CreateDebate


Debate Info

9
14
It's over. There's still some hope.
Debate Score:23
Arguments:16
Total Votes:43
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 It's over. (6)
 
 There's still some hope. (10)

Debate Creator

beevbo(296) pic



In the battle for the planet, have we already lost?

My apologies for the dramatic wording.

It's over.

Side Score: 9
VS.

There's still some hope.

Side Score: 14

Unless nuclear arms are destroyed, humanity will destroy itself. Awful!

Side: It's over.
0 points

Planet earth is doomed and will be destroyed.

Side: It's over.
0 points

Could you elaborate? A time table would help, because no one is denying the earth won't destroyed one day, just like all empires eventually fall. But I don't think the no less than 7.59 billion years it is going to take for our sun to swallow earth as a red giant is what the question was talking about.

Side: There's still some hope.
Bluefish7(49) Disputed
2 points

extinct mammals list,

endangered species list.

world population growth

greenhouse gas emissions

ecosystem reduction/damage ozone layer.

If we haven't 'already lost,' safe to say we are going down hill fast.

Side: It's over.
RickTM(20) Disputed
1 point

The end of the world will occur in 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes and 12 seconds.

Side: It's over.
-1 points

Yes, America's grand vision of hyperpower is over. 'We' have lost. Let others bear the flame and retreat into obscurity.

Yes, I know this is a different interpretation, but then, I just wanted to illustrate the ambiguity of the question.

Side: It's over.
0 points

This question came about in a rather large discussion I had last night with a group of friends. A little background, we live in Alberta, Canada, a province deeply rich in money gleaned from the oil industry, most famously the tar sands.

We were discussing the state of the environment and as usual I stressed my view on the direction the oil industry should be heading, looking at more sustainable sources of energy for the future. My argument has always been that it is in their own best interest, eventually the oil will dry up, and if the industry doesn't have other means to make money, they will be sunk.

It was at this point that the argument was made that CEO's of large oil companies have no interest in the long term future of their business. The average CEO only sticks around for five years and in that time their only objective is to make the shareholders as much money as he or she can. Shareholders themselves are probably not invested for the long term either, so they too have no desire to work toward the long, long term future of the company.

Meanwhile, our province is saturated with small towns that depend on the oil industry to keep them afloat. Hotels and restaurants in those towns would simply die without the business coming from the oil rig employees. Oh, and let's not forget how many people in Alberta work for big oil.

It suddenly became very clear that resistance to alternative fuel sources are not just about greed, for some it is simply self preservation. With that level of dependency on oil, it's hard to ever imagine a scenario where we manage to move away from fossil fuels to something much more environmentally friendly.

But the situation is bleak all over, coral reefs are dead or dying, weather patterns are changing, frogs are disappearing in Australia, glaciers are shrinking at dramatic rates, forest in which we depend on for oxygen and act as huge carbon sinks are being cut down.

I'm still optimistic enough to think that things can turn around, but man was it a depressing conversation.

Side: There's still some hope.
0 points

I think the world is fine. The question, if my understanding of it is correct, should be "Are we unwillingly changing our habitat, and is it too late to stop?"

I think that the earth is changing, or at least it seems different lately, but so does everything. If we lose (by dying), the earth is not to blame, just like physics are not to blame. It's our fault and if we are too uncivilized to stop it, it is our own fault and we deserve it. No one loses, it's just karma. You destroy the planet to profit and live better, and the planet will take it back. Get used to it I guess.

Side: There's still some hope.
0 points

If we can hypothetically terraform a whole planet then why can't we realistically save one to save our lifes?

for those who don't know what terraforming is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming

Mars used to be a humid and hot place but with the help of future technologies a self sustaining and self reproducing robot could be sent to far away planets doing things like changing the atmosphere and temperature to create a more habitable planet. In my mind this is not too far off.

But to be able to reverse the effects on our home planet of global warming and such should be much easier than starting from scratch.

Side: There's still some hope.
-1 points

I'm just confused by what you mean. The world isn't going anywhere nor is it in a battle. Our environment is merely adjusting to new human created circumstances. Worst case scenario of climate change will be that the planet will be different, not dead. (Assuming climate change is what you meant)

Side: There's still some hope.
-1 points

WHAT IS A TETRAHYDRAGRAMATRON ?

Side: There's still some hope.