Edeb8.com WODC:THBT Geoengineering Should Be Implemented To Reduce global warming

I'm not a big fan of these more philosophical arguments. I generally do mediocre in philosophy debates and misunderstand my opponent's arguments. I understand the reasoning for using them in a debate like this. It's easier than researching the pro's and con's of the subject and coming up with some good arguments, you just fall back on a handful of arguments you keep in your bag. I know judges typically use Tabula Rasa judging on DDO, but I'm going to urge them not to in these circumstances. Tabula Rasa judging has some fatal flaws. For example; when people are seriously debating policy and are looking for solutions to a problem, you'll never hear them say "let mankind pay for their sins and die off". Allowing these types of arguments, destroys the spirit of debate. If anything should be preserved it is the spirit of things. Once the spirit of an action goes, we're just left with empty gestures or actions. The reason why it's illegal to eat Icecream on Sunday's in North Carolina is unknown by me, but fit with the spirit of the social contract back when the law was enforced. Just like it would break the spirit of what the law is intended for today, by having police officers raid Icecream stands in North Carolina, it would break the spirit of debate to take any of Con's arguments seriously. (All of which deviate from the spirit of debate) John 3:16 My opponent talks of mankind as if it is a single entity, but it is not. Mankind is a collection of individuals. Not only is it a collection of individuals, but it's a collection of individuals from the past present and future. The only time one man has justifiably paid for the sins of another is when Jesus Christ died on the cross to spare mankind from having to pay for their sins. Here is what my opponent says about Jesus. "we must accept what we have brought upon us, and, like Jesus, our blood must act as currency to pay for entrance to heaven if we shall ever hope to be forgiven for our trespasses." I want to thank my opponent for presupposing the existence of Jesus and the truth contained in the bible. However he has one thing wrong. We don't have to pay with our own blood to enter heaven. Jesus has paid for our entrance with his own blood. ""For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16 http://biblehub.com... "He was handed over to die because of our sins, and he was raised to life to make us right with God." Romans 4:25 http://biblehub.com... The one innocent man, be him from the future or the present who has absolutely no carbon footprint should not have to pay for the sins of the rest of mankind. According to Jesus and the bible the men responsible for global warming shouldn't even have to pay for their own sins, Jesus has already done that. Nor should the innocent creatures who inhabit the Earth have to pay for their sins. My 5 cats did nothing to cause this global warming epidemic, and it's unfair that they should be punished by having to face the consequences of my actions. The bible confirms this is true. "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." Ezekial 18:20 http://biblehub.com... The individuals that make up mankind should not let little babies who haven't even contributed to global warming in any way be punished for our sins. We should pay for them, by having to put in the work necessary to solve the problem. The Holy Sanctity of Nature The big problem with my opponent's argument is that man is not living in harmony with nature. I've provided evidence last round that we are destroying nature. Our intervention is what messed up nature, and we need to intervene again to restore the proper balance to nature. If nature is holy, than we need to use the technology we have to restore Earth to it's natural state. We need to use Geothermal engineering to restore Earth to it's pre industrial revolution "natural" temperature. By my opponent's own logic, we need to implement Geothermal engineering, to repair the harms we done to nature. Another problem with my opponent's nature argument, besides the fact that it is self defeating, in that we're already destroying nature and ignoring the problem makes it worse, is that nature doesn't qualify as an eternal thing that he defines as good. Everything is constantly changing. At one point only matter and energy existed, and at one point everything will end, except for matter and energy. Conclusion This isn't just about mankind as a whole, but the innocent children who have yet to harm the environment intentionally as we have, if at all. People who have yet to come into being but exist already in the mind of the creator have yet to contribute to global warming and should not have to pay for the sins of their fathers. My 5 cats at home, Blade of Truth's cat, and the relatives of Cecil the lion should not have to pay for the sins of man. Also Tabula Rasa judging should be amended or disregarded so my opponent's off topic arguments don't even count. Thanks