CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


FB
Facebook addict? Check out our page and become a fan because you love us!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
None

RSS Hairchrm

Reward Points:25
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
64%
Arguments:17
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

I believe that the biggest issue is the way things are voted for and displayed. It is still unclear if people are voting for the best arguments, or what they agree with. I think that instead of merely an up or down, maybe a quality scale of -2 -> 2 or something would work. Then the points would add up and it would be clear that you should really be voting for quality of the argument and it would make it more clear if it was a good argument to others, not just if you agree with it. I sometimes find myself voting people down just because I don't like their opinion, which obviously is not the goal of CD.

This quality scale could also determine which arguments are shown. If someone is ranked very highly overall (an average of all their posts?), perhaps their contributions are worth more and/or more visible to others? This would weed out the ridiculous remarks that some people make. This, of course, would make it difficult to join into the community if you start new, but maybe it could be an average and you could start in the middle. I don't know, that's for the community to work out.

I guess that the biggest issue is just making sure that as CD grows, the quality of the arguments stays high. I would say that at the moment, it is only medium in many debates, and this needs to be improved. I don't know what the best method of keeping quality arguments is, but I guess that that's the reason there is a CD development team!

Keep up the good work!

1 point

Harms Violation--

A. No link to Global Warming from plan- Global Warming will not result from not converting to wind power. Deforestation is a major contributor to global warming besides fossil fuels.

Stock and Rochen, (http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm)- Although all consequences of deforestation are potentially serious, perhaps the most serious consequence is that of climate change due to the loss of trees... The only way to help moderate the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is through plant life. Alive plants and trees absorb the carbon dioxide from decaying plants and trees. With a decrease in trees and plant life (due to deforestation) it is much harder to moderate these levels. Ultimately, the amount of carbon will increase due to a lack of plant life present to keep the carbon dioxide levels in check.

Since plant life is the only way to help moderate CO2, not converting to wind power and instead applying the incentives to conserving forests would help rid global warming faster. Thus, not converting to wind power does not result in the earth exploding, as global warming would not necessarily occur.

B. No link to 5 billion dying from plan- Your statement is "Without energy transition, 5 billion will die". Surely there are other energy transitions besides merely wind power, thus your not implementing your plan will not result in the death of 5 billion people as other energy transitions are probable.

Inherency--

There is no reason to increase the incentives if they are already working. Your AWEA quote says that “Wind project owners receive tax credits... thus they have an incentive to use better wind sites and better technology.” The farmers are already given incentives and they already work. Thus, there is no reason to offer more incentives.

Ecological DA---

Lloyd, 2007 Lloyd Crawford, Director of National Wind Watch. (http://www.wind-watch.org/press-070301.php)

Even just five percent [of the US electricity generated by wind farms] by 2030 would require 160,000 megawatts of wind, almost ten million acres -- most of it rural and wild -- turned over to 400-foot-high machines and their motion, noise, and lights. That's not a green solution, but a huge disaster any way you look at it.

Link- Wind farms cause major problems with birds of prey, proportional with how many wind farms there are.

Ritter, 2005, (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm)

But for just as long, massive fiberglass blades on the more than 4,000 windmills have been chopping up tens of thousands of birds that fly into them, including golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls and other raptors. After years of study but little progress reducing bird kills, environmentalists have sued to force turbine owners to take tough corrective measures. The companies, at risk of federal prosecution, say they see the need to protect birds. "Once we finally realized that this issue was really serious, that we had to solve it to move forward, we got religion," says George Hardie, president of G3 Energy. The size of the annual body count — conservatively put at 4,700 birds — is unique to this sprawling, 50-square-mile site in the Diablo Mountains between San Francisco and the agricultural Central Valley because it spans an international migratory bird route regulated by the federal government. The low mountains are home to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles. Scientists don't know whether the kills reduce overall bird populations but worry that turbines, added to other factors, could tip a species into decline.

Internal Link-- These problems will cause severe imbalances of populations and/or extinctions to the bird populations.

Impact-- Human extinction-

Diner ’94 - David N. Diner. Major and Judge Advocate in the General’s Corps. “The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Who’s Endangering Whom?” 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter 1994.

By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft’s wings, [hu]mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.

Nuke War--

Magnitude – U.S. economic collapse will cause nuclear war- this outweighs everything else.

The U.S. Is in a recession-

Mauldin, 2008 (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4575.html) Real (inflation-adjusted) retail sales have been flat for the last six months. Incomes are stagnant. Consumer spending is showing every sign of slowing even more. Unemployment is rising (see more below). Consumer sentiment is at 25-year lows. You can count on it that the NBER will show a recession starting the fourth quarter of last year and continuing at the least through the first quarter of this year. This one could last another six months. I still think long and shallow with a very slow recovery. One last point. The US population grows by about 1% a year. Thus economic growth should increase by at least 1% for the US to stay even on a per capita basis. Thus, at least with regard to GDP per capita, the US is definitely in a recession. And if you use real-world inflation data, we are also in a mild recession.

Additional stress to the economy in a time of recession combined with other global issues will lead to a U.S. economic collapse. Providing additional funding and incentives for wind energy would be this stress, pushing the US economy over the brink to a collapse.

A U.S. economic collapse leads to global economic depression-

Walter Mead, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, March/April, 2004

America’s Sticky Power, Foreign Policy, Proquest

Similarly, in the last 60 years, as foreigners have acquired a greater value in the United States-government and private bonds, direct and portfolio private investments-more and more of them have acquired an interest in maintaining the strength of the U.S.-led system. A collapse of the U.S. economy and the ruin of the dollar would do more than dent the prosperity of the United States. Without their best customer, countries including China and Japan would fall into depressions. The financial strength of every country would be severely shaken should the United States collapse. Under those circumstances, debt becomes a strength, not a weakness, and other countries fear to break with the United States because they need its market and own its securities. Of course, pressed too far, a large national debt can turn from a source of strength to a crippling liability, and the United States must continue to justify other countries' faith by maintaining its long-term record of meeting its financial obligations. But, like Samson in the temple of the Philistines, a collapsing U.S. economy would inflict enormous, unacceptable damage on the rest of the world.

Global economic collapse causes extinction-

Thomas Bearden, Association of Distinguished American Scientists and LTC, U.S. Army (Retired), 2000 ("The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly", http://www.seaspower.com/EnergyCrisis-Bearden.htm) )

History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released.~ As an example, suppose a starving North Korea {[7]} launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China--whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States--attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch [nukes]on perception of preparations by one's adversary.~ The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself {[8]}. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.

The possibility of extinction requires that we address the issue as if nuclear war is the result, no matter how slight the real risk is-

Schell 1982 - policy analyst and proliferation expert, 1982 (Schell, Jonathan, “The Fate of the Earth”, p. 94-5)

We are compelled to admit that there may be a holocaust, that the adversaries may use all their weapons, that the global effects, including effects of which we are as yet unaware, may be severe, that the ecosphere may suffer catastrophic breakdown, and that our species may be extinguished.... In the shadow of this power, the earth became small and the life of the human species doubtful. In that sense, the question of human extinction has been on the political agenda of the world ever since the first nuclear weapon was detonated, and there was no need for the world to build up its present tremendous arsenals before starting to worry about it. At just what point the species crossed, or will have crossed, the boundary between merely having the technical knowledge to destroy itself and actually having the arsenals at hand, ready to be used at any second, is not precisely knowable. But it is clear that at present, with some twenty thousand megatons of nuclear explosive power in existence, and with more being added every day, we have entered into the zone of uncertainty, which is to say the zone of risk of extinction. But the mere risk of extinction has a significance that is categorically different from, and immeasurably greater than, that of any other risk, and as we make our decisions we have to take that significance into account. Up to now, every risk has been contained within the frame of life; extinction would shatter the frame. It represents not the defeat of some purpose but an abyss in which all human purposes would be drowned for all time. We have no right to place the possibility of this limitless, eternal defeat on the same footing as risks that we run in the ordinary conduct of our affairs in our particular transient moment of human history. To employ a mathematical analogy, we can say that although the risk of extinction may be fractional, the stake is, humanly speaking, infinite, and a fraction of infinity is still infinity. In other words, once we learn that a holocaust might lead to extinction we have no right to gamble, because if we lose, the game will be over, and neither we nor anyone else will ever get another chance. Therefore, although, scientifically speaking, there is all the difference in the world between the mere possibility that a holocaust will bring about extinction and the certainty of it, morally they are the same, and we have no choice but to address the issue of nuclear weapons as though we knew for a certainty that their use would put an end to our species. In weighing the fate of the earth and, with it, our own fate, we stand before a mystery, and in tampering with the earth we tamper with a mystery. We are in deep ignorance. Our ignorance should dispose us to wonder, our wonder should make us humble, our humility should inspire us to reverence and caution, and our reverence and caution should lead us to act without delay to withdraw the threat we now pose to the earth and to ourselves.

Nuclear annihilation is bad-

We all die, along with most life.

Thus, implementing the aff's plan would lead to nuclear war and complete global destruction of the human race and most other life forms, though there is no proof that it will save any more lives than a different, less dangerous plan.

2 points

I think I'm finding that more people just vote for the side that they like and provide little content. I find that on opinions that are very strong and polar people generally just vote for the first opinion on the top for the side that they like. Then, it just seems like a lot of the regulars that provide opinions never achieve very high votes when they are elsewhere in the topic.

I don't see what is so hard for some of these voters just to put down a fast argument. Most of the arguments on the site don't require more than a minute of research to find something that says that it is incorrect. But again, if it isn't at the top, it rarely gets very many votes.

4 points

There is much more than just experience in a presidential race. It is also about the views of the nation, in Obama is firmly placed in the minds of the American public.

For example, according to a BBC report published in January 2007 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/23_01_07_us_poll.pdf), 57% of the US population disprove of the handling of the war in Iraq, with 40% strongly disproving. This is a major issue in this election, which Obama firmly voiced his view on.

Whether or not someone has experience should only be second to their views. If one does not support their candidate's views, why should they care how well they can get things done if they accomplish only bad things?

4 points

Republicans aren't unified? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Have you looked at the recent news? Clinton basically lost months ago, but is she pulling out? No way! There is essentially no hope for her, but does she really care? She has split the democrats cleanly in two, and you claim that the Republicans aren't unified? At least they have a clear idea of who is running! Instead, all Clinton can do is smear the Obama camp, which merely damages the Democrats as a whole.

3 points

The source is useless, that is my point.

The only other thing that you said in the initial paragraph were opinions backed by no sources. I think that most would agree with what you said, but it is undebatable if you just voice opinions. That should be a popularity contest on this site.

3 points

The only thing you say in this paragraph is that Obama has energy, [is a?] fresh breath, and winning spirit. You then continue to call McCain weak, without any evidence. How can you call McCain weak when he was winning over Obama only a few months ago in polls (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2008-01-13-poll3.htm)? Also, how can you claim that defeating Clinton was the "greatest challenge"? I am sure that you are aware that half of the country did not vote in this election. Without such a substantial number of voters, nobody ought to claim that this was his greatest challenge. I am also appalled that you would claim his defeat of Clinton was done "with ease". Clinton still has not even admitted defeat, claims to own the popular vote, and is still fighting. I think that this argument has no basis, and that if you had to vote on this statement alone you should choose McCain.

5 points

Please note that the source you used cites a 4% error margin. Notice that within this margin, McCain could be placed ahead of Obama. The article itself cites an update that notes this, and also notes that the claim that Obama gained popularity versus McCain across the past few months may be inaccurate, as it is within the margin of error. Also, the poll used only just over 1,000 individuals, I would hardly call that a comprehensive poll of America. Your evidence is clearly lacking.

1 point

I think that you misunderstood my comment. Of course there is racism. But, I highly doubt that "middle America still has ingrained racism". You said it yourself: "all the other cracker jack towns where the tobacco chewing... rednecks let their sentiments be heard??" I would not consider "cracker jack towns" in "West Virginia" to be "middle America". Of course some people are racist, I never denied that, I denied that most of middle America is.

2 points

Bush was elected, and it is clear that he, too, did not have his facts straight. I don't think that negative propaganda can be used to illustrate who is going to win an election, especially when past elections have not followed the trend of electing the "smartest" candidate, for lack of a better term.

Hairchrm has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here