CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
This is great news. In order to quell Islamic terrorists, we should focus on the cause -- climate change -- perfect. Take the military budget and put it into windmills and solar farms. No soldiers have to die. Forge the swords into battery cases.
He never suggested that working on climate change would solve the problem of terrorism. Only that they were related.
He is very clear that while climate change is the world's number one problem right now, that doesn't diminish the importance of other issues, such as terrorism.
Well, yes, I slightly misspoke, climate change's effects will ultimately foster and cause an increase in terrorism. His full quote:
"And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict."
As he explains, climate change has a plethora of effects, like, take water pollution. Of all the water on Earth, only about 2% is fresh water, and we only have access to about 1% of that. As we pollute that water, it gets less accessible, and especially with an increase in severe weather and droughts, water is a much more valuable resource. In areas with water deprivation, things like poverty and social unrest increase, things that we know lead to terrorism.
Has world hunger gotten worse because it's hot, or is it simply millions more to feed?
...both. Unstable weather conditions and mistreatment of crops hurts the supply, while an ever increasing population causes an increase in demand. It's a huge issue. And again, as we know, a lack of food leads to those same conditions that often future extremism.
Bernie is pandering to the mindless minions on the left; the hapless, the clueless and the blissfully unaware that populates the democratic party. it's an utterly ridiculous statement, but it will score points with their followers.
You mean terrorism is leading to more violence? No, it is not directly related to climate! They do the kidnapping while climate change makes 100 degrees have chances to 25%! Anything relating to climate means things are moving very fast. Terrorism isn't moving fast or getting more violent. If it was related, we would see people abandoned in the desert with no clothes and temperatures would be more higher
Sanders never said it was directly related. His actual argument is that where climate change destabilizes nations and regions it opens up opportunities for radical, violent extremists like ISIS.
Climate change is also not sudden or uniform in regards to localized temperature changes. Very basic science.
Oh yes he did. Here is his exact quote from the debate.
Sanders: "Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism. And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you're going to see countries all over the world — this is what the CIA says — they're going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you're going to see all kinds of international conflict."
I concede his language could have been better, but his actual meaning was nevertheless abundantly evident: climate change has real repercussions upon national security vis a vis its destabilizing effect upon nations, which causes increased terrorism and other threats. Your line of repudiation is entirely reliant upon a misrepresentation of the actual point being made. You are committing a strawman fallacy to avoid the substantive issue at hand, either out of stupidity or deliberate evasion.
Many people claim ISIS is evil and barbaric and do no good in the world. However, if you follow this to its logical conclusion, the global warming alarmists see at least some good in ISIS and truth in Sanders statement. Here it is.
Global warming is caused by man and over population, among other things. Every person that ISIS beheads decreases global warming a tiny fraction. If ISIS can gain in numbers and strength and behead half the worlds population global warming will cease to exist, or at least go into hibernation. Then, with global warming no longer an issue, terrorism will decrease or end all together, at least according to Sanders. Two problems solved at once thanks to ISIS.
Now, I don't believe this, but by Sanders comments, this is completely logical. Yes, I see why many people want him as president.
That argument is equivalent to saying that murderers are good because they slow overpopulation. Do you support that logic, even though you understand that overpopulation is caused by humans?
This does not follow from Sanders' comments at all because at no point does he argue that climate change should be the exclusive factor for consideration. Nor would it follow even then. ISIS feed upon and perpetuates instability, and instability is an obstacle to implementing efficient and sustainable energy systems. Any armed, militarized conflict also generates its own carbon footprint which otherwise would not exist. Moreover, if ISIS were to win then it would establish its own status quo and there is every reason to suspect that population growth would be greater under extremely conservative Islam given its attitudes towards women and child bearing; in the long run more children would be born and therefore more people.
What am idiotic thing to say. He believes that people are responsible for global warming and that global warming is responsible for terrorism. So, he is saying people are responsible for terrorism, will no shit. Just trying to push an agenda while terrorists attack the world.
“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
If we don't deal with climate change, then there is "going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict" which will obvious lead to more social unrest, which is directly linked to terrorism.
The preponderance of evidence favors the conclusion that people are responsible for at least some of the climate change which science rather conclusively has established is occurring; this is not a matter of belief so much as it is thought. Even if people were not responsible the fact of global climate change and its repercussions remains. Sanders is not saying that climate change is the only variable contributing to terrorism, but he is making what I consider to be an entirely valid observation that when climate change detribalizes economies and nations it opens up opportunity for violent extremists that otherwise would not exist. The argument is no that people are directly responsible for terrorism, but that we share at least some of the responsibility for creating some of the conditions which permit and enable it to thrive. Can you seriously argue that terrorism would be as serious an issue were it not for national and regional instabilities? If not, then his point is valid.
He is not a philosopher. He is trying to convince people to vote for him. There is no evidence that climate change affects the stability of nations. Can you point to a country that would be more stable if the planet was cooler?
There is no evidence that climate change affects the stability of nations
There is evidence that climate change affects the availability of water, and there is evidence that the availability of water affects the stability of nations.
Philosophy has nothing to do with it; this is an argument of basic cause and effect. He is trying to persuade people to vote for him, but that also has nothing to do with the independent validity of his argument.
Your analysis is overly simplistic. Climate change is immensely more complicated than everything getting warmer. Global warming refers to an average increase in temperature for the entire globe, but the implications are different depending upon the specific climatology in various geographic areas. The geographically specific repercussions may include more frequent and severe droughts, natural disasters, etc. as well as increased vectors for disease, and so forth. Shortages, disasters, disease, etc. all impact the stability of nations.
It seems utterly indefensible to suggest that significant climatological change would not be destabilizing. We are environment dependent the same as every other living thing, and our social orders are adapted to very specific circumstances, so when those environments change the social order is forced to adapt or it will collapse. Any period of significant transition is marked by instability to some degree.
Bernie needs people to believe that global warming is happening, that global warming is caused by people, the global warming is causing other problems, that those other problems are causing instability, and that the instability is what leads to terrorism. He needs people to also ignore that we killed Hussein and left way more direct instability to account for the terrorism. It is not a good political move.
Again, Bernie's motives have absolutely no relevance to the accuracy of his observations. Your repeated digression speaks poorly of your ability to repudiate the actual substance of his argument. I also do not consider it particularly unreasonable to expect people to possess the rudimentary understanding of science and politics that substantiates this view.
Moreover, he has also repeatedly criticized American interventions in the Middle East (including our engagements in Iraq) for our current predicaments in the region. Presenting a more nuanced view of the situation is not the same as ignoring the more popular, obvious explanation.
That his popularity has increased rather than diminished over time as he makes these arguments is indicative that this is not a poor political move. Given that it further distinguishes him from Clinton, I would argue that it may not only be smart but necessary.
Your repeated digression speaks poorly of your ability to repudiate the actual substance of his argument.
He says that it directly causes terrorism when it is the toppling of the only leader who could keep things in order that is causing the terrorism.
I also do not consider it particularly unreasonable to expect people to possess the rudimentary understanding of science and politics that substantiates this view.
You are ignoring the majority of people who do not possess this "rudimentary" understanding of science.
Moreover, he has also repeatedly criticized American interventions in the Middle East (including our engagements in Iraq) for our current predicaments in the region.
Being right once doesn't buy you perfect credibility.
Presenting a more nuanced view of the situation is not the same as ignoring the more popular, obvious explanation.
That isn't up to you to decide.
That his popularity has increased rather than diminished over time as he makes these arguments is indicative that this is not a poor political move.
He hasn't been linking terrorism and global climate until now.
He says that it directly causes terrorism when it is the toppling of the only leader who could keep things in order that is causing the terrorism.
His actual meaning is abundantly evident in the context of his full statement. Notably, he also never says that climate change is the only variable that causes terrorism.
You are ignoring the majority of people who do not possess this "rudimentary" understanding of science.
Hardly. A majority of Americans already believe that climate change is real and caused by people, and a near majority think it is a serious concern. These numbers have increased rapidly over the last decade alone. (1, 2).
Being right once doesn't buy you perfect credibility.
I never said that it did. I mentioned this as a direct counter evidence to your baseless claim that Sanders ignores that we killed Hussein.
That isn't up to you to decide.
What? That is simple logic, not an opinion. Just because someone identifies one causal variable does not mean they dismiss every other possible causal variable, unless they expressly say so.
He hasn't been linking terrorism and global climate until now.
The specific statements is relatively new, but the strategy behind it is not fundamentally different. As I pointed out, he benefits more from diverging from Democratic conventionality than from adhering to it. Besides which, he overwhelmingly polled as having won the most recent debate in which he made this particular statement.
You didn't ask for the tie in that Barney described. You asked how Barney, terrorism, and global warming are tired in together. They are tired in together because Barney brought them up in the same idiotic thought.
