Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

23
19
True. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:42
Arguments:53
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True. (16)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (16)

Debate Creator

jolie(9809) pic



We need global warming in order to evolve.

 

Without change there's,  no pressure to evolve.  This planet's planet's evolutionary history is tied to the historic changes of this planet.  With each major climactic change came great extinctions.  But each great extinction was also followed by an influx of new organism that otherwise would not have gotten their chance to thrive.

True.

Side Score: 23
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 19
2 points

You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

Side: True.
jolie(9809) Clarified
1 point

When you consider the state of the world, you soon realize that the human race needs to evolve, desperately.

Side: True.
1 point

We do not need global warming in order to evolve. We don't even require natures selective adaptations to evolve further. We have reached a level of understanding of genetics that allows us to change or evolve ourselves.

Side: True.
1 point

So, when are going to start the process of making stupid people extinct?

Side: True.

Humans also reproduce more slowly than most other creatures on the planet, and as such would be slower to adapt to these changes.

As such, if adapting to cyclic changes in the earths temperature is necessary to survive, then it is in our best interests to make the cycle transition take as long as possible, so that we are better able to adapt.

It is accurate to say that global warming can potentially represent a form of selective pressure, but we should still be doing our best to slow it down.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
2 points

Or stop it entirely. There are other creatures (e.g. the polar bear) that would suffer in the long run (unless they evolve into a marine species).

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Atrag(5666) Disputed
2 points

Global warming, to some extent, is a inevitable natural process. I thought this was your area of expertise...?

Side: True.
2 points

being an issue of science, lets see which position has the most world renowned scientists on there side….

GLOBAL WARMING AND deEVOLUTION
Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

1) You can justify all kinds of behavior with this line of thinking. You can justify totalitarian behavior, "oh we're just helping them evolve!"

2) The earth is not an eternal garbage can for our experimentation.

3) We don't have another planet to experiment on. You therefore have to give the alarmists the benefit of the doubt and take global warming more seriously.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Amarel(5669) Clarified
1 point

Without making a statement about global warming, your 3rd point can be used in a number of ways. We should not take alarmists seriously based solely on the fact that we don't have another planet. Do you give (insert religion) the benefit of the doubt because you only have one life/ soul?

Side: True.
14giraffes(87) Disputed
2 points

We should not take alarmists seriously based solely on the fact that we don't have another planet.

Given the circumstances, I don't see why not. Do you consider the fact that most climatologists do believe the warming is man made?

Do you give (insert religion) the benefit of the doubt because you only have one life/ soul?

Religion is outside the realm of science, derivative of human language, visions, and mythology. Religion categorically doesn't have any scientific evidence. Climate change has loads of data accepted by the majority of climatologists.

I am not an atheist primarily because:

(1) mere rationality is not a good basis for morality, we can rationalize our way into anything.

(2) meaning or purpose is lacking without religion. I cannot stand a meaningless existence.

(3) I have my own religious experiences.

Side: True.
1 point

Woooow catch up there Jolie. Due to unexplained climatological inconsistencies its now called climate change. Which will conveniently fit what ever happens. Now continue with your fantasy.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Many scientists referred to it as Climate Change from the start, but "Global Warming" just happened to catch on. That doesn't really change anything relating to the science itself.

Side: True.
J-Roc77(70) Clarified
1 point

Climate change was called inadvertent climate modification before 1970ish. Global warming wasn't coined until later but is not interchangeable with climate change although the general public uses them as such. Within the field of study the terms global warming and climate change are referring to two specific things.

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.

Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.

http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Side: True.
daver(1770) Disputed
1 point

Here Goes!

Thirty percent of all the carbon emissions generated since the beginning of the industrial revolution, have been released between 1997 and the present. Interestingly the global warming trend ended in the late 1990's. These two facts together debunk the imagined and never proven theory that carbon emissions cause global warming. The largest El Niño effect ever recorded happened in 1997/98. El Niño's are naturally occurring warming trends in the Pacific ocean.

The polar ice caps are not melting. Satellite data shows that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979.

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change(IPCC) of 2012 concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The IPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Citation

OK begin the attack!

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

I will stick with GW. I want to emphasize that scientists have been wrong in the past.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Global warming is the biggest lie every perpetrated on the people. Liberals will say or do anything to get their agendas passed. They are hideous liars.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

So why do you think it is that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in climate change? Are they all liberals, bent on passing an agenda?

Side: True.
1 point

Maybe the scientific community makes tons of money doing GW research.

Side: True.
1 point

First world countries - Industrial revolution -> We need Global warming!

Third world countries - Industrial resolution -> Wait.. what?? NO!!!

Recently, developed countries have adapted environment-friendly technologies, which means they are no longer the ones that harm the green on the earth. However, they are the ones that caused this GLOBAL WARMING. Today, we are dealing with the side effects of industrial revolution in the 18th century

The current thought provoking issue is that there are still a number of countries that could potentially worsen this world-wide environmental problem. Do they need global warming in order to evolve? - NOT NECESSARILY. If the first world countries share their intelligence with poor ones, no nation needs global warming so as to step forward.

However… the fact is that no one acts on it.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Just to clarify, I meant "human" evolution not "country" evolution. But "country" evolution works too. If Third World countries can't evolve and survive, oh well.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

change isn't really the drive of evolution. people are born with mutations regardless of whether the world they are born into will be difficult for them or not. rather global warming would kill all but the ones with such a mutation that might benefit them to put them above others to survive more easily. non-strenuating circumstances does not prevent evolution. also, there seems to be some preconceived notion that we and other species will evolve, but there is no guarantee at all. the odds of a beneficial mutation are small, much less one specific mutation for one specific purpose. sure we have technology to dull the effects of the climate around us, but it would still be a huge issue for us. for other species it would be far worse. with no shelter from a change in environment, countless species would die, and very few would evolve perhaps other than some of the rapidly breeding species such as bacteria, which would not be fun to live with as they would likely take more dominance than they already have.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

Yes, people are born with mutations. But, if those mutations are not beneficial to the current state of the world, then those mutations do not thrive. Only when the state of the world changes do those other mutations have a chance to thrive.

Why is it better to give those other mutations a chance? Because if the world had not changed, the mutations that lead to smarter humans may not have been realized.

If the world had not changed, we would not have been forced to leave our ancestral home in search for better climate and sources of food. The harsh world our ancestors had to deal with forced them to use their brains or die. The smart ones survived.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!