Instigator / Con
3
1493
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3582

Can we win in the climate change battle?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
9
Better sources
2
6
Better legibility
1
3
Better conduct
0
3

After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...

Intelligence_06
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
1,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
21
1731
rating
167
debates
73.05%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Con
#1
Forfeited
Pro
#2
1. Definition

The "Climate change battle" arguably is a battle that is just named "Climate change" for some reason, and if it is being phrased as a battle, it will be treated as one.

What does "Battle" mean?


People have generally regarded a battle on default as something winnable. If anything, what a term means depends on how people use it, and people use it to represent something with a "winnable" attribute.

No matter what the battle is, against an army or against a gun duelist, the eradication of the other side can be treated as a victory on your side. Such objectives are never impossible(Inter-entity conflicts are never logically contradictory) so winning a battle is always technically possible.

2. Sides

If we are losing a battle, we could just switch to the other side and say we are winning it. Nothing logically forbids us from doing it. If something is losable it is winnable. If Con does not prove that this battle will end a tie, Pro wins.
Round 2
Con
#3
Forfeited
Pro
#4
Full Forfeit, Extend. Vote CON.