Yes, we should have a $100 or more per ton of Co2 price. Freeloaders are a major problem when it comes to pollution. Individual profits and socialized costs. We are stealing from future generations and overburdening them by delaying. This $100 price would better reflect the overall cost.
Unless you want a bunch of climate change displaced refugees in your neighborhood better reduce Co2. A one meter rise in sea level would displace 230 million people.
Debra AI Prediction
0% (0 Points)
Against:
0% (0 Points)
Votes: 2
Debate Type: Traditional Debate
Voting Format: Casual Voting
Opponent: MayCaesar
Rounds: 1
Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round
Voting Period: 7 Days
Round 1
Voting
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments (2) Comments Votes (2)
Arguments
- What exactly transaction is being talked about? Are we talking about pure CO2 stored in a tank which I want to purchase, so that the government would impose a price control on it? Are we talking about equivalent amount of CO2 industrial activities I partake in produce? Are we talking about direct imposition of these price control, or more indirect regulations that are projected to result in the market price being this?
- It is unclear to me what it means to "steal from future generations". I would like to hear my opponent's definition of "stealing" used in this sentence. All (economical) definitions of stealing I am familiar with involve stealing from someone who currently possesses a piece of property, which, to my understanding, future generations metaphysically cannot.
- I do not understand where the number of $100 came from. Why not $99 or $101? Why not $50 or $200? What economical analysis resulted in this spectacularly round number?
- I would like to understand how my opponent arrived at the conclusion that without this measure in place I would eventually have a "bunch" of climate change-displaced refugees in my neighborhood. Is my neighborhood somehow special, or does this sentence refer to a more general "A neighborhood", in which case climate change-displaced refugees would somewhat uniformly fill out all neighborhoods? And, again, why does the exact value of $100 prevents this from occurring, rather than $99 or $101 or some other value?
- My opponent also mentioned the projected consequences of a one meter rise in sea level, which appears to me to be completely disconnected from the rest of the argument. I would like to see the connection drawn; how does this support my opponent's conclusion?
- Finally, I would like to see a bit of discussion of the potential negative consequences of imposing the regulations my opponent has in mind. As per famous Thomas Sowell' quote, "There are no solutions, only trade-offs". The discussion of this proposal without considering both positive and negative consequences of it seems incomplete to me.
With that, I am handing the microphone over to my opponent to clarify their argument, so we can proceed with a constructive discussion.  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra