FIRST EXAMPLE:
Motion:
THW arm local militia to fight the Taliban in Afghanistan
GOVERNMENT/AFFIRMATIVE/POSITIVE
1st government
Opening: (the key is: make it as dramatic as possible)
Every night all people in Afghanistan sitting in front of their radio just to hear the most important news broadcasted by Taliban forces, which is the news about who are some people that Taliban killed today and who are some people that Taliban will kill tomorrow, this killing of people of Afghanistan is only based on the rules that made by Taliban, for example you will be killed by Taliban if you dancing while listening to western music, you will be killed by Taliban if you were a woman who go to the work place, you will be killed by Taliban if you watch television, and many more irrational reason that can make you get killed by Taliban. Taliban even do not have any doubt to kill a 60 years old woman with her 5 years old grand son just because they have American dollar in their pocket. Enough is enough. We can not let Taliban do more violence to the people of Afghanistan. It is high time for the people of Afghanistan to have a special army to protect the life of all innocent people of Afghanistan.
Theme line
This is exactly our urgency in proposing this proposal to be conducted in Afghanistan, which is to protect the life of innocent local people of Afghanistan by strengthening local communities and local tribes in their ability to protect what they consider to be their traditional homes
Definition
Local militia: militia who are originated from local people in Afghanistan.
Parameter
We would like to arm local militias only to fight any Taliban’s attack that’s threatening local people safety and security. So in here, the militia duty is not to fight Taliban like the way US and NATO fight Taliban. This local militia duty is just to protect the safety and the security of their local area, their local city or their local village.
Team split
I, as the 1st speaker will analyze/discuss/talk/argue about 1st) nature & urgency and 2nd) solution mechanism
my 2nd speaker will analyze/discuss/talk/argue about 1st) feasibility and 2nd) future implication
my 3rd speaker will give rebuttal and rebuild our argument
while the reply speech will be delivered by my 2nd speaker
Argument
1st speaker
Nature and urgency (background that makes it so urgent to agree, seeing from several aspects/points)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Solution mechanism (detail on how to solve the issue)
How: bla..bla..bla..bla..
why use this solution: bla..bla..bla..bla..
by who: bla..bla..bla..bla..
for whom: bla..bla..bla..bla..
when: bla..bla..bla..bla..
etc..
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to propose.
OPPOSITION/NEGATIVE
1st negative
Opening
Once upon a time in one elementary school in a very far far away country. A boy named otong had been becoming a trouble maker who like to disturb the other students by throwing some fire crackers to his friends just because he has many suplies of fire crackers. Now his friends are looking for some help from the teacher. But instead of taking all of the supplies of fire crackers from otong, this teacher unbelievably gives more suply of fire crackers to the other students to fight otong. Can you imagine what would happen next? Yes..!! a total chaos..!! a war of fire crackers will happen between students in that elementary school.
Theme line
Ladies and gentlemen. Similar to that fire crackers story, arming the local militia is also absolutely not a good and wise idea to be conducted in Afghanistan, and it will absolutely bring more chaos than good in Afghanistan.
Team split
I, as the 1st speaker will analyze/discuss/talk/argue about 1st) nature & urgency and 2nd) solution mechanism
my 2nd speaker will analyze/discuss/talk/argue about 1st) feasibility and 2nd) future implication
my 3rd speaker will give rebuttal and rebuild our argument
while the reply speech will be delivered by my 2nd speaker
Rebuttal
but before I delivere my argument, let's analyze first the argument that has been delivered by the goverment side of the house, I'd like to analyze their argument from 3 points of rebuttal
1st) from the point of security, 2nd) from the point of economy, 3rd) from the point of social and 4th) from the feasibility of the gov solution mechanism.
Now let's analyze their first point of argument, which is from the point of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) from the point of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) from the point of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
4th) from the feasibility of the gov solution mechanism
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Argument
Now let's discuss about my argument, which is about:
Nature and urgency (background that makes it so urgent to disagree, seeing from several aspects/points)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Alternative Solution mechanism (detail on how to solve the issue)
How: bla..bla..bla..bla..
why use this solution: bla..bla..bla..bla..
by who: bla..bla..bla..bla..
for whom: bla..bla..bla..bla..
when: bla..bla..bla..bla..
etc..
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to oppose.
GOVERNMENT/AFFIRMATIVE/POSITIVE
2nd government
opening/theme line
we strongly support this motion, because we believe that it will protect the life of innocent local people of Afghanistan
Rebuttal
I will discuss this motion from the point of feasibility and future implication, but before I deliver my argument, let's analyze first the argument that has been delivered by the goverment side of the house, I'd like to analyze their argument from 4 points of rebuttal
1st) from the point of security, 2nd) from the point of economy, 3rd) from the point of social, 4th) from the feasibility of opposition solution mechanism
Now let's analyze their first point of argument, which is from the point of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) from the point of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) from the point of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
4th) from the feasibility of the gov solution mechanism
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Argument
Now let's discuss about my argument, which is about:
Feasibility
(why our solution more possible to be conducted,seeing from several aspects/points)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
future implication (bad/good impact if we do our solution)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to propose.
OPPOSITION/NEGATIVE
2nd negative
opening/theme line
we strongly disagree with this motion, because we believe that arming the local militia is also absolutely not a good and wise idea to be conducted in Afghanistan, and it will absolutely bring more chaos than good in Afghanistan.
Rebuttal
I will discuss this motion from the point of feasibility and future implication, but before I deliver my argument, let's analyze first the argument that has been delivered by the goverment side of the house, I'd like to analyze their argument from 4 points of rebuttal
1st) from the point of security, 2nd) from the point of economy, 3rd) from the point of social, 4th) from the feasibility of opposition solution mechanism
Now let's analyze their first point of argument, which is from the point of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) from the point of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) from the point of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
4th) from the feasibility of the gov solution mechanism
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Argument
Now let's discuss about my argument, which is about:
Feasibility
(why our solution more possible to be conducted,seeing from several aspects/points)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
future implication (bad/good impact if we do our solution)
1st) Point of view/aspect of security
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) Point of view/aspect of economy
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) Point of view/aspect of social
bla..bla..bla..bla..
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to oppose.
GOVERNMENT/AFFIRMATIVE/POSITIVE
3rd government
opening/theme line
we strongly still support this motion, because we believe that it will protect the life of innocent local people of Afghanistan
Rebuttal
I have 4 points of rebuttal that I'd like to analyze from the opposition side's argument.
1st) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
4th) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Rebuild
let me explain again why we still believe with this motion, because
theme line:......
nature and urgency:.......
solution mechanism:......
feasibility:.......
future implication:.....
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to propose.
OPPOSITION/NEGATIVE
3rd negative
opening/theme line
we strongly disagree with this motion, because we believe that arming the local militia is also absolutely not a good and wise idea to be conducted in Afghanistan, and it will absolutely bring more chaos than good in Afghanistan.
Rebuttal
I have 4 points of rebuttal that I'd like to analyze from the gobernment side's argument.
1st) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
2nd) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
3rd) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
4th) point .......
bla..bla..bla..bla..
Rebuild
let me explain again why we still believe with this motion, because
theme line:......
nature and urgency:.......
solution mechanism:......
feasibility:.......
future implication:.....
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to oppose.
OPPOSITION/NEGATIVE
reply speech
let's compare what has already happened in this debate today, which team/side of the house that is actually has more convincing argument.
I have 4 points of reply speech that I'd like to analyze here.
1st) from the point of nature and urgency, 2nd) from the point of solution mechanism, 3rd) from the point of feasibility, 4th) from the point of future implication.
1st) from the point of nature and urgency
they gov team said that..bla..bla..bla.., but our team said that bla..bla..bla..,
so it shows that our argument is better and stronger
2nd) from the point of solution mechanism
they gov team said that..bla..bla..bla.., but our team said that bla..bla..bla..,
so it shows that our argument is better and stronger
3rd) from the point of feasibility
they gov team said that..bla..bla..bla.., but our team said that bla..bla..bla..,
so it shows that our argument is better and stronger
4th) from the point of future implication.
they gov team said that..bla..bla..bla.., but our team said that bla..bla..bla..,
so it shows that our argument is better and stronger
conclusion
so based on all of those explanation, it shows that at the end of the day, our argument is better and stronger, and we beg you to oppose.
SECOND EXAMPLE:
(The whole argument example in here is taken and adapted from http://onlinedebatecompetition.blogspot.com. Debate argument is not necessarily has to be like this, but some looks like this. In fact, the nature of debate itself is very dynamic, different team could come up with different or better idea, thus it is very recommended to not consider this argument as the best argument, instead, to be a better debater, you have to believe that actually you can simply make argument that so much better than this example argument)
THBT Global warming is a myth
1st AFFIRMATIVE
Opening
Ladies and gentlemen. For all this time we only know that carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas that has been being the major cause of global warming. The definition of Greenhouse gasses: gasses that accumulated in our atmosphere and gradually make the air temperature rising significantly. But do you know that actually there are several kinds of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere other than carbon dioxide, well they are namely; methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC, and water vapor that produced by both human and nature. Now, do you know that among those greenhouse gasses, the percentage of water vapor that produced by nature in our atmosphere is 95%, meanwhile the percentage of other greenhouse gasses that produced by man and nature is only 5%, it is include carbon dioxide and other gases that produced by man, now the question is, from that 5%, how big is actually the percentage of greenhouse gasses that originally produced by man?! Well, surprisingly, different to what most people believe for all this time, actually the percentage of greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide that originally produced by man is only, 0, 28%. A very small percentage that almost undetectable to the contribution of global warming, it is like adding a grain of salt into the ocean, it is like nothing.
Ladies and gentlemen. Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed/small in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, which is water vapor as the biggest percentage of greenhouse gas (95%) in our atmosphere, that even the most costly efforts like Kyoto protocol to limit all human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.
Ladies and gentlemen. It is Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas that comes from natural sources and is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect. We got this information from national geographic website.
Now. The definition of Myth: A widely held but false belief that is being exaggerated. That is exactly what is happening right now, a false belief that is being exaggerated that global warming is majorly caused by human. That’s what we want to clarify in our parameter; that global warming that caused by human is a myth, a very big false belief that has been being exaggerated by media and government without doing a deep investigation on the real major cause of global warming, which is actually nature.
Now the next question is, what makes the percentage of water vapor increase significantly this day?!
That is actually what we are going to discuss in my 1st split:
Ladies and gentlemen. Back to the question, what actually makes the percentage of water vapor increase so significantly this day?! Well, Based on the website of NASA we found that it is actually the increasing of sunspot activity that heating up the ocean and increasing the percentage of water vapor in our atmosphere. But, what makes sunspot activity increase? well it is because that every 10.000 years sunspot experiences an increasing and a decreasing in its general activity. If sunspot activity is experiencing an increasing, earth will have global warming period. In the other hand, if sunspot activity is experiencing a decreasing, then, earth will have ice age period. This cycle of global warming period and ice age period is called climatic change. Earth itself has been experiencing several changes of global warming and ice age period. And we are now in the cycle of global warming period, so it is very normal to expect warming during this period. It is a cycle of climate that very natural for earth. It is as normal as the changing of season.
The other evidence that proof that actually today global warming is caused by nature-in this case is the increasing of sunspot activity-is, even now on several planets like Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, even Pluto, global warming is also happening, it can be seen from the decreasing of ice cap volume on both pole of Mars, the only similarity on the cause of global warming on those planets and earth is only one, it is the sun. All of planets in our solar system are now experiencing global warming, and it is because of the increasing of sunspot activity, not because of human, you can’t say that the cause of the decreasing of ice cap volume on Mars is human, you can’t say that the cause of the increasing temperature on Pluto is also because of human emission, that would be so ridiculous. So the conclusion is, it is the increasing of sunspot activity that cause the global warming period that we have now, it is because of the increasing of sunspot activity that heating up the entire ocean and causing the increasing of percentage of water vapor in our atmosphere. The effect of this makes us like sitting in the sauna, where the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere is simultaneously added by the extreme evaporation of ocean water that being heated up by the increasing of sunspot activity. So, it would be very ridiculous if we blame the cause of global warming on human emission which its percentage is very small, only 0, 28% and almost undetectable compared to the water vapor percentage that is very big , 95%. So once again, global warming is caused by nature, caused by the increasing of sunspot activity that heating up the entire ocean and causing an extreme evaporation and accumulating our atmosphere with water vapor greenhouse gas.
So now the negative team has a burden to proof to all of us here that the implementation of Kyoto protocol which only want to reduce human emission that only 0, 28% is able to make our world colder in the future, they have to proof that by implementing Kyoto protocol that not even try to reduce the 95 % of water vapor could make world temperature colder in the future. The last thing is they have to proof that Kyoto protocol able to reduce the main cause of global warming, which is the sun. they have to proof that Kyoto protocol would able to reduce the increasing of sunspot activity that also heating up not just earth but also the entire planets in our solar system today, because the main cause of global warming is the sun. It is what the Kyoto protocol want, isn’t it, to reduce the main cause of global warming?!
2nd AFFIRMATIVE
1st the solution mechanism to deal with global warming and why it is feasible to be conducted. and 2nd the future implication of our solution:
The next question is, how we are going to deal with it. Can we stop it? can we reduce it? The answer is no, we can’t. There’s no way we can stop it. There’s no way we can stop the sun from keep increasing its activity. Our technology is not that advance, we are not alien. The idea of fighting or even stopping global warming is the most ridiculous and irresponsible idea ever in the history of human life. Once again ladies and gentlemen, like I said before, the cycle of global warming and ice age happens every 10.000 years, and the main cause is the increasing or the decreasing of sunspot activity. The changing of climate from ice age to warming period or from warming period to ice age, is very natural, it is just the same like the changing of season from winter to summer or summer to fall or from fall to winter again. It is very natural and it is unstoppable. You can’t stop winter or summer from coming, the only thing that you can do is to prepare yourself to adapt with the changing itself, example by preparing warm jacket if you are going to have winter or preparing air conditioner in your house if you are going to have summer. But how about the changing of climate itself, especially in this global warming period, what can we do to prepare our self to adapt with it, since there’s no way we can make a technology to stop the increasing of sunspot activity. The answer is to adapt with the changing of this climate itself, just the same like we adapt with the changing of season. Once again, we are not saying that we do not want to do anything to survive from global warming, we do, want to survive from global warming, and the only way is to prepare all of our knowledge and technology to make a preparation to face the extreme change of global warming in the future, because once again, we can’t stop global warming, because the main cause of global warming is the sun, there’s no way we block the sun to make global warming stop. We have to prepare ourselves to adapt with it.
Now the question is, how to adapt with it, we have to certainly develop all requirements of our daily basic necessity to fit with the condition of extreme hot temperature in the future:
1st starting from now we have to conduct a research to develop a new variety of all plants that we have now, a new variety of plant that able to live the extreme condition where there is lack of water and able to live in hot temperature weather. Especially for plants that we consume in our daily life like; corn, wheat, paddy, and of course fruit and vegetable. We have to conduct a research to develop these kinds of plants that able to grow well in the future where the global temperature will be hotter than the temperature that we have now. We have succeeded in developing a better variety of plants like paddy or corn which its quality is better than the corn or paddy that we have 10 years ago. That is why it would be also feasible to develop a new variety of plants that can grow in the situation of lack of water and in the hotter temperature.
2nd starting from now we have to collect the best seeds of plants from all over the world and save them in the seed bank in the Norway, a country that closest to the North Pole. In fact United Nation has been doing this since several years ago, to save the seeds of all of the best plants in all over the world. Because in 30 to 50 years from now the earth temperature will be much hotter than the temperature that we have now. UN afraid that it will make many of species of plants on earth will face extinction, that’s why, before that happen, UN have to save all of these seeds, so that in the future, when most of plants will face extinction, UN still have these seeds to be planted again in highly controlled environment, so that in the future, human won’t face hunger because of the lacking of plants, vegetable, or fruit to be eaten. We got this information from united nation website
3rd starting from now we have to develop a better water storage, irrigation, and drainage system, that can give a maximum supply of water for us in the future where the hotter temperature normally will evaporate most of natural water supply in all over the world. By doing this, it is expected in the future we won’t face extreme lack of water.
4th. starting from now, every nation have to increase their cooperation to make the whole nations in the world ready to face the extreme temperature in the future. Example we can learn a lot from countries in the middle east, like Saudi Arabia, on how to grow plants in an extreme condition where there’s lack of water and where the temperature is very hot, we know that in the middle east the temperature is very hot around 40 to 50 degree Celcius, but Saudi Arabia able to grow plants in its country, it means Saudi Arabia already has a sophisticated water storage and water irrigation system and also has developed a better variety of plants that able to make Saudi Arabia grows plants in there.
Feasibility
Ladies and gentlemen, those solution mechanisms of adaptation are actually more make sense and more rational to deal with the effect of extreme heat of global warming in the future and would save more financial budget of every nation in the world than trying to do the agreement of Kyoto protocol that want to reduce the effect of global warming by trying to reduce only human emission, which we have already explained to you, is actually would be useless, because the main cause of global warming is not human, but it is nature, it is the sun, the main cause of global warming, and since we can’t stop or block the sun, that’s why the only rational way to deal with it, is to make our best preparation to deal with it, to adapt with the changing itself that we are going to face in the future.
Bad future implication if we don’t start preparing ourselves to adapt and keep on doing Kyoto protocol
Ladies and gentlemen, all of this mechanism of adaptation is more feasible and more rational to be conducted compared to Kyoto protocol proposal, it is better than wasting our money and effort to uselessly trying to stop the increasing of earth temperature that actually caused by sun activity, if negative team really2 want to stop it, then the negative team have to stop the current increasing activity of sun, which every normal people will say that it is impossible. That is why the most rational way to deal with global warming in the future is by adaptation like I’ve already explained to you. If you insist to do this Kyoto protocol, every country, especially countries with higher emission will have to spend most of their national budget just to pay carbon taxes, how about the budget purposed for their citizen if these countries have to spend most of their budget just to support the agreement of Kyoto protocol which has already proven to be useless?! And for what? For nothing! Remember the purpose of Kyoto protocol is just want to reduce all of human greenhouse gases emission, which actually only 0, 28%. But after succeeded reducing these emissions in the future then what? Will this make the temperature in the future colder? Hell, no! because the 95% of water vapor is still there, Kyoto protocol never even care about this 95% water vapor, Kyoto protocol never even care about the sun that heating up the entire ocean and make the percentage of water vapor increased, Kyoto protocol never even care about the evidence that ice cap on mars is also decreasing which is a very strong evidence that proof that actually, global warming is caused by nature. Not by human.! So, from the beginning until the end we still stand to our belief that global warming that caused by human is just a myth. A widely held but false belief that is being exaggerated.
THBT Global warming ( that caused by human is not) a myth
1st NEGATIVE
Rebuttal to 1st affirmative argument
Water vapors do not have a "forcing" effect on climate change like human greenhouse gases:
While water is the most prominent greenhouse gas, it does not have a "forcing" effect on climate change. Because water vapor is actually natural substance in our atmosphere, so it is ridiculous to blame on global warming on water vapor, if we try to reduce water vapor, the cycle of weather on earth will not exist. Because water vapor is the main substance that create weather cycle on our earth, that’s is why we can’t reduce it because we need it, different to carbon dioxide or other human emission.
Solar effects:
Does the sun have no role in global warming or is it small compared to human-causes? Yes, the role of sun is actually very small compared to human cause.
• Sun-spot variation has a "negligible impact" on global climate change:
• "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says". National Geographic. September 13, 2006 - "But sunspot-driven changes to the sun's power are simply too small to account for the climatic changes observed in historical data from the 17th century to the present, research suggests. The difference in brightness between the high point of a sunspot cycle and its low point is less than 0.1 percent of the sun's total output. "If you run that back in time to the 17th century using sunspot records, you'll find that this amplitude variance is negligible for climate"'...according to Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc.
• In 2006, Peter Foukal and other researchers from the United States, Germany, and Switzerland found no net increase of solar brightness over the last thousand years. Solar cycles lead to a small increase of 0.07% in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too small to contribute significantly to global warming.
• A paper by Mike Lockwood and Claus Fröhlich found no relation between global warming and solar radiation since 1985.
• National Center for Atmospheric Research (2006-09-14). Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming.
• Warming on mars may not be due to the sun
• Any warming on mars does not prove that the sun is driving Earth's climate change
Natural warming cycle:
Even if we were in a natural warming cycle, the rate of warming currently is many times faster than any rate of warming in the historical record. Even if humans are not actually the "chief" cause of global warming, there is little dispute that we play some role, due to our emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of the globe. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is an important tool in the fight against human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
1st Negative split:
Greenhouse gases:
Are human-greenhouse gas emissions capable of causing global warming? Yes
• Human greenhouse gas emissions have a clear "greenhouse" warming effect: Greenhouse gases are named as such because they have a "greenhouse effect" in the atmosphere, allowing sunlight to enter the earth's atmosphere but trapping a percentage of the radiation that would otherwise be reflected back into space. The trapped radiation emits added heat into the Earth's atmosphere with the result being "global warming". The "greenhouse effect" is not disputed.
• Humans have increased significantly the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, adding substantially to the "greenhouse effect" Levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased substantially through the industrial revolution. Sources cite that humans have contributed roughly 10 to 30 percent of the greenhouse gases that are currently in the atmosphere since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago. This substantial increase due to humans is certainly capable of producing the global warming effects we are seeing today. One of the reasons that the Earth's atmosphere is so vulnerable to such a substantial increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases is that it is so thin.
Warming trend:Is there a clear warming trend that shows human cause?
Yes
• Human carbon emissions have dramatically accelerated global warming -
The correlation in the acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions and the acceleration of global warming outlines the causal relationship between humans and climate change. This is not to say that humans are necessarily wholly responsible for global warming, and this position acknowledges (typically) some natural causes of global warming. But, it is argued that humans have added dramatically to the acceleration of global warming far beyond what would have occurred naturally.
On-the-ground: Do on-the-ground effects demonstrate today's warming is mainly human-caused?
Yes
• Ocean layers have warmed in a manner that indicates human-causes of global warming
• atmosphere that getting thinner show human cause on global warming
• Glacier melting globally demonstrates human-causes of global warming
• The melting of the arctic ice caps has increased dramatically with human emissions
• Greenland ice-caps are melting at an accelerating rate
• Natural catastrophic events, such as hurricanes, have increased substantially with human greenhouse gases
• Increase in atmospheric moisture is tied to human emissions
• The atmosphere has responded as expected to human-induced global warming – Satellite temperature measurements show that tropospheric temperatures are increasing with "rates similar to those of the surface temperature," leading the IPCC to conclude that this discrepancy is reconciled.
• Spatial patterns of heat-trappings are concentrated around populated areas, indicating human causes:
Kyoto protocol mechanism:
In short, Kyoto protocol is implementing the system of carbon tax, which means every nation, people, or factories that emit green house gases should pay tax which called carbon tax.
Carbon tax is implemented for air plane travel, vehicle, factories, etc. The limitation of the tax is discussed and decided through meeting with all of nations that have signed the Kyoto protocol.
The fund from the tax will be used and organized by United nations and all bodies under UN that related to Kyoto protocol project to develop environmental friendly technologies to reduce human emission gradually. Technology like; sun panel, bio fuel, wind power plant, hydro power plant, geo-thermal power plant.
By implementing this system, it is expected that within 50 years ahead, the emission of human greenhouse gases would have been reduced significantly.
2nd split : The feasibility of Kyoto protocol to be conducted and the future implication of Kyoto protocol.
Feasibility:
Global warming: Is global warming chiefly man-made, making Kyoto emissions reductions important?
Yes
• Global warming is chiefly human-caused, making cutting human emissions under Kyoto important. Global warming has spiked significantly since the industrial revolution, indicating that, despite some possible natural causes of global warming, it is chiefly caused by human green-house gas emissions. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is a very relevant today in fighting global warming.
1st aspect of feasibility: Scientific community support.
There’s a scientific consensus that global warming is chiefly human-caused
• A vast number of renowned scientific bodies supported the IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2007
• Wikipedia article: "Scientific opinion on Global Climate Change" - A very extensive outline of the "scientific consensus" that it is very likely that most of global warming can be attributed to human activities.
• Wikipedia:Global warming. Retrieved 11.07.07 - "The detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies elevated levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity as the main influence."
• 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report: "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." [4]
o Joseph Romm. Book Hell and High Water. 2007. pp 12. - "How strong is the scientific consensus? Back in 2001, President George W. Bush asked the National Academy of Sciences for a report on climate change and on the conclusions of the IPCC assessments on climate change. concluded: Temperatures are rising because of human activities; the scientific community agrees that most of the rise in the last half-century is likely due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere; and 'the stated degree of confidence in the IPCC assessment is higher today than it was 10, or even 5 years ago.”
• Claims that the vast majority of scientists believe global warming is mostly due to humans.
o National Geographic Explorer Article on February 28, 2007 - "Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
o Elisabeth Rosenthal and Andrew C. Revkin. "Science Panel Calls Global Warming ‘Unequivocal’". New York Times. February 3, 2007 - "The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."
• Many scientists are pressured to deny global warming is human-caused: New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities or risk losing funding.
• Al Gore's "An inconvenient truth" - Out of 928 peer-reviewed articles, all of them concluded that humans are the cause of global warming.
• Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, said natural changes in the environment cannot account for the magnitude of global warming in the past four decades.
• NASA climate scientist James Hanson says that greenhouses gases other than carbon dioxide, particularly methane and CFCs, are "probably the main cause of observed global warming"
2nd aspect of feasibility: media support
Media: Is the media fairly representing both sides of this debate or is it biased?
Yes
• The media is representing the scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of global warming in the modern era. This consensus should be relied-upon by journalists; what basis do they have to doubt it?
3rd aspect of feasibility: United Nation and most nations support
The fact that Kyoto protocol itself is held by United Nation body has already proofed that actually most nations in the world is supporting this protocol
The future implication of Kyoto protocol:
Precautionary principle: Should we error on the side of precaution?
Yes
• The precautionary principle would hold, in the context of global warming, that it would be better for humans to take precautionary measures to cut human greenhouse gas emissions. The risk is too high that global warming is mostly caused by humans. As such, it is reasonable to take action to mitigate these likely human causes, and before it is too late to have any impact on the problem.
• Even if humans are not actually the "chief" cause of global warming, there is little dispute that we play some role, due to our emissions of greenhouse gases, which contribute to the warming of the globe. As such, the Kyoto Protocol is an important tool in the fight against human-caused greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
Economics: Would Kyoto have a positive economic impact?
Yes
• The Kyoto Protocol's emissions reductions targets are economically reasonable - A large part of this argument is empirical. Many countries have demonstrated themselves capable of meeting Kyoto's targets.
• The Kyoto Protocol stimulates new industries.
• The Kyoto Protocol's economic costs are worth the environmental gain .
0 komentar:
Poskan Komentar