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

On Judging My opponent mistakes me – I have not set out to justify why tabula rasa voting is preferable to the alternatives. I have only pointed out that it is the way voting is done on this site, and no arguments made can change the fact that it is only appropriate to vote in the way that I have described. This is not a topic of debate, merely a clarification of the standards of voting on DDO (which do not allow for the biased sort of voting my opponent is advocating). On Jesus/ShabShoral “little babies who have not harmed the environment and the innocent plants and animals on Earth that have also not contributed to global warming [are excluded from having to pay for their sins]“ This begs the question completely – I have directly attacked the assumption that these groups are sinless. As such, since my opponent has not defended his claims that innocent beings exist, this argument is wholly irrelevant. In fact, my opponent has given me even more help – quote: “My opponent points out that living sinless is impossible, and to this I agree. “ He has completely dismantled his own case. He builds his argument on the idea that sinless creatures exist that should not be punished for that which they have not done, before immediately saying that sinless creatures do not exist. By his own admission, his arguments fail. My opponent says that “[t]he fact that our sins are forgiven, means that we don't necessarily have to pay for our own sins. “ He asserts this while completely ignoring the verses I quoted in the last round. He has dropped the argument that Jesus’s death did not remove the punishments for sin (and the possibility of sin at all). Quoting John 3:18 once again: “Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ” In light of these arguments being dropped in whole, my opponent’s case fails on this point. On Nature I accept my opponent’s interpretation of nature, but the implications he tries to draw from it are flawed. He states the following: “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. ” I have not ignored this possibility. In fact, I directly offer this route of argumentation to my opponent in the first round: “[It is possible that] we are not actually harming nature, in which case we’re already living in harmony with the good” However, my opponent does not recognize the argument against this that immediately follows: “meaning that there’s no legitimate problem to remedy, and therefore there’s no benefit to geoengineering” I have already dealt with this in the first round! If it is true that we are not harming nature, as my opponent is now saying, then there is no reason to state that we ought to implement geoengineering. My opponent’s impacts rely on the assumption that there is a problem, but, if there is not and our current state is completely fine, then there can be no normative reason to do anything like what my opponent is advocating. My opponent then says the following: “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. ” This itself rejects that which immediately preceded it! My opponent just said that man cannot harm nature – here he is saying that not implementing geoengineering would “cause damage”. He can only choose one or the other; as it currently stands, he has defended neither thread of argument sufficiently enough. Conclusion I have addressed my opponent’s claim that innocence is possible (“self-directed creatures destroy the established order of things. ”), that sin is not necessarily punished (the various quotes from scripture I have given), and that man is somehow simultaneously moral and damaging. None of his points remain standing, and his last-minute attempt to throw out universal voting standards is wholly irrelevant to the debate, since fair voting is fair regardless of what debaters say about it.