confirmed it. I conclude Con is not a reliable source; his specific math is not common knowledge, even though a generic pie chart is. See Description, Debate Protocol.
III.d “Rice is produced ten times more than beef…” Yes, it may be, but by volume, considering an acreage of a certain size, say, one acre, cultivated for rice, how many are fed? By the same acreage size, raising beef, how many are fed? There happens to be a source for that: according to the source. I will not cite it because, one, I am prevented from doing so by my own instruction, and, two, it is not necessary to my BoP. I’ve already adequately sourced my BoP.
III.e “Rice is not that unhealthy…” Who said it was? I didn’t. I said that the debate is not about meals; it’s about methane. Did we have a change of subject? Not from me. I argue that rice, and other wetland products, produce more methane, by volume, than cows, and I demonstrated the data to prove it. Con provided his own self-generated graphics which do not prove otherwise as the Description says he must.
III.f “…if the cattle industry grows, it… will cause four times more methane…” According to whom? Con? That’s right; only Con. Only Con is wrong, and he offers no ancillary fact to demonstrate otherwise. I can draw graphs, too, but I wouldn’t expect you to buy my drawing anymore than I buy Con’s drawings. Except I happen to be a profession in that métier. Even then, I would not expect your ad hoc belief on my say-so, alone. As Con, himself, declares, “Just because I used a non-traditional source does not negate the very maths to be correct.” Himself? A source? If you buy that, I’ve a bridge…
IV Conclusion: Silence the rice.
IV.a In rebuttals I, II, above, and arguments and rebuttals in previous rounds, I have demonstrated:
IV.a.1 Beef produces 14.5% of the atmospheric methane GHG while natural and cultivated wetlands, including rice production that is eaten as a staple by 3.5B people, produces 25% methane GHG. You have seen my sources for these data.
IV.a.2 Two of NASA’s designation of the sources of GHG methane [natural and anthropogenic], that is, animal waste and enteric fermentation [totaling 5% and16% respectively of anthropogenic emission] NASA puts on the anthropogenic side of the GHG contribution agenda. The two really belong on the natural side since both processes occur naturally. You have seen my sources for this data. The issue was dropped by Con.
IV.a.3 Con argued in his r1 that we should eliminate the source of the greatest production of methane. I have demonstrated that the “source of greatest production” is natural and cultivate wetlands, not beef production. So, yes, I say we “should eliminate the source of the greatest production of methane.” And I have shown the source of that origin. Con has shown us his graphs. Thanks, but we’ve already heard that invitation to come up and see an artist’s etchings, and what is really on that artist’s mind, ladies. Caveat emptor.
IV.a.4 In rebuttal III, above, I have rebutted six arguments presented by Con, virtually all of which contain declarative claims that, to now, have not been cited, contrary to the last instruction for debate given in the debate Description/Debate Protocol. Since r3 cannot contain new argument, Con has squandered the time to present needed evidence; any evidence presentation now will consist of new argument. That is not allowed. I have no ability to rebut it. On that, alone, my arguments/rebuttals overwhelm my opponents’ efforts. I’ll note that all of my sources referenced in this r3 have been previously referenced in earlier rounds with the exception of the restaurant reference to “86,” but that argument was made, and not rebutted by Con, in my r2. In any event, it was sideline information, not needed for the strength of my argument.
IV.b Therefore, I contend that my BoP is met: Resolved: Methane: Silence the rice and save the planet. Or, if you must, keep your rice, but leave my steak alone. And I will be a modicum better in my essential healthy consumption.
I rest my case, and ask for your vote for Pro. Thank you.
- Maths is common knowledge, and I am not wrong
- There are calculated to be approximated 10 times as much beef as there is rice, supported by my sources.
- Thus, there is 10% beef compared to rice. Putting a group of “Rice and beef” together, and beef takes up only 9% of the material in said group.
- My opponent’s sources, which he entrusts, said that 25% of CH4 is produced by rice whereas 14.5% for cattle.
- 14.5/25 and you get 0.58: Cattle’s material is only 10% of the total material for produced rice, but the cattle industry produces 58% of the total CH4 produced by all paddies planted rice. 10% of the material, and 58% of the emissions. Even if my “400%” statistics is incorrect, then thus the correct one must be 58% calculated on basic math that needs no source.
- I have stated this in the previous round, so don’t call this a merit loss.
- The world's beef is produced in 10% mass compared to rice, but 58% of CH4 emitted compared to Rice. I am not giving bar graphs for this if he thinks my graphs really are that absurd. Either way, Beef emits times more CH4 than rice when the same mass is compared.
- Utter facts have been denied by my opponent. His rigid requirement for “sources” is of no efficiency. If you are calculating something new, must you always use an existing evidence to present it? Suppose so, I have calculated using maths, with the pie charts backed from real sources(R1, sources 1-4). If this argument is backed from sources which are backed from other sources that are, in fact, reliable, then shouldn’t this argument also be considered non-unreliable?
- Accept the truth. Of the same mass of rice and cattle, the latter emits more CH4. This argument by my opponent is as much as nonsensical as saying because humans are more dangerous than any other animal in terms of total destruction, all humans should be killed. Even my opponent acknowledges this very well.
- Do we eliminate all life on earth to reach net-zero? An absurd argument, but that is the reductio ad absurdum of Con’s argument.
- My opponent’s whole argument is like saying “Because fossil fuels emit more than renewable energy, thus it should be canceled!” However, because it constitutes 79% of all energy or similar ratios, deleting it would cause 79% of power shortages. We suggest gradual change, not sudden silence. Plus, even then, silencing the renewables at this moment would still cause less destruction. I do not support fossil fuels, but it exists and it really does.
- Rice contributes more to the human diet than anything else, said my opponent
- Rice is the staple food, one of the most important crops on the planet earth. Honestly, it is common sense that reducing rice to skeletons would cause massive world hunger. In fact, it is the staple food for ½ of the entire population, so removing it from Earth will make half of the people starve long-term considering it is not just the occasional meal of those, but the staple food of them.
- Opponent: Let’s look behind “essential.” Rice is the staple food for more than half the world’s population [3.5 billion], providing 20% of all food-sourced calories.
- Hunger is bad, right? If a kind of food will cause world hunger upon its deletion, then it is probably not a good idea. Doesn’t beef do this also? Nope. Beef is not even considered the top 10 staple food there is. If Rice is much more important to people than beef, then doesn’t it make sense that removing rice would cause more people to starve since one is a very important staple food whereas the other is not?
- If one is a staple food important to half of the population, and the other is a non-staple food important to less, then doesn’t it make sense to NOT delete the rice, and instead of the beef so fewer people actually starve? The restoration takes people, so doesn’t it make sense to not kill the people before making any leap forwards?
- Final conclusions
- Beef, upon the same mass, emits 5.8 times of CH4 compared to rice. If Beef is much more efficient at emitting CH4, then it should be the thing that should be canceled in the first place.
- Rice is more important to society than beef, and as a result, more people will starve if the rice was silenced, thus causing more harm.
- I have constructed arguments using arguments built on actual facts, and thus my argument stands.