BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

Closing Arguments A === Minimal Scientific Consensus Two times (here and in another debate of mine) you referred to the consensus from "98% of climate scientists. " But all Science tells us for sure is that there is some warming and some of it is our fault. Beyond that, There is no consensus. Science does not agree on the size of warming--neither overall, Nor from humans; not on the CATASTOPHE--not P and Q costs, Climate-related deaths, When it will occur, Or lost hectares of livable and arable land; not on the path forward--neither an emissions target, Nor viable ways to achieve it. B === Your Pathetic Solutions You seem unfamiliar with solutions to what you call "the highest priority for any country. " You cited 2 kinds of solutions: known failures (solar dimming, Storing CO2 underground, Planting trees), And preposterous ideas (Sahara Desert solar panels, Dyson Spheres). I said I'm willing to spend money on planting trees. I consider this very different than "fixing the climate. " If planting really works to fix the climate, Then why do we need ANY climate research? C === Open Questions You seem unfamiliar with world progress against what you call "the highest priority for any country. " I ask again, What has $2T bought us so far? If nothing, Then we should not waste any more money, Or we should fall back to planting trees. If it is unknown, Then environmentalists are not really concerned with progress, And climate spending is a bottomless pit. In Round 4, I expressed willingness to cap future USA spending at $150B. You retorted that this qualifies as "high priority. " Is the USA halfway done then? I doubt you believe that. D === Power? One of the main reasons I don't want to pursue fixing the climate is the transfer of power from people to government. The most common "solutions" offered in politics are raising taxes and government spending. These all have dubious benefit to the climate, But they CERTAINLY increase the power of governments. Clearly the politics of climate are questionable. This is a serious concern for many people in the USA. E === Better Priorities While you think that "fixing the climate" should be THE highest, There are many other projects that are should be higher, Considering both the money and moral sides. The moral side is based on life-and-death consequences. The financial side is based on immediately viable solutions and low cost per saved-life. The TED talk "Global priorities bigger than climate change" provides the following recommendations. The U. N. Estimates that for half the cost of "fixing the climate, " we could solve all these world problems and more: --- AIDS --- $3. 4B prevents 3. 5 million new AIDS cases per year --- Malnutrition --- $12B buys health for about half of cases worldwide --- Poverty --- Reducing tariffs in USA and Europe (no govt spending, Just higher prices in the 1st World) raises 300 million people out of poverty in five years --- Malaria --- $3B buys about 1 million saved lives per year
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1. It discusses what peak emissions are required to achieve a 2C peak based on the year we achieve peak emissions. You either aren't understanding the charts or are being intellectually dishonest. You immediately go on to say "2c max rise forever" unironically. I will let the judges decide. If we get our energy from alternative sources of course we don't have to emit. No one should WANT to use fossil fuels because they WILL run out. It should not be a LOW priority to get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels for that reason alone, Much less climate related ones. Negative emissions IS possible, But depending on the amount it certainly may not be. Not with current technology. There is no reason to believe that with funding we cannot improve the tech we have to remove gasses from our atmosphere. This is just to peak at 2C. Most people believe the goal is now 2. 5C or 3C. Again, It's about the scale of the catastrophe. I think technically your acceptance of planting trees as a high priority, Particularly in larger numbers than we harvest them is you conceding the debate. But I'll continue for now. 2. Yes. The Sun which is many times larger than the Earth and is technically a massive fusion reactor supplies the vast majority of the energy that the Earth will hold. This isn't and has never been a contentious point. The point is that greenhouse gasses AMPLIFY this effect. It's a moot point to say the sun is a bigger deal when it comes to temperature when greenhouse gasses can affect the temperature enough to cause massive negative or positive effects. 3. Buying us time may be necessary if people accept that research towards solutions to the unintentional terraforming of our planet should have a low priority. 4. Yea not literally. It in itself can cause suffociation. It may cause a decrease in pH levels in the ocean which *could* have negative effects. More than that though, Relying on fossil fuels will literally poison our water supply and environmet whenever oil leaks. These happen not rarely at all. 5. If the moon landing got high funding and you agree to the same high funding for climate change research then I win the debate. 6. The sun is a gigantic fusion reactor many times the size of the earth. Harvesting 1% of its energy output would open up more possibilities for humanity than fire did for our ancestors. Sources show that if we cover a small portion of the Sahara desert in solar panels at 93% efficiency, If I recall correctly, Would be sufficient to cover current global power needs. mic. Com "heres how much renewable energy it would take to power the entire world" Even if we could not cover our power needs with solar panels on Earth itself, I'd hope you would agree that your point is ridiculous when it comes to the total output of the sun and solar panels in space. I DID say Dyson Spheres earlier. There is no requirement for a full megastructure for this to start. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

I will use this round to respond to your sources and claims. --- 1. 1 --- "Peak" warming You suggested that I should focus on "peak" (instead of "delayed") warming. In Round 3, Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit was your source. But it discusses peak EMISSIONS not peak WARMING, And it supports my position not yours! If emissions had peaked in 2015, ECIU says world emissions must be ZERO FOREVER starting in 2070 to achieve "2C max rise forever. " What ECIU calls "net-zero, " I call "returning to the stone age. " Since emissions still haven't peaked, It says we will need negative emissions for half the Century. ECIU's best idea to achieve net-zero: plant trees. This is laughable, But I will accept planting trees as a high priority. The other good idea (storing CO2 underground) "offers limited potential, " aka won't work. --- 2. 1 --- Earth's History You said, "In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age. " In effect this says natural climate change matters more than man-made climate change. It also suggests Science can provide a "global thermostat" regardless of Nature's prerogatives. --- 2. 2 --- Solution: Dimming the sun? You provided a Guardian article about solar dimming. But for $10B per year, The Guardian expects a "complement to--not a substitute for--aggressive emissions reductions action" that "destabilizes things" so that scientists can't predict its benefit (or harm). --- 2. 3 --- Solution: Solar alone? I provided a source that says solar CANNOT scale to replace oil. Your response: yes it can (but no source). --- 3. 1 --- Some "poison" CO2 is not a poison, Neither is Methane. Unless you also think that sugar, Salt, And water are poisons. After all, Too much of any of these will kill a person. --- 3. 2 --- "Lay down and die" Your description of the CATASTROPHE did not include mass deaths. You mentioned human costs, But nothing concrete. I think a source for how many people will die globally under the status quo would greatly improve this debate. Do you have one? --- 3. 3 --- Moon Landing Your comparison supports my position not yours! We agree that this should have been a low priority. Between Kennedy's challenge and the moon landing, The USA spent $47B on NASA (1). That's $325B in constant 2015 dollars. The USA has already spent about $177B (2015 dollars) on fixing the climate (2). I'm willing to fund another $150B MAX on it. --- 3. 4 --- Precise numbers How can climate science forecast increases in hurricanes (or whatever) with CONFIDENCE, But not forecast decreases in hurricanes AT ALL? Are they not equivalent calculations? I did not ask for "a 100% solution. " I asked for evidence of results from $2T. Even small results would help your side show the size of the problem. Why is there no answer? (1) theguardian. Com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel (2) climatedollars. Org/full-study/us-govt-funding-of-climate-change/
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1. I didn't rescind the hypothetical. I said there was no specific study to say yet, And commented that such a study with extremely specific numbers is probably not possible. Also, That it is only considering money and not morality, Or even human QoL. Everyone in the science community talks about "A 2C Peak to global temperatures" or "A 4C peak to global temperatures. " I can give you sources for the global temperature cycle, The natural climate change that happens over time to show you there are peaks and valleys if you want. The peak may not every stop if we don't address our effects on the climate. By pumping greenhouses gasses into the atmosphere we are terraforming our planet. I can give you arguments for why pumping large amounts of essentially poison into our atmosphere is also bad for human health. Here's a source that shows you people talking about trying to keep a 2C peak, And how our emissions have to change to achieve that peak. eciu. Net/assets/peak-emissions/ If you don't want to accept that then I can't force you to, But this is what the scientists speak of. The fact is if we keep it at a LOW priority and we don't address it head on, The graph above shows 2C peak will probably be unavoidable after 2040, And if the peak doesn't happen before 2025 we will have to get negative emissions to prevent going over 2C. Most people consider this fairly impossible, But not addressing it would lead us to a 4C world. Perhaps higher. Now, If your claim is that we're all doomed anyway, I guess the US could keep it a low priority. We COULD just accept that the climate is changing, Lay down and die, But your arguments as to why we SHOULD just die fall flat. 2. We set a goal to get to the moon. We didn't KNOW we could. Research was done at a high priority for no better reason than a childish spat with Russia. If we can't get above a low priority for the terraforming of our planet as far as research goes, I can't give you a better justification. What's more critical, Spats with other countries or the instability of our climate? All the scientists are suggesting many ways to pull gasses out of the atmosphere. You're asking us to trust your diagnoses that the probability is LOW but you are no authority in this matter. Even if it IS low, It should be a high priority to avoid a 4C or worse world. You have no argument to oppose this, And you have no argument to oppose the fact that increased research funding would more likely lead to a solution, Or a mitigation, Particularly when so many SCIENTISTS disagree with you. I've linked the Harvard mitigation solution already, What more do you want? It currently seems that unless I'm able to tell you precise numbers for the catastrophe and give you a 100% pure solution prior to research being conducted then your position is that we should all lie down and accept an infinitely warming climate and that it is no big deal. If you call this a LOW priority what are your high or med priorities? -Thoht
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1 ========= Up Front Costs Are a Waste You rescinded any claim to P savings after Q spending. Your only source that warming will ever end is the term "eventually. " 3 ========= There are no solutions You respond that "Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. " Low level research into everything (including the climate) is getting done. This is what low priority looks like: throw out $1B to various folks to see if they can make some miracles. If somebody somewhere in the world ever actually finds a possible solution, The USA (and all nations) should make a deliberate choice about how to implement it. If the new solution really has potential, THEN the USA should bump "fixing the climate" up to a top priority. But, Let's not put blind faith in climate research. Beyond a precipitous return to the stone age, The likelihood of finding a solution is low. 4 ========= My Argument #3 You say the problem "is not measurable. " This is the basis of my next argument. This very vagueness of the CATASTROPHE is a great strength to your side of the question. Since we can't quantify the problem, We also cannot tell whether we've made any progress. The world has spent well over $2T on mitigating the CATASTROPHE so far (1). But no one knows or seems to care about what we have achieved. Can you provide any sources that this global spending has decreased "peak" warming at all? Please keep in mind that updated projections are usually due to changes in calculation, NOT evidence of progress. Because the problem (and progress) are vague, Environmentalists can continue forever to tell us "the sky is falling" and we must "act now" to get the deal. Even if your blessed research does provide a solution, I don"t think environmentalists would change their tune at all. They would still say the sky is falling and spout their moral imperatives to "keep the climate stable. " This politics of alarmism worked for the first decade or two, But now it fails to generate enough public support to rise beyond low priority. Therefore, Since costs to date have made zero progress so far (I call them a "bottomless pit"), The USA should keep its Q investments low. Source: According to "Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017" on the Climate Policy Initiative. Between 2012 and 2016, Just under $2T USD was spent, Including government and private investments.
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1. I didn't make a claim of any sort. It is a hypothetical. 2. Warming will continue to worsen the more CO2 we pour in the atmosphere. It works as an amplifier for solar energy. Eventually solar energy will decrease due to the Sun's natural cycle, And the "peak"temperature will go down again. If solar energy lessens, There is less for CO2 to amplify. The fact is, In a different time in the Earth's history we may be talking about intentionally releasing more greenhouse gasses to prevent an ice age, Or global cooling. The answer then is NOT to set this as a 'low' priority and just keep releasing as much CO2 as we want. This increases the magnitude of the catastrophe, No questions asked. 3C-4C is completely possible to avoid still. It doesn't require us to go back to the stone ages. It requires us to RESEARCH more alternatives. How do we efficiently remove CO2 from the atmosphere? With RESEARCH we could find a SOLUTION that removes the CO2 humanity has put in the atmosphere, And may allow us to control it to keep the global temperature is stable. This would prevent the optimal locations for crops from changing, Sea levels rise, Et cetera. Keeping the climate STABLE should be the highest priority for any country. Instability in the climate breeds instability in many factors. Food, Water, Optimal growing locations, Diseases, Insect growth, Droughts, Et cetera. The more stable these things are the better the economy and the country itself fare. This isn't controversial. To say the US should put a low priority on stability is not only absurd but insane. 3. The billions you quote is not a precise number. It is not measurable. If I told you I was going to destroy an apartment building how much would you estimate that to cost? You have no idea what is inside said apartment buildings. The contents of the building may be more valuable than the apartment structure itself. There's no way to calculate perfectly the cost from land reduction, People being forced to move inland, Et cetera. It will undoubtedly be trillions. Do you really think the elimination of hundreds or thousands of miles of land would be chump change? What will it do to the prices of housing inland? What will it do when optimal crop growing areas need that land? How do you expect me or anyone else to provide a hyper-specific accurate cost estimate at varying temperature growths? Massive is CLEARLY correct, And that is what we use. 4. Yes, We are talking about most island countries. They will certainly be heavily impacted. If food growth is effected and refugee crises occur, We could be talking about governmental instability as well. Riots, Easily. 5. Dimming the sun is one path Harvard scientists are studying to buy us time. (1) Again, Research funding is important. Solutions can be found. 6. Solar doesn't need to replace oil alone, But of course solar CAN do so. Humans may not be able to harness enough of it NOW but it is PART of the solution. Again, This is not a LOW priority.
"Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

1 ========= My Argument #1 First, You claim that it may be possible to cut P costs in half by spending Q. I have never heard this claim from any source, Please provide a link. Second you say, "The question is not about a delayed catastrophe or not. It is about the magnitude of the catastrophe. " Until warming stops and cooling starts (the so-called "peak"), Delay is the real question. The pretended option A is to keep the temperature increase below 2C by 2100. Unfortunately, No one says warming will stop in 2100. If we keep warming after 2100, Then 3C and 4C are merely delayed a few decades. Still, I would be willing to alter from "delay" to "magnitude" if you can provide a source that claims that warming will eventually stop. 2 ========= CATASTROPHE It is important to know how bad a problem is when determining the appropriate political response to it. You have said the CATASTROPHE will be massive at 3C, But are a bit vague on what "massive" is. You did mention that oceans, Salt, Hurricanes, Droughts, And wildfires will rise, And that land, Islands, Animals, Farmland, Trees (and people) will fall. I guess I should take it that each rise/fall will be "massive. " You did provide measurable data on a couple, So let"s review those: 1. Sea rise: "billions in damage over. . . 100 years" sounds like a manageable P cost of $50M per year (chump change for the USA). 3. Swallowed islands: do the "entire countries" mean random atolls in the Pacific? This would be sad but not significant in size. Or does it refer to the Philippines, Japan, And Malaysia? This would be both sad and significant. 3 ========= My Argument #2 There are no solutions that achieve the MORAL goal of "2C max rise" forever. While "98% of climate scientists say [humans] have an effect" on the climate, There is no scientific consensus on solutions. The CNN article I cited before suggests three mitigation paths: --- a --- "increased financial incentives to avoid greenhouse gas emissions" (whatever that means) --- b --- "greatly increased funding for research" (whatever that means) --- c --- "the plummeting cost of solar power". . . But solar can NEVER replace oil (1) Let's say these paths are somewhat useful. Still, The scientific study quoted in the CNN article acknowledges that, "even if humans suddenly stopped burning fossil fuels now, Earth will continue to heat up about 2C more by 2100. " The world's CO2 output is still growing and nowhere near stopping. So if returning to the stone age last year is required to achieve a "2C max rise" by 2100, We have no chance of averting a 3C or 4C CATASROPHE eventually. Therefore, There are no solutions so forget about Q costs. (1) "The Green Bubble" (2016) by Per Wimmer cites the International Energy Agency's forecast that the share of our energy needs provided by all renewable energy sources combined (including solar) will grow from 1% (now) to only 4% (in 2035). The book goes on to say that solar can never scale to the global or US energy needs.
School Should Start Earlier and end Earlier

Wow, I never thought I would be having to debate like this. I could write whole paragraphs on things that I never said. For instance; I never said anything about what time students went to bed, who says that kids can't go to sleep a little bit earlier at night so they could be well rested. I never said anything about kids playing video games. I have no idea where you are from, but where i'm from, speaking from personal experience, most kids have very active lives. I go to middle school too, I'm always out with my friends, at the mall, park or just hanging out at our rec center. As for the kids who will play video games, they play video games no matter what time they finish school! They don't care. But for the kids who do have an active life, it's not fair for them to be out of school so late. In winter, it gets dark an hour after school is done. That is completely unfair.
School Should Start Earlier and end Earlier

Being in middle school I find the mere idea of school starting earlier appalling. With having growing bodies teens and children need more sleep. I must wake up at 7:00 am every day and find it a struggle to make it through my classes. With students being sleepy they would become less focused and grades would drop. If by going home and playing video games or such then I disagree. sleep is much more important. Having six hours of free time every day should leave you plenty of time to do what you want without you being sleep deprived. If anything school should start later to give kids more time to sleep.
Black holes are infinite

If said black holes were points of infinite mass, as speculated by some theorizers, then by the equation, Force of gravity = (gravitation constant X mass 1 (black hole) X mass 2 (any other object)) / (distance between the two objects)^2 or F=(GMm)/(r^2) then we find that the resulting force is also infinite. We then look at the other object's force acceleration through this equation. force found earlier = acceleration of other object X mass of other object or F = am thus the acceleration of the affected object is infinite Also notice that the neither the distance from the black hole, nor the mass of the other object matters because the resulting forces and accelerations are still infinite. Thus if a black hole had infinite mass, it would pull in an infinite amount of objects, from an infinite distance, at an infinite velocity, in an infinitely small amount of time. Since this is not happening now we must concur that the objects scientifically labeled as black holes by reputable scientists are not infinite but instead of a definite mass of epically large proportions.