Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

Debate Info

Debate Score:19
Total Votes:20
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Is Global Warming really that bad? (12)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40131) pic

Is Global Warming really that bad?

Global Warming not that bad

Climate change could actually benefit some of the world's most endangered species, says Conservation International president Russell Mittermeier. In this week's Green Room, he explains that conservationists should capitalise on the worldwide attention being given to global warming.

Add New Argument
2 points

HERE is a classic example of selfish corrupt pollitics and their climate change copouts .

Please chech out TMA.

And please help save Peter from our corrupt government.

NOTE; This is not a request for donations.

1 point

NOTE: How they cut this from the air just as Peter was about to name names.

If some animals become extinct, wouldn't other animals thrive? I mean, isn't that what evolution is for? Wouldn't other species come into being?

xaeon(1095) Disputed
5 points

"If some animals become extinct, wouldn't other animals thrive? I mean, isn't that what evolution is for?"

Ecosystems become balanced when natural selection is applied, as the change is gradual and enforced by the capacities of the environment. What we are seeing at the moment is not traditional natural selection at work; it is a form of selection enforced by our actions (an unintended artificial selection, if you will), and will see certain ecosystems clapse.

"Wouldn't other species come into being?"

You'd have to stick around for a very very long time. The process of speciation through natural selection takes thousands to millions of years. When one animal goes, another won't suddenly pop up and take its place. These ecosystems have evolved cooperatively over millions of years, and sudden changes would be disasterous.

1 point

Well, at the very minimum, the animal populations that remain will be the strongest; the best their species has to offer. And isn't that what evolution is all about? Survival of the fittest?

The article states:

"If we ensure that nations will be compensated for forest conservation that reduces emissions, we will also contribute to redressing some of the huge economic imbalances that exist in the world, since many tropical forest countries are among the more economically stressed."

Isn't this extortion by the countries guilty of deforestation?

Isn't this wealth re-distribution?

1 point

Despite such potential benefits, the consensus is that the results will be catastrophic.

Scientists Predict Global Warming Will Lead to Spread of Disease

Effects of Global Warming to Worsen in Next 10 to 20 Years

Polar bear plan must fight global warming

'Global warming worsens smog'

Global Warming Heats Up Urgency Of Salmon Recovery Efforts

Global warming could cause humanitarian crises

Global warming spells bad news for tropical insects

More Kidney Stone Disease Projected Due To Global Warming

New study shows American West already suffering droughts from global warming

Man-Made Warming Altering Nature's Clock

`Deadly Dozen' Diseases Spread by Warmer Weather

One in Four Mammals in Danger of Extinction

And worst of all...

Haggis at risk from global warming

Ever seen a drunken Scotsman denied his Haggis? NOT a pretty sight.

Side: Yes its very bad

OK, so once a bunch of people die off then the cycle will correct itself. I mean, if global warming is cause by people then take some people out and you reduce global warming. What's the big deal? Half the world's population is below average. If we lose them, no great loss. The people who are above average should be able to stay relatively cool in their air conditioned homes and cars. The only draw back is that we'll have to pay more for shoes, clothing and Manuel labor.

Side: More like an inconvenience really
Tamisan(890) Disputed
2 points

So you think this is good if the weak-minded folks (like those who can't spell "manual labor" right) die off? Unfortunately illnesses are indifferent to spelling, intelligence, social value, and pretty much any other standard you might set.

If all that is left is wealthy air conditioned over-achievers, who will provide them with those homes, cars, air conditioners, and all the other creature comforts?

Plus you'll always have a problem determining those below average. Who decides what is 'average'? For every below-average person that dies, the average changes. For every advancement (in medicine, technology, psychology, education, etc) 'average' changes.

There is no winning the genocide debate. Anyone who feels that their place is to remove lesser beings should start with themselves.

Side: There is no average
Headless(31) Disputed
1 point

I think you mean "manual" labor not "Manuel" labor.

Side: we really don't need an average