[eDebate] Global Warming topic
scottelliott at grandecom.net
Thu Jun 21 12:08:40 CDT 2007
Well, here is the problem as I see it:
If a a resolution says cut emissions, without a number, or switch to fossil
fuels--, or does not mandate that the plan reduce global warming in a
significant manner, teams can run cases that do not solve for the core issue.
We need to have multiple debates over ways to solve global warming. There are
tech solutions like carbon sinks and global space based solar shields (really);
a switch to the Ethic, allowing Brazil to re-grow the Rain forest; and
obviously, emissions reductions. But I want the focus to be on solving global
warming. Which is really hard to craft.
Quoting "Seth T. Ellsworth" <sethellsworth at gmail.com>:
> Hey Scott,
> I debated on the fossil fuels topic for Wyoming and then coached several
> warming debates on both China and the supreme court topic (with the EPA
> disad). My concern is not that we debated warming a couple years ago, mainly
> because it has become a backfile that people debate, but that people didn't
> TRY on the warming debates. I mean people cut the Idsos, and the IPCC but
> they didn't go after things like the Australian Journal of Plant Physiology.
> I don't know if a warming topic would force things like that or if people
> would try to remove themselves from the topic. I love co2 and warming
> About solvency contingent resolutions: I don't necessarily think this is a
> bad idea, if the resolution mandates it, simply because the rez mandates it.
> This is different than a case that is only topical because of solvency.
> Seth Ellsworth
More information about the Mailman