Instigator / Pro
7
1587
rating
182
debates
55.77%
won
Topic
#4541
THBT: On balance, The U.S. Government should prioritize Traditional Sources over Renewable Energy.
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
Sir.Lancelot
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Rated
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
- Minimal rating
- None
Contender / Con
3
1491
rating
10
debates
70.0%
won
Description
(I will be arguing that the nation should choose Conventional Energy. Con argues in favor of Renewable Energy.)
Conventional Energy Sources:
Coal
Oil
Petroleum & Natural Gas
Fuel Woods
Fossil Fuels
Thermal Power Plant
Nuclear Energy
Renewable Energy Sources:
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Geothermal Energy
Hydropower
Ocean Energy
Bio Energy
Definitions:
Government- Governing body of a nation, state, or community.
Prioritize- Designate or treat (something) as more important over other things.
Rules:
No Kritiks.
Exception is if the source lists are incomplete and Con wishes to add an option not originally included in the description.
Round 1
Framework
Burdens
As this is an on-balance debate. My position requires me to prove that between traditional sources of energy and renewable energy, that there are currently more uses and reasons to choose the former.
Con will be arguing in favor of renewable energy and must explain to voters why renewable energy is better than traditional/conventional energy.
Contentions
l. Coal and Petroleum
Petroleum
- Petroleum gives transportation.
- Provided light, heat, and plastic.
If it weren’t for petroleum technology, there wouldn’t even be renewable energy sources.
Coal
- Despite the complaints about coal being a limited resource, there is a significant supply that can accommodate the needs of humanity for a long time.
- It’s more than capable of generating and sustaining large amounts of power and it’s cheap/inexpensive. 1
ll. Good for the Economy & Environment
It has been observed that natural gasses are clean energy and that fracking is a way to reduce carbon pollution emissions in the environment. This combined with the fact that fracking is cheap makes it more affordable for the nation.
- “Natural gas is clean energy
Most environmentalists don’t like fracking. They worry that the chemicals used could contaminate groundwater. These concerns should be taken seriously. But natural gas has also been an economically viable means of reducing carbon pollution. - “Natural gas use in the U.S. has reduced carbon dioxide emissions to levels not seen since the 1990s.” –Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson8”
There is a way to make use of air pollution in the oil company if the natural gas plants have devices capable of storing it. 2
Fracking has also boosted the economy’s growth by creating more jobs.
- “Fracking stimulates economic growth
- Advanced fracking technologies kicked off a new energy renaissance in America. Their success started a U.S. natural gas boom in 2007, which greatly accelerated in 2010.3 The innovation is one of the factors that has helped bring our economy out of recession and has helped create hundreds of thousands of American jobs.4 In 2015, shale gas made up half of all U.S. natural gas production.5”
lll. Nuclear Energy is Clean
“Nuclear is a zero-emission clean energy source. It generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy. The heat released by fission is used to create steam that spins a turbine to generate electricity without the harmful byproducts emitted by fossil fuels.” 3
- Nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels.
- Is compatible with weather renewable technologies.
- Sustain/maintain a power grid.
- Gives off zero emissions.
lV. Renewable Energy is too expensive
The price is too high and will take a toll on the economy, in regards to the highest taxation which will affect lower-income families.
- “The ubiquitous claims that wind and solar power now are cost-competitive ignore substantial costs for backup power and much longer transmission lines, and the effects of massive subsidies and guaranteed market shares.
- In addition, replacement of a given amount of conventional capacity would require far more renewable capacity precisely because of the lower capacity factors characterizing the latter. The GND envisions replacement of about 850 gigawatts of conventional capacity; my own estimate, based on very conservative assumptions, is that the wind and solar capacity required to replace this would be over 2,600 gigawatts, a twentyfold increase over current U.S. wind and solar capacity. That would impose a net annual cost of $357 billion, or about $2,800 every year for each American household.” 4
Civilians without the means to switch to renewable sources of energy will find they are punished by cost inflation and the amount of emissions would still be relatively the same.
V. Renewable Energy is unreliable
Relying on sunlight and the wind as the main source of power is a bad idea because the wind doesn’t always blow and the sunlight doesn’t always shine. Already, this is a formula for disaster because there is no backup plan for what to do when this happens.
- The times that solar and wind technology generates electricity is significantly lower than conventional sources like gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
Renewable Energy requires too much space
With problems like geography and the environment,
- Wind turbines must be arranged in a specific pattern that cannot be located in compact, tight areas.
- Solar plants take up more land than that of your standard power plant.
Plans to implement renewable energy are not practical or feasible, and they very rarely take into mind the complications that would prevent them from achieving their objective.
Forfeited
Round 2
Extend.
Thank you, Sir.Lancelot, for the extension.
Preamble:
I will argue against the resolution that, on balance, the US Government should prioritize conventional energy sources over renewable energy sources. As I proposed in the comments, I will focus on constructive arguments in this first round, and refute Pro’s arguments in the second round.
Definitions:
The lists of conventional and renewable energy sources should be changed as follows:
- The conventional energy sources list should be made more accurate and concise by removing the separate entries for Coal, Oil, Petroleum & Natural Gas and keeping Fossil Fuels. The fossil fuel category includes coal, petroleum (a.k.a., crude oil), natural gas, and other fuels that are missing from the original list, e.g., oil shale.
- Fuel Woods should be removed from the conventional energy sources list as this energy source belongs in the category of Bio Energy in the list of renewable sources.
- Thermal power plants should not be included in the conventional energy sources list because some thermal power plants run on geothermal energy or biomass, which are included in the renewable energy sources list. I suggest excluding thermal power plants from both lists with this understanding.
Burden of Proof:
I should win this debate if I prove or make a stronger case that the US Government should prioritize renewable energy sources over conventional energy sources. Conversely, my opponent should win if they prove or make a stronger case that the US Government should prioritize conventional energy sources over renewable energy sources.
Context:
In the US, transportation accounts for 37% of end-use energy consumption, followed by industry (manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and construction) at 35%, residential at 16%, and commercial at 12% 1.
Renewable sources are used to produce electricity, drop-in replacement liquid and gaseous fuels (biofuels) 2, and feedstocks for industry 3. Nuclear power is only used to produce electricity.
Contentions:
I. Nuclear Energy
Since my main arguments are based on the substantial benefits of renewable energy sources over fossil fuels, I must separately address nuclear energy.
The US is not equipped to deal with radioactive waste
Although I support nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, the US is not prepared to deal with the additional nuclear waste that would be produced by prioritizing this energy source.Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that requires extremely long-term, secure storage to prevent contamination. The US doesn’t have a permanent solution for containing the current amount of domestic nuclear waste, and “even if the U.S. starts today, it will take decades to site, design and build a facility for disposal of its nuclear waste stockpile” 4.
Nuclear energy has limited applications
As explained in my preamble, nuclear power is only used to produce electricity, whereas renewable sources can be used for electricity, heating, fueling, and as feedstocks. Nuclear power plants can take up to 10 years to build, including permitting and construction 5, which means that nuclear energy is not suitable for quickly transitioning an economic sector from fossil fuels to electricity, such as transportation.
II. Global Warming
Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), which accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that would otherwise radiate from the Earth’s surface into space 6. Humanity’s burning of fossil fuels is the main source of the GHGs that cause global warming, which has and will continue to have adverse effects on human health, water availability, food production, the built environment, and biodiversity. Quoting from the AR6 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 7:
“Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse [gasses], have unequivocally caused global warming”“...the largest share and growth in gross GHG emissions occurring in CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes…”“Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence).”
In the US, fossil fuels combustion was the largest source of GHGs between 1990 and 2021 8. To mitigate global warming and its harmful consequences, it is clear that the US government should act to substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels and prioritize renewable energy sources, which have zero GHG emissions associated with actual energy production, and are preferable over nuclear energy for reasons explained above.
Social cost of carbon
Furthermore, we should include the negative externalities of fossil fuels combustion (social cost of carbon) in economic considerations. Rennert et al., writing in the journal Nature, estimate the mean social cost of carbon to be $185 per metric ton of CO2 8. To put this value in context, the US produced 5,586 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2021 9, which translates to over $1 trillion of negative externalities in that year alone.
II. Pollution
In addition to GHGs, fossil fuels combustion also emits air pollutants, including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, and nitrogen oxides. “Outdoor air pollution adversely affects human health and is estimated to be responsible for five to ten per cent of the total annual premature mortality in the contiguous United States” 10. Living near fossil fuel extraction sites also increases one’s exposure to air pollution 11. To protect people’s health and reduce the incidence of premature mortality, it is clear that the US government should prioritize other energy sources than fossil fuels. I argue that the US government should prioritize renewable energy sources, which produce no air pollution during actual energy production, and are preferable over nuclear energy.
Round 3
Since Con forfeited Round 1, I remind voters that my opponent cannot bring forth any new arguments in the remaining round. Aside from rebuttals to mine.
Dropped Arguments
- Con concedes that natural gasses are clean energy and fracking is good for the environment.
- That air pollution can be reduced by using it in oil companies with natural gas plant technology.
- Nuclear energy is compatible with weather renewable technologies and is capable of supporting an electric grid, and that it can be a perfect substitute for fossil fuels.
- Renewable energy is too expensive for the economy and would cost $2,800 for every American household. Cost inflation goes up, but carbon emissions remain the same. ←—- Con never contests this.
- Renewable energy is unreliable. The Sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, and the times that solar and wind technology generate electricity is substantially lower than that of gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
- Renewable energy technology also takes up too much space.
Con addresses none of these arguments in Round 2, therefore they all remain. I hope voters realize this.
Rebuttals
l. Kritik
- “Fuel Woods should be removed from the conventional energy sources list as this energy source belongs in the category of Bio Energy in the list of renewable sources.
- Thermal power plants should not be included in the conventional energy sources list because some thermal power plants run on geothermal energy or biomass, which are included in the renewable energy sources list. I suggest excluding thermal power plants from both lists with this understanding.”
While the description allows Kritiks based on adding choices not originally included, changes cannot be made to remove options as they already are. Any requests could have been made in the comments, prior to acceptance.
But as we are now 3 Rounds in and my case is based on arguing the established lists as they currently are, it is too late.
Plus, it is important to know that the lists were hand selected from an environmental source that categorizes them correctly by recognizing
them as Conventional Energy.
“Fuel Woods
Rural people use the fuelwood for their day to day cooking which comes from natural forests and plantations. The availability of fuelwood has become difficult due to rapid deforestation. We can avoid this problem by planting more trees on degraded forest land, culturable wasteland, barren land grazing land.”
“Thermal Power Plant
Power stations burn a large number of fossil fuels to heat up water, to produce steam, which further runs the turbine to generate electricity. Transmission of electricity is more efficient than, transporting coal or petroleum over the same distance. It is called as the thermal plant because fuel is burnt to produce heat energy which is converted into electrical energy.” 1
ll. Nuclear Waste
“The US is not equipped to deal with radioactive wasteAlthough I support nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, the US is not prepared to deal with the additional nuclear waste that would be produced by prioritizing this energy source.Nuclear power plants produce radioactive waste that requires extremely long-term, secure storage to prevent contamination. The US doesn’t have a permanent solution for containing the current amount of domestic nuclear waste, and “even if the U.S. starts today, it will take decades to site, design and build a facility for disposal of its nuclear waste stockpile” 4.”
Nuclear is a clean energy that produces zero emissions.
“According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the United States avoided more than 471 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. That’s the equivalent of removing 100 million cars from the road and more than all other clean energy sources combined.
It also keeps the air clean by removing thousands of tons of harmful air pollutants each year that contribute to acid rain, smog, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease.”
Also, nuclear energy doesn’t produce a lot of waste, but even with the current waste, there is a way to make use of it.
“Nuclear fuel is extremely dense.
It’s about 1 million times greater than that of other traditional energy sources and because of this, the amount of used nuclear fuel is not as big as you might think.
All of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!
That waste can also be reprocessed and recycled.” 2
lll. Global Warming
“II. Global WarmingGlobal warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses (GHGs), which accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat that would otherwise radiate from the Earth’s surface into space 6. Humanity’s burning of fossil fuels is the main source of the GHGs that cause global warming, which has and will continue to have adverse effects on human health, water availability, food production, the built environment, and biodiversity. Quoting from the AR6 Synthesis Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 7:“Human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse [gasses], have unequivocally caused global warming”“...the largest share and growth in gross GHG emissions occurring in CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes…”“Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people (high confidence). Vulnerable communities who have historically contributed the least to current climate change are disproportionately affected (high confidence).”In the US, fossil fuels combustion was the largest source of GHGs between 1990 and 2021 8. To mitigate global warming and its harmful consequences, it is clear that the US government should act to substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels and prioritize renewable energy sources, which have zero GHG emissions associated with actual energy production, and are preferable over nuclear energy for reasons explained above.Social cost of carbonFurthermore, we should include the negative externalities of fossil fuels combustion (social cost of carbon) in economic considerations. Rennert et al., writing in the journal Nature, estimate the mean social cost of carbon to be $185 per metric ton of CO2 8. To put this value in context, the US produced 5,586 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2021 9, which translates to over $1 trillion of negative externalities in that year alone.”
- Extend that the amount of carbon emissions with renewable stechnology would remain the same.
- Extend that fracking and nuclear energy is a safe and inexpensive way of reducing carbon emissions in the environment.
- Extend that air pollution can be reduced with natural gas plant technology.
- Extend that the geographical concerns currently prevent the construction of solar and wind technology, and that The Institute For Energy Research confirms that wind power is double the amount of conventional gas power, and solar power is triple the amount. 3
Conclusion
Con has made no attempts to address or refute any of my arguments in the previous round. With the weight and quantity of my qualifying impacts, I believe I have cemented my case with enough evidence that concludes the U.S. government should prioritize Conventional Energy over Renewable Sources of Energy. Vote Pro.
In my first post, I mentioned that I would focus on constructive arguments and refute Pro’s arguments in the subsequent round. Unfortunately, I missed the time for round 1, but posted in round 2 the argument that I had originally devised. Pro did not specify a rule that I must address his arguments in a particular round, and even mentions that I may present rebuttals in this round. If there is a general rule about how forfeiting a round affects how one’s argument is considered that is specified somewhere in the forum, it is not clear for new users (like myself), so I ask that the judges recognize that I am trying to debate in good faith by refuting my opponent’s arguments in this round. I think I will show that on the strength of my arguments and sources, I deserve to win this debate despite forfeiting the first round due to a mistake in timing.
I. Rebuttals
“Dropped Arguments
- Con concedes that natural gasses are clean energy and fracking is good for the environment.
- That air pollution can be reduced by using it in oil companies with natural gas plant technology.
- Nuclear energy is compatible with weather renewable technologies and is capable of supporting an electric grid, and that it can be a perfect substitute for fossil fuels.
- Renewable energy is too expensive for the economy and would cost $2,800 for every American household. Cost inflation goes up, but carbon emissions remain the same. ←—- Con never contests this.
- Renewable energy is unreliable. The Sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, and the times that solar and wind technology generate electricity is substantially lower than that of gas, coal, and nuclear energy.
- Renewable energy technology also takes up too much space.
Con addresses none of these arguments in Round 2, therefore they all remain. I hope voters realize this.”
I do not concede any of these points.
Natural gas is not a clean energy source, and fracking is not good for the environment. The level of GHG and pollutant emissions differ between fossil fuels and methods of extracting and burning each fuel; however, all fossil fuels produce GHG and pollutant emissions, whereas solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal, and ocean power do not. The latter are examples of clean energy sources. Even with biofuels, the GHG emissions from burning them are offset by the biomass absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, meaning that biofuels are a less polluting alternative to conventional fossil fuels 1. My opponent claims that “There is a way to make use of air pollution in the oil company if the natural gas plants have devices capable of storing it.” However, these devices can leave a lot of pollution behind and are not cost-effective 2. It also leaves it up to the companies that have been polluting the US for decades in the pursuit of profit to implement this technology at a high cost, which they are not likely to do. Quoting from 2:
“Consider that untreated exhaust from a coal-fired power plant can contain 300 times as much CO2 as the Earth’s atmosphere, which means capturing 90 percent of the CO2 still leaves a lot behind. Even if CCS could remove 99 percent of the CO2 from coal plant exhaust, what is left would still have a CO2 concentration equal to or higher than the atmosphere.”“The closer a CCS system gets to 100 percent efficiency, the harder and more expensive it becomes to capture additional carbon dioxide.”
My opponent attempts to argue support of the resolution by claiming the benefits of fossil fuels and simultaneously claiming that “Nuclear energy can replace fossil fuels.” In doing so, my opponent’s argument represents a Motte and Bailey doctrine 3 and Kettle Logic 4. They retreat from the almost indefensible option of fossil fuels to the more easily defensible option of nuclear energy, and make mutually inconsistent arguments, e.g., that natural gas is a clean energy source and nuclear is also a clean energy source that could replace fossil fuels (because fossil fuels are not clean).
In claiming that renewable energy is too expensive, my opponent relies on the claims from a non-peer reviewed article shared by a think-tank that is “Right Biased based on a political policy in line with Republicans and Mixed for factual reporting based on minimizing scientific consensus regarding climate change.” 5, and was originally published in the National Review 6, a similarly biased news media outlet. Reputable sources, such as the US Energy Information Administration 6 show that renewables are favorable in the long-term over fossil fuels in terms of cost and value. Renewable energy sources are already cheaper than conventional sources in many parts of the world and are tending to reduce in cost 7. Furthermore, homeowners can save money on their electricity and heating bills by installing solar photovoltaics or solar heating units on their roofs.
“Renewable energy is unreliable. The Sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow, and the times that solar and wind technology generate electricity is substantially lower than that of gas, coal, and nuclear energy.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that “Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting electricity demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country.” 8.
“Renewable Energy requires too much spaceWith problems like geography and the environment,
- Wind turbines must be arranged in a specific pattern that cannot be located in compact, tight areas.
- Solar plants take up more land than that of your standard power plant.”
One of the key contributors to the historical economic success of the US is the huge amount of space available for agriculture, sprawling cities, industrial, and energy development. There is plenty of space in the US for new wind and solar farms, and any space currently taken up by fossil fuel extraction and power facilities could be repurposed for the benefit of all.
II. Defenses
Kritik
I accept that my being late in submitting for the first round precludes changes to the sources list. I hope that my suggestions are educational to the judges and anyone else reading this debate, as my interpretation of the concepts of “conventional” and “renewable” energy sources are scientifically accepted 9, whereas my opponent’s so-called “environmental source” is actually a children’s study website 10.
Nuclear waste
“Nuclear is a clean energy that produces zero emissions.Also, nuclear energy doesn’t produce a lot of waste, but even with the current waste, there is a way to make use of it.”
My opponent does not actually address the argument I made, which was that the US has not yet implemented geologic repositories for nuclear waste, which are required for long-term, safe storage. The US currently has short-term solutions for the current amount of domestic nuclear waste, but these are insufficient for the long-term and for the increased amount of waste that would be generated by prioritizing nuclear energy 11.
Global warming
“Extend that the amount of carbon emissions with renewable stechnology would remain the same.Extend that fracking and nuclear energy is a safe and inexpensive way of reducing carbon emissions in the environment.Extend that air pollution can be reduced with natural gas plant technology.Extend that the geographical concerns currently prevent the construction of solar and wind technology, and that The Institute For Energy Research confirms that wind power is double the amount of conventional gas power, and solar power is triple the amount.”
I have refuted all these points by Pro, as I said I would after making my constructive arguments. Pro also does not provide any meaningful refutation of my arguments about climate change and pollution.
Conclusion
While I concede that my forfeiting the first round by being late in posting an argument must be held against me in some way, I ask that the judges account for me being new to this website and not necessarily knowing how the forfeit would usually affect the way arguments are reviewed. On the merits of my arguments, I believe I should win this debate. I have used reputable governmental and academic sources, whereas my opponent has quoted fossil fuel company CEOs, and biased media outlets. I refuted all my opponents points and defended against the meager refutations attempted by my opponent. Please vote Con.
Bump for votes.
References:
Round 2:
1. US Energy Information Administration - U.S. energy facts explained
2. US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy - Biofuel Basics
3. US Energy Information Administration - Use of energy explained: Energy use in industry
4. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
5. US Energy Information Administration - Nuclear explained U.S. nuclear industry
6. Wikipedia - Greenhouse effect
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - SYNTHESIS REPORT OF THE IPCC SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT (AR6)
8. US Environmental Protection Agency - Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2021: Executive Summary
(I accidentally numbered the next one 8 too. Please add 1 to the reference numbers in the text after first 8)
9. Rennert et al. (2022), Nature - Comprehensive evidence implies a higher social cost of CO2
10. US Environmental Protection Agency - About the Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks
11. Dedoussi et al. (2020), Nature - Premature mortality related to United States cross-state air pollution
12. Stanford News Service - Living near oil and gas wells increases air pollution exposure, according to Stanford research
Round 3:
1. US Energy Information Administration - Biofuels explained: Biofuels and the environment
2. MIT Climate Portal - How efficient is carbon capture and storage?
3. Wikipedia - Motte-and-bailey fallacy
4. Wikipedia - Kettle logic
5. Media Bias Fact Check - American Enterprise Institute: Bias and Credibility
6. US Energy Information Administration - EIA’s long-term power plant projections trade off the cost and value of new capacity
7. Our World in Data - Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?
8. National Renewable Energy Laboratory - Renewable Electricity Futures Study
9. Science Direct (Academic publisher Elsevier) - Conventional Energy
10. Toppr (Pro's source for definitions of conventional and renewable energy)
11. Scientific American - Nuclear Waste Is Piling Up. Does the U.S. Have a Plan?
Sorry, I was just late submitting my argument. Could you give me the chance to publish in the second round?
Then I suggest the first round to be focused on constructive arguments and the second round refutations.
Should I make any suggestions to amend definitions etc. in a comment?
Lowkey getting the sense whiteflame might take a personal interest in this debate.
Up to you.
Do you want the first round to be focused on constructive arguments and the second round for refutations?
I keep refreshing the page, but have not yet been able to accept. As soon as I stop seeing the warning that I don't have the qualification, I will accept the challenge.
Since we finished the troll debates, the qualification is now there.
You can accept now.
Accept all 3 challenges I made and you’ll be able to debate this with me.
I would debate you on this topic, but I don't have the qualification for rated debates.
Bump
I can help you out with that.
You need to finish 3 standard debates first, but there’s a quick loophole I discovered.
I’ll challenge you to 3 standard debates (1 round, 2 hours’ response time.)
All that’s required is for you to accept.
Sir.Lancelot only if you don't mind can you explain how one would achieve the 'qualification to participate in rated debates' or vote on debates on site?