- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Okay, let's take a second here: why are they being tortured or killed? Because they killed someone with a gun. See, THEY killed first. Your proposal would take out the killers after they killed. Mine would take them out before they killed. Now more people can live!
I just have one last thing to say before I'm done with this never-ending debate: to the people claiming liberty, do you also believe we should have murder laws? You claim people should be able to get a tool to kill, but they can't kill. It's a plain contradiction.
Again, I think a handgun for home protection is okay, as long as you obtain it legally, but what use besides killing someone would an assault rifle do?
Thanks for making this debate BTW. Like I said, I think I'll be done unless someone makes an argument against me AHEM ;)
That's not what we're saying. We're simply saying that it's a little unfair to use the constitution as an argument when it doesn't even compare to what we have today. You have to admit that technology has made our society more deadly. Going back to the FIRST amendment example, I could cuss out the cops and threaten president and say it would be free speech. Although we have freedoms, you have to draw the line somewhere.
I'd like to just ask the 'in favor' people on this: Putting the constitution aside, what's one good thing assault rifles can do for society? And please don't say it makes your dk larger ;)
I agree that American citizens have the right to bear arms, but that does not mean they can have unlimited access to them. It's the same reason our freedom of speech is limited from slander, treason, or when we're in school.
Furthermore, in the times that the constitution were written, you were considered a great rifleman if you can get off TWO shots in a MINUTE. War back in those times meant lining up without shooting and then shooting all at the same time. Nowadays, we have guns like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I believe that U.S. citizens have the right to own handguns for 'home protection' and rifles/shotguns for hunting, but assault rifles do nothing for society. Plus, the only reason people even want them is to have fun with them, and that can only lead to accidents.
Finally, the two (three?) week waiting period is a great idea. People can get really mad and adrenaline takes over. It is best to make people wait for a while and think about what they're doing before we have another Columbine.
CONTENTION 1 IS INHERENCY:
We are currently headed for an energy crisis.
Oil and Gas Journal, '03. (http://www.wtrg.com/EnergyCrisis/index.html)
"Various measures of US energy security indicate that the US might be heading for an energy crisis. Many of the warning signs that existed before the energy crises of 1973 and 1979 exist today and they indicate that the current situation could be even worse. US dependence on petroleum imports has grown steadily for over a decade and has been at record levels for several years. Petroleum inventories are low and the ability of Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) and commercial petroleum stocks to cope with an interruption in imports matches the historic lows preceding the 1973 and 1979 energy crises."
Wind energy lacks funding.
American Wind Energy Association, ’07 (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Subsidy.pdf)
“During the year 2003 alone, federal energy subsidies ranged from $37 billion to $64 billion, according to a study prepared for the National Commission on Energy Policy.
Wind energy accounted for less than 1% of the total.”
THUS THE PLAN: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by increasing farm subsidizes to develop wind energy.
CONTENTION 2 IS PEAK OIL:
A. Uniqueness- Oil prices have set a record high at $134 a barrel.
Tuttle, June 18, 2008. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid;=aqCjVZeYbJ0A&refer;=germany)
"Crude oil for July delivery rose 9 cents to $134.10 a barrel at 9:37 a.m. on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The price, which reached a record $139.89 a barrel June 16, is up 94 percent in the past year."
B. Link- We will reach peak oil within the next 7 years.
Jacquot, 1-26-08 (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/shell_ceo_peak_oil.php)
"Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand."
C. Internal Link- Demand for oil will continue to increase while supply decreases.
Savinar, May ’08 (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net.html)
“If 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.”
D. Impact- Without energy transition, 5 billion will die.
Stein, 10-16-2005 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/
"The former oil-industry executive Jan Lundberg reckons the crisis will be sudden. "Market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices skyward," he says. "And the market will become paralysed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and daily living." So forget the price at the pump: when oil becomes truly unaffordable, you will be more worried about the collapse of distribution networks, and the absence of food from local shops. Ecologists use a technical term, "die-off", to describe what happens when a population grows too big for the resources that sustain it. Where will die-off occur this time? Everywhere. By some estimates, 5 billion of the world's 6½ billion population would never have been able to live without the blessed effects of fossil fuels, and oil in particular: oil powered the pumps that drained the land, and from oil came the chemicals that made intensive farming possible. If oil dries up, we can assume, those 5 billion must starve. And they won't all be in Africa this time. You too may be fighting off neighbours to protect a shrinking stash of canned food, and, when that runs out, foraging for insects in suburban gardens."
CONTENTION 3 GLOBAL WARMING:
A. Uniqueness- The greenhouse effect causes solar energy to be blocked by various gases from leaving the atmosphere.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), 12-27-07 (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
“The "greenhouse effect" refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun's enormous energy warms the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer.”
AND- The greenhouse effect controls earth’s climate- if heat-trapping gases increase, so does the temperature of the earth.
UCS, previously cited
Without it [greenhouse effect], the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C), a temperature so low that the Earth would be frozen and could not sustain life. “Global warming" refers to the rise in the Earth's temperature resulting from an increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
B. Link- Fossil fuels are the main contributors to the rise in said heat-trapping gases.
“Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. Our fossil fuel use is the main source of these gases. Every time we drive a car, use electricity from coal-fired power plants, or heat our homes with oil or natural gas, we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air. The second most important source of greenhouse gases is deforestation, mainly in the tropics, and other land-use changes… Since pre-industrial times, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent. Over the same period, atmospheric methane has risen by 151 percent, mostly from agricultural activities like growing rice and raising cattle… As the concentration of these gases grows, more heat is trapped by the atmosphere and less escapes back into space. This increase in trapped heat changes the climate, causing altered weather patterns that can bring unusually intense precipitation or dry spells and more severe storms.”
C. Impact- the earth will explode without addressing global warming.
Dr. Tom J. Chalko, 2004. (http://nujournal.net/core.pdf)
Consequences of global warming are far more serious than previously imagined. The REAL danger for our entire civilization comes not from slow climate changes, but from overheating of the planetary interior… The Earth’s interior, as any nuclear fission reactor, will continue to release heat whether it is sufficiently cooled from the outside or not. It is very important to note that in a nuclear reactor heat is generated in the entire volume of the nuclear fuel, but cooling can occur only at the surface. The temperature inside the reactor’s core depends on the amount of cooling. The better the cooling - the lower temperatures inside the reactor core. When the cooling is reduced - temperatures inside the nuclear reactor rise… The cooling of the reactor called Earth is determined and controlled by the atmosphere. It is well known today that burning fossil fuels on a large scale produces large amounts of gasses that make the atmosphere ”trap” progressively more solar heat. This increased capacity of the atmosphere to hold more of the solar heat is called today the “greenhouse effect”. Any reduction of the cooling capacity of the atmosphere causes a corresponding increase of the interior temperatures. Appendix 1 clearly demonstrates that the tiniest reduction in the cooling capacity of a spherical reactor, when sustained for a sufficiently long time, causes extreme temperature increases at the center of the reactor… When there is a “meltdown” in the inner core of a planet - it is likely to occur at the hottest point - in the center of the core. From there - there is nowhere to “sink” and nowhere to “disperse”. The molten nuclear fuel just remains molten. If the molten volume of the inner core is large enough for a sufficient amount of time - the continuing stratification of isotopes will eventually lead to some of them achieving a ”critical mass”. When this occurs - the nuclear energy that was scheduled to be released over many millions of years may get released very quickly. A chain reaction will result in a gigantic atomic explosion.
CONTENTION 4 IS SOLVENCY:
Wind energy is the energy of the future.
American Wind Energy Association, ’07 (http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/
“Wind power is ready to be a significant source of American energy. Diversifying federal support to include newer, non-polluting, domestic energy industries like wind is smart energy policy.”
Wind energy will never run out.
Energy Information Association, Nov. ’07 (http://www.eia.doe.
“Wind is called a renewable energy source because the wind will blow as long as the sun shines.”
Subsidies provide incentives for farmers to create wind energy by providing tax breaks.
AWEA, Previously cited.
“The main incentive for wind, the production tax credit (PTC) is an effective policy to facilitate wind power development, as evidenced by today’s growth in the use of wind power. Wind project owners receive tax credits only for energy produced; thus they have an incentive to use better wind sites and better technology – harvesting the most energy possible from every wind turbine.”
Subsidies have been effective in the past.
AWEA, previously cited.
"U.S. subsidies for oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro power totaled approximately $500 billion from 1950 to 1977 (in 2004 $).1 In the last century, this investment created an abundance of affordable domestic energy, powering strong economic growth. It also contributed to a heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Today’s rising energy demands – and volatile prices – reveal a need for a more diverse energy supply."