Instigator / Con
3
1493
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#3582
Can we win in the climate change battle?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 18 points ahead, the winner is...
Intelligence_06
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
21
1737
rating
172
debates
73.26%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Forfeited
1. Definition
The "Climate change battle" arguably is a battle that is just named "Climate change" for some reason, and if it is being phrased as a battle, it will be treated as one.
What does "Battle" mean?
People have generally regarded a battle on default as something winnable. If anything, what a term means depends on how people use it, and people use it to represent something with a "winnable" attribute.
No matter what the battle is, against an army or against a gun duelist, the eradication of the other side can be treated as a victory on your side. Such objectives are never impossible(Inter-entity conflicts are never logically contradictory) so winning a battle is always technically possible.
2. Sides
If we are losing a battle, we could just switch to the other side and say we are winning it. Nothing logically forbids us from doing it. If something is losable it is winnable. If Con does not prove that this battle will end a tie, Pro wins.
Round 2
Forfeited
Full Forfeit, Extend. Vote CON.
Just realized this was 1000. Cutting words was painful. I just thought it was 10,000 and came up with 4 different arguments before realizing I can't fit it inside.
Oh we're winning it... Nature has put up a good fight, but in short order we'll finish melting the ice caps, putting holes in the ozone layer, and more...