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

"It is not the job of voters to decide what the "spirit of debate" is, nor should they discount certain classes of arguments (such as the philosophical) out-of-hand as long as the arguments either affirm or negate the resolution. " This is a bare assertion, and I've explained in the last round why this is not true. The judges may dismiss bare assertions out of hand. The most popular form of judging debates on this site is Tabula Rasa, and a true Tabula Rasa judge will accept my reasoning for why they should depart from Tabula Rasa judging in order to keep the debate fair. I'll ask that the judges consider my arguments for why the should depart from or abandon Tabula Rasa judging and look at the debate as if this is the only arguments they have access to and they have to decide whether to implement Geoengineering or not, and quite honestly most policy makers have their own personal philosophies and will ignore those types of arguments, while looking at the pro's and cons offered on Geoengineering. My opponent ignores the hypocrisy of asking a Tabula Rasa judge to ignore my arguments, with a wave of the hand. My opponent may not add new arguments in the final round, so his attempt to ignore my arguments against Tabula Rasa judging is fatal. Judges should count that as a dropped argument from con, which means my arguments against Tabula Rasa stand and all of his philosophical/religious arguments fail. Without those arguments, the only arguments standing are my arguments from round 2, and they Stand unaddressed. I win on this alone. Judges should keep with the spirit of debate and award me the win. Jesus Christ/Wylted Let's not forget what brought up the topic of Jesus. It was the fact that my opponent made a statement that every man must pay for his sins. This of course leaves out little babies who have not harmed the environment and the innocent plants and animals on Earth that have also not contributed to global warming. So I quoted some biblical verses that showed that man should only pay for his own sins, the innocent non polluting babies should not pay for my sins of contributing to global warming by using too much hairspray, nor should any frogs or penguins pay for my mistakes. My opponent of course drops all of my points about the innocence of children and animals and instead goes into wonderland. My opponent points out that living sinless is impossible, and to this I agree. If it were not impossible the sacrifice of Jesus would not be necessary. Jesus died so our sins would be forgiven. The fact that our sins are forgiven, means that we don't necessarily have to pay for our own sins. This notion of "completely accepting God or Jesus" is wrong. It borders on the no true Scotsman fallacy. Either you accept Jesus/God or you don't. "23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," (Romans 3) Nature My opponent's definition of nature is kind of unclear, and I think I fully grasp it now. The definition is self defeating. "Nature (or reality) encompasses all that is. If something can be conceived, it can be conceived only as part of nature, as nature is defined as the totality of existents. Therefore, there cannot be anything outside of nature, and, by extension, there cannot be an external cause of nature. If this is the case, then nature is eternal, and is therefore the embodiment of the good. " My opponent has just defined nature as literally everything and every conceivable thing. This doesn't even require a rebuttal, since nature is everything and encompasses "all that is" or "there cannot be anything outside of nature" than man is part of nature. If man is part of nature than whether he creates a warmer climate of fixes global warming he is still acting in accordance with nature. Man is still doing good either way. If everything man does is good than he should do what is most good and causes the least amount of damage, which is the Geoengineering like I've argued. My opponent has literally defined the word nature out of existence here, but it still works to affirm the resolution either way. Conclusion "Either there is no problem or all are the cause of the problem (thus leaving no innocents). My opponent has chosen to tackle the latter horn, but has yet to show that an innocent being is possible, thus negating his arguments about the negative impacts of my case. " I have in fact shown an innocent being is possible. I've mentioned the innocent plant an animal life on Earth that is being effected and will continue to be effected by global warming. I've mentioned little babies that have just been born, in a biblical sense they're born with original sin, and the wages for that original sin is death, but they haven't sinned against the Earth and should not have to face the consequences for the global warming they've never contributed to. Future persons have not sinned yet and they shouldn't be punished. My opponent has dropped my arguments that Tabula Rasa judging should be suspended for this debate. He's dropped my arguments that plant and animal life are innocent and don't deserve to be punished for the sins of man.