Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Without a Prescription?

Teens should have the option to access birth control. The idea that teenagers should be able to obtain birth control suggests that they might act more recklessly, believing they can do as they please without parental approval, relying on a safety net. This is concerning and deplorably demonstrates the ease with which adolescents can acquire anything they desire. It could potentially lead to discussions about lowering the legal drinking age to 16. It is my belief that birth control should be reserved for adults, as they can discern when it is appropriate to use it. Teenagers, on the other hand, might use it excessively, even daily. Birth control is a significant responsibility and should not be entrusted to teenagers, even those who are responsible.

Resolved: Medicines Should Be Made FreeI am Con, so Pro should start the argument first.

My main arguments are as follows: While I make exceptions for legitimate medical situations or if the mother was raped, and lives in one of those 31 states that allows rapists to sue for custody, abortion is cruel and unusual punishment for the baby. Babies are being torn to pieces, stabbed in the heart with a poison needle, or suffocated in the name of choice. Contraception or a consenting woman having her tubes removed is much better, I had my tubes removed for contraceptive reasons, so that is a better choice. Choice before conception, life after.

Pro says: "1) The non-partisan CBO has projected that insurance premiums will rise by 27 to 30 percent for the average family. This is a direct violation of the promise that Obama made during his campaign that the price of insurance would actually go down by $2500, on average, per family. This is due to several factors, including the fact that 60% of current plans don't meet the minimum standards for Obamacare's policies and the issue that the inability of insurance companies to refuse coverage for "pre-existing conditions" negates any incentive people may have to get health insurance until they need it, because it's still cheaper than the fine for the majority of people currently without insurance, which means that the people that the law had intended to subsidize the costs of increased care outlays by the insurance companies aren't pooling their risk with the higher risk patients. This drives up premiums as well, which makes insurance less accessible to most Americans." I say: I agree that there are flaws in the ACA, but the solution is to scrap it, reform it, and put it up for a vote, not to just close your mind to the whole matter. Pro says: "2) The next way that health care will be less accessible to Americans is the simple fact that there may not be enough doctors to meet the demand for health care. After a little more research, I found a more recent poll that shows that up to 60% of doctors currently practicing are either seeking to quit medicine or would do so today if they felt like they could, as a direct result of Obamacare. There are more bureaucratic requirements, more restrictions on the way we practice medicine (I am a practicing family physician), and higher pressure to see more patients and do more with fewer resources than ever before. Up to 52% of physicians have limited their acceptance of Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the terrible reimbursement rates of those programs, and Obamacare seeks to expand the rolls of Medicaid to cover even more people. According to the survey, 100,000 physicians are planning to either close their practices, switch to concierge medicine (which doesn't accept insurance), or cut back the number of patients they will see. This is going to exacerbate the already critical shortage that exists in rural areas - and other areas all around the country - of physicians, especially primary care providers. Considering that we have 75 million Baby Boomers about to transition into the Medicare system which is already overtaxed and in need of more accepting physicians, this is a very worrisome number and definitely shows that access to medical care will be much less available... not more available, as Con has expressed." I say: Part of the problem is an over taxed economy. I promise you that if you scrap all taxes save an income tax of say 50% for this example, that will help part of the problem. You see the thing is that when overtaxation occurs, the price of everything goes up until everything is out of control. I obviously do not support a libertarian model, but a 50% income tax and no other should help. Pro says: "3) Thousands of companies are cutting their employees' hours to under 30 hours per week to avoid the massive fines incurred for not providing health insurance coverage for their employees, when they're not just outright firing people. Even when they are not willing to cut back on the hours, they are opting in many cases to simply pay the fine, which is much less than the actual cost of the insurance, which as I have demonstrated earlier, has dramatically increased. Now, not only do they *not* have coverage, but they also have to live with a 25% pay cut or more due to the restriction on hours. The lack of wages and the unwillingness of employers to provide assistance with coverage combine to make insurance much less accessible to even middle-class people who had previously had access to coverage." I say: Again, I support the reform and revote of the ACA, not the repeal thereof. I am against overtaxation. Pro says: "I wish that I were exaggerating. The truth of the matter is that the Medical Device Tax that is part of the ACA has stifled research and development in several major fields of inquiry in medical technology because the companies don't want to pay the tax. Furthermore, there is nothing in the ACA which will actually help doctors do their jobs better or reduce the cost of medicine. In fact, the only thing that is happening in medicine is that there is more paperwork to do, less time to see a larger number of patients, and more regulations on what procedures, tests, and treatments we are "allowed" to do on our patients by an unelected set of Bureaucrats who know nothing about medicine. The ACA will not put people back to work... in fact, as I mentioned above, it is putting millions of people *out* of work, and it is sucking money out of the economy on multiple levels. Will Con please tell me how this is a good thing?" I say: Again, I am saying that the ACA has flaws, but the solution is to get ride of the bad stuff and keep the good. You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. Pro says: "Sitara did not adequately address my point regarding the many broken promises of Obamacare. Her only rebuttal is, " I am not saying that the ACA is perfect, but it is far better than what we have now." I heartily disagree, based on the points I have mentioned above which have not been adequately rebutted and the ones I will provide below, which further strengthen my case. The current system isn't perfect, but Obamacare takes all the parts of our healthcare system that make the practice of medicine burdensome, inefficient, expensive, and unpleasant... and makes them all worse. Not a single measure in the entire 2700 page bill... or the 28,000 pages - and counting - of regulations that have come from the law has done anything to increase the quality, availability, or efficiency of medicine in this country." I say: Excuse me but I am trying my best to be a good debater and address your points. I have two windows open so that I do not miss anything. Now back to business. Dear God, how many times do i have to say that the solution is to fix it, not to trash it. I most certainly do not support over regulation no matter who does it, but the fact remains that many people cannot afford healthcare due to preexisting conditions and/or financial status. Some people have over 100 dollars worth of medications per month. The healthcare industry is already over regulating when they tell you what meds you can and cannot take. My insurance was supposed to approve one of my meds for 12 months, but they only approved it for 1 month, and it was a hurdle to get them to cover it at all, so I know all about over regulation. The solution is reform, not repeal, as our healthcare industry is broken. Pro says: "The Obama administration, in violation of the law he signed, has refused to enforce a key portion of the law requiring businesses to provide insurance for their employees, which was to go into effect in 2014. This is a part of the law that has no ambiguity: there is a hard deadline for employers to begin covering employees: Jan 1, 2014. In refusing to enforce this part of the law, Mr. Obama has arrogated to himself legislative powers to change a law that has already been written and signed into law, which he does not have the authority to do. If he were to acknowledge that the law was unconstitutional, this might be defensible, because the President does not have a duty to enforce laws which he believes are in violation of the Constitution. However, since he put the case before the Supreme Court, who found (much to my shock) that the law was constitutional, he is under a direct obligation to enforce every part of the law. He is refusing to do this, but only on a selective basis. Specifically, he is allowing businesses to avoid the devastating financial impact of compliance with the law until after the 2014 elections. I believe this is to shield his Democratic congressional colleagues from the backlash that will happen when the measure is finally enforced as it should be." I 100% oppose that corruption. I am one liberal who is not afraid to speak the truth about the Democratic Party of America. Seriously, look up the effects of over taxation.

I think that stricter rules should be placed on who can get an abortion. There should be perameters and rules. For instance a careless teenager should not be able to have one. If a young girl thinks that she is old enough and mature enough to be having sex, she should be smart enough to use protection. If not, her stupid mistake should not be taken out on that baby. I think that teens use abortion as a back- up plan, and it is wrong! Killing your baby for your own sake is disgusting. If a woman gets pregnant and her life is put in danger than, with her consent, she should be one of the few to get an abortion. If there are health problems involved, I think an abortion is understandable but unacceptable for a stupid, careless woman.

1st I agree with your definitions and terms. I will be attacking your sub points then your overall contentions. subpoint 1a- yes, they do. But that doesnt mean it is ok. Teens also have bad driving habits, and are likely to try drugs as well. You are asserting that since teens are going to do it, that means we should simply encourage it. This is like a parent who gives their kid what they want to shut them up. Rather than teach, we cave. There are benfits to abstinence, but instead we reason that since they are gonna do it anyway, why bother? Let's take the driving example. since kids are going to speed anyway, why tell them not too? Just teach them how to run redlights and cut people off rather than tell them not to. subpoint 1b- SO? We teach kids to do what they know is right rather than what everyone says. Peer Pressure doesn't make it ok. Kids also face preesure to join gangs and smoke crack, but tht doesn't mean we ought to accomodate it. Peer pressure just gives them a lame, worn out excuse to break moral code. CONTENTION 1: While you will never eradicate teen sex, this doesnt mean we must accomadate teen sex. Teens are impulsive, and no education will stop them. Again, its like saying that since we will never eradicate bad teenage driving, we should simply teach them how to do it right. There are advantages to abstinence, so it is logical to promote them over allowing delinquent activity. CONTENTION 2 (I found your subpoints too similar to attack individually, so I will only hit the cointention.): I know of one contraceptive that works all the time, without fail, 100%. Its called...ABSTINENCE. If you know of this, you will never have problems with HIV, AIDS, or pregnancy. You have based this on the idea that since all teens will have sex, then you cannot expect abstinence. I am 17, and I have refrained from such activity. I know several people at my school who have also. Despite your claims, sexual urges and desiures can be restrained. Thus, teaching teens to control their hormones are more fruitful than simply allowing them to rage on. subpoint 3a- Of course teens are more accepting of this: it feeds their ego. It doesn't explain that abstinence has its own benefits, and that it is in fact more effective than contraception. Teens do no like being told they are wrong, but sometimes, they are. Appeasment is a dangerous philosophy. subpoint 3b- This is somewhat insulting. Someone preffering abstinence doesn't make them unintelligent, it just doesn't make them liberal. A different view point than your own is not incompetent CONTENTION 3: This education is more effective at appeasing hormonal teens than abstinence only. And this may be why abstinence only inspires sex itself, by putting teens in a defensive position. but abstinence only doesnt teach necessarily that sexual desire is wrong, rather that it is not insurmountable. The problem is with the teens themselves, and not the education. We ought not compromise morality in the name of efficency. I want to add, that i hope i didn't come off as condescending. I fear I may have portrayed you as an immoral weakling, which was not my intention in any way. If you felt I treated you this way, I am deeply regretful of that and apologize greatly. That said, good luck!

Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI think this is axiomatic. It's not just an issue of being free or wanting freedom or arguably freedom being necessary for well being, even if rejected on those grounds to argue otherwise is self defeating, since you presuppose the freedom to argue as your starting point if you were to even try that non freedom should be the starting point rather than freedom. Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Judith Jarvis Thomson asks us to consider the following. .. "You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. " [1]Even if we grant violinist the right to life, the question is thus, do you have the right to unplug ? should you be forced to be kept plugged in if you choose you don't want to ? I know of no anti abortion person who has argued that you can't unplug your self, even if it means certain death for another person. Like wise it is argued, a pregnant women can unplugged the embryo inside of her, she should not be forced to continue with her pregnancy anymore than some one plugged into the violinist to keep them alive, such is yours & hers bodily rights. Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)The pro life/forced continuation of pregnancy advocates insist their cause is just & noble as they are out to save lives. But notice these people themselves don't justify anything and everything when it comes to saving lives, lives of post born humans who can think, feel and are self aware. You would be hard pressed to find such a person who would demand that we force billionaires to give up nearly all their wealth leaving them with say a few million dollars (still leaving them richer than most on the planet) and using those funds to save people lives. So here is the logical point, if rights and freedoms are such that we can't force the billionaires of the world to give up all their wealth except a few millions to save thinking, feeling, self aware humans, then it would be laughable to then argue that we are justified to force women to give up more, their bodily rights and the dangers of pregnancy in order to save non thinking, non feeling, non self aware, human embryos.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childConsider the following, you arrive at a burning building, behind one door are 100, 3 day human embryos, behind another a 5 year old child. Who do you try to save first ? Most if not all will try to save the girl, if a 3 day human embryo is morally equivalent to say a 5 year old child then it is simple arithmetic, try to save the 100 hundred all things being equal before you try to save the 1. But as I argue they are not equal, the 5 year old child not only trumps one 3 day human embryo, it even trumps one hundred. But why ? It has something to do with the fact that the 5 year old child can feel pain, is self- aware, can think, things that do not apply to a 3 day human embryo. If abortion is murder (reducto argument)If it is the case that abortion in the embryonic stage is equivalent to murder as some anti-choicers assert then that means all women who have had an abortion in that period should all be in jail doing sentences for murder, maybe even the death penalty, as well as any future women who will have an abortion in the embryonic period. Think about it, the likes of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and next to them endless row cells of women who had an abortion in the embryonic stage. So there are two possibilities. .. .. ..1) Be logically consistent, and start locking up all those woman and future women who have had such an abortion. or 2) Reject such a conclusion based on the realization that abortion is murder in the embryonic stage is false premise to begin with. I argue that this shows that the abortion is murder in the embryonic stage is absurd and should be rejected as such. The right to life as an absolute is untenableThe right to life, that is to say say the right not to be killed is often invoked as justification for not allowing abortion. Notice those who advocate it don't really believe it them self at least not as an absolute, the most common view where intentional killing is justified is self defense (or some variation of). Then we have issues of drone strikes, war, dropping the A bomb, etc etc. The point is, not even the pro-life-anti choicer believes in such a simplistic absolute right to life and to selectively apply it in the case of women & abortion is a double standard and hypocritical. Personhood & rightsConsider the following argument. .. .. .. .. .. .. .1) Only a person has a right to life2) If X does has none of the characteristics [1-5] it is certainly not a person.3) The human organism in the embryonic stage has none of the [1-5] characteristicsC) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is not a personC2) Therefore the human organism in the embryonic stage is has no right to life[1-5] refers to the following characteristics. .. .1) Consciousness (of objects and events external and/or internal to the being), and in particular the capacity to feel pain;2) Reasoning (the developed capacity to solve new and relatively complex problems);3) Self-motivated activity (activity which is relatively independent of either genetic or direct external control);4) The capacity to communicate, by whatever means, messages of an indefinite variety of types, that is, not just with an indefinite number of possible contents, but on indefinitely many possible topics;5) The presence of self-concepts, and self-awareness, either individual or racial, or both. We can be extremely flexible to the Pro life/anti choice position under Warrens personhood criteria and it still would not matter as Warren argues. .. "All we need to claim, to demonstrate that a fetus (for my purposes in this debate the human organism in the embryonic stage)is not a person, is that any being which satisfies none of (1)-(5) is certainly not a person. I consider this claim to be so obvious that I think anyone who denied it, and claimed that a being which satisfied none of (1)-(5) was a person all the same, would thereby demonstrate that he had no notion at all of what a person is-perhaps because he had confused the concept of a person with that of genetic humanity. " [2]Consider the characteristic of self awareness. .. ""This sense of self is critical to our status as persons. In fact, philosophers often use the terms self and person interchangeably: a capacity for self-awareness is necessary for full personhood. One has a sense of self if one is able to entertain first-person thoughts, and if one possesses first-person knowledge. " [3]Consider we are visited by intelligent aliens, can we kill them cause they are not persons based on their non humanity ? No. Rather we would recognize them as persons because of various characteristics 1-5 they possess. Characteristics that don't exist in the human organism in the embryonic period. I look forward to Cons opening argument. Sources [1] . http://spot.colorado.edu...[2] . http://instruct.westvalley.edu...[3] . http://socrates.berkeley.edu...

Attacking my opponent's final arguments:"My opponent has described many facts stating the negativity of abortions."I never legitimately gave evidence that stated the risks of abortions. My opponent did that. I would completely agree with the fact that abortion is a risky procedure, but pregnancy is 14 times riskier. When women get past the period where the morning after pill is a viable solution, they are faced two choices: termination of the pregnancy or pregnancy. If a women does not want to give birth to a child and feels it would be best for the to terminate the pregnancy, it is illogical for them to choose to have a child."Yes, there may be more deaths with actually having a baby than not, but abortion still isn't right. It's taking away a fetus that could have been a human being."Here my opponent conceded that pregnancy is more dangerous. This makes the danger argument completely invalid on my opponents side because women (as I said earlier) only have two options, and abortion is less dangerous. My opponent also concedes that fetus is not a human being. The key word they use here is could have been. This means that abortion cannot be considered unethical because it is not a human being when it is eliminated.My own final arguments: Solvency- My opponent never addresses my argument of backstreet abortions. In the United States today, there is not an excessive amount of illegal abortions that take place because abortion is not illegal. Still, they are happening, and about 200 to 250 women die every year. "Estimates of the annual number of illegal abortions in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s range from 200,000 to 1.2 million. Prior to Roe v. Wade, as many as 5,000 American women died annually as a direct result of unsafe abortions. Today, abortion is one of the most commonly performed clinical procedures in the United States, and the death rate from abortion is extremely low: 0.6 per 100,000 procedures." -ourbodiestoourselves.org The point proven by this evidence is that currently, in states with restrictive abortion laws, women still die from illegal abortions. In the past, when abortion was illegal around 5,000 women died every year from such abortions. If America goes back and makes the abortions illegal, the abortion rate will go down, but abortions will still take place. These abortions will be increasingly dangerous and more deaths will occur. This brings me to my the point on solvency. My opponent is not solving for the one argument they continually brought up. They are not solving for the danger aspect of abortions. Oklahoma is a state with one of the most restrictive abortion laws; they also have one of the highest abortion rates. In contrast, Oregon is a state with one of the least restrictive abortion laws; they have one of the lowest abortion rates. (The reason for this is because along with strict abortion laws comes restrictive contraception laws and bad sex education for children; that's a whole other argument that I wont get into). Morality- One of the major points made in the round is whether or not abortion is morally permissible. If a fetus could indeed be considered a child, then abortion could be considered ethically wrong. My opponent provided no legitimate evidence to prove that a fetus is a baby. A fetus cannot survive outside it's mother's body. It is simply a developing blob of cells. It's elimination can save the mother a large amount of stress and pain. I would agree that abortion is not right for everyone, and if a mother feels that abortion is wrong, they can simply choose to not get one. However, just because some mothers would prefer not to abort a child, doesn't mean it should be illegal in the United States. Regret- This is a very important argument that was dropped by my opponent. I provided evidence that showed "Research indicates that relief is the most common emotional response following abortion, and that psychological distress appears to be greatest before, rather than after, an abortion." This shows that abortion is not a widely regretted procedure. There are some women who regret their abortions. There are always counseling oppurtunities for such women. Prenancy has similar effecst such a postpartum depression, showing that the regret level of pregnancy and abortion is relatively the same, if not higher, for pregnancies. For these reasons, I urge a pro vote.Thank you to samathafalk for a great debate!

Re: Harm #1: Why must anyone other than the individual involved and his/her family decide anything? You have not established that it is the business of or responsibility of others. Re: Harm #2: Handing out condoms does not increase sexual awareness. Handing out condoms does not ensure or guarantee they are being used. Handing out condoms is like making drunks wear seatbelts. Public schools have been teaching sex education since the 60's or earlier; has the government effort improve the situation or made it worse? Re: Harm #3: Conservative views may be unpopular among liberals, but that does not mean they don't work. Re: Advantage #1: As history has amply shown, government is not the solution to most problems and it can only make most social problems worse by interfering with society. Furthermore the government is not responsible for society, it is responsible to society.

My opponent forfeited every round. None of my arguments were answered. I don’t like the idea of winning by default, but here we are.Tule: it’s good for students to get involved and address big issues like teen pregnancy. You need to be able to answer arguments like mine and not simply prepare for an abstinence-only type of response. You should also be aware that, in the U.S., condoms may be sold to minors in ANY state. A retailer who says it is illegal to sell you them is, frankly, wrong.

I thank Sengejuri for their opening argument.Freedom not restricted unless justifiedI take it Con agrees here.The right to life as an absolute is untenableCon does seem to agree that one can't use the right to life in the absolute sense to justify forced continuation of pregnancy.Bodily rights argument (the violinist analogy)Implied non consent - I think Con has it backwards here concerning contraception and consent to pregnancy, if some one goes out of their way to use contraception obviously not only are they not consenting they are taking active steps to prevent pregnancy, that sounds like a big we don't consent to me.Prior consent does not mean consent can't be withdrawn laterPresumably Con means in their kidney analogy you are hooked up to the other person, in that case Con seems to just assert that since you consented this means you lose any bodily rights/choice to disconnect. Firstly this is just assumed and not justified. I challenge Con to justify this.Secondly there is an argument that consent given of ones own body doesn't negate bodily rights/choice later on. Consider a woman who tells a man at 11am she consents to have sex with him at 7pm. At 7pm the mans turns up, the woman claims sorry got a headache. Since the woman gave prior consent can the man now force her to have sex ? has she lost any right to choose to not have sex cause of prior consent ? is rape now justified in this case ? of course not.The logical point being, previous consent to use ones body does not justify that consent can't be withdrawn later on.Violinist analogy (revised, prior consent given)Consider the violinist analogy with some variables changed. A violinist is in hospital & dying. There is no other way for the violinist to live unless you and ONLY YOU are hooked up to him for 3 months, after the 3 months are complete the violinist can live without being hooked up to you. You consent and are hooked up. After 2 weeks you say sorry, I just can't do this anymore. If you are unhooked death isn't probable, it is certain for the violinist.The question is thus, do you have the right to disconnect ? do you have a choice ? Are other people justified to take away your freedom to maintain you hooked up to the violinist for the remanding 2 months & 2 weeks ?I maintain that the fundamental point is the same, you can choose to disconnect. Consent objection vs right to life The consent/rape objection is problematic, cause the right to life argument is based on it being so fundamental that it can't be applied or rejected on the basis of whether said organism is the product of sexual consent or rape. This would put the subjects right to life or absent right to life at the mercy of how it came into existence..................an untenable position.Since Con has gone to the consent/rape objection they can't also use a more fundamental right to life argument in order to justify forced continuation of pregnancy.Pregnant Women vs Billionaires (Dis-proportionality argument)Contra Con this isn't an analogy, this is the actual state of affairs. I don't dispute that billionaires should have such rights and freedoms, either does Con.Con makes the point of intentional killing vs letting some one die, then concluding "BIG DIFFERENCE"...............fair enough.Thinking, feeling, self aware humans vs the human organism in the early stages of pregnancy that are absent such things "BIG DIFFERENCE".Rights and freedoms are such that billionaires can't be forced to give up most of their wealth to save self-aware, suffering humans, how much so then that a woman can't be forced to continue a pregnancy to save a non self ware, non suffering human organism.The argument stands.3 day human embryo is not morally equivalent to a human 5 year old childCon doesn't really engage with the argument here. Con would rather just make charges of games, straw-man, coin flips and I can do that too.Ironically for all of Cons red herrings they never even disputed that you are justified to save one 5 year old girl over 100, human embryos, which more plausibly as I argue is due the factors such as self awareness, intelligence, ability to feel pain.Con merely claims it fails, but did he actually show that ? I maintain Con did not.If abortion is murder (reducto argument)Contra Con for this debate and the outside world the fact of legal abortion being available hangs tenuously as a never ending onslaught of Pro-lifers chip away at availability of abortion to women, such as TRAP laws. [1]Contra Con it isn't just me who views this as absurd, that woman who have had a abortion should be doing hard time for murder. Interestingly Con never actually disputed this is where the initial premise that abortion (in the embryonic period) is murder gets you.Con remarks..."If abortion were to become illegal, obviously there would be consequences for breaking the law, as is the case with all laws. I fail to see how this is controversial."Women, all women past/present/future who have or will have an abortion are equivalent to murders, thus the long/life imprisonment and even death penalty consequence of such women. Con doesn't see what all the fuss is about.Cons Law consistency argumentLets see if we can help Con out where in regard to the allowing abortion vs texting driver causing loss of pregnancy is manslaughter...."cannot be justified with logic"1) The law could be wrong in regard to the texting driver being charged with manslaughter/murder. Eg error in definitions/application/reasoning etc etc.2) Even if it is not, as shown in the bodily autonomy argument, the woman has the right to disconnect, that doesn't apply in the texting driver hypothetical.Con may not like it, but it can be reconciled logically speaking.Cons Life argument ?One word come to mine when reading Cons contemplation's on life, confusing. Maybe what Con has in mind is when does a unique human organism begins to exist, but his own source answers that question...""fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed" [3]Personhood & RightsCon makes the point that he could use other criteria (but didn't), and yes I agree, different criteria will draw the line differently between person vs non person, which one has to do once some one starts talking about personhood, neither side of the argument can get out of that dilemma.The criteria of 3) Self-motivated activity as I understand it and argue for isn't just oh look it's moving by it's self. Rather it's the intentionality of moving what ever because you made the decision to do so, beyond say a reflex action, or mere response to stimuli.So no, criteria [3] has not being met, nor [1].Is Con a non person when Con goes to sleep or is unconscious according to the [1-5] criteria ? no, the argument is based on current capacity of X (eg self awareness) not necessary that X is currently exemplified. Being severely handicapped isn't the issue here, it's the criteria of [1-5], being severely handicapped doesn't necessarily mean some one doesn't possess any of the relevant current capacities.Contra Con, recall the point about self awareness being crucial to personhood. If Con rejects self awareness as relevant are you open to the idea that rocks could be persons ? they have no such capacity for self awareness.Also recall the point about how we would recognize intelligent, self aware aliens as persons based on said current capacities. Con doesn't seem to dispute that such aliens are persons.If you do reject such criteria yet recognize such aliens as persons, then on what basis do you do so ?I look forward to Cons reply.Sources [1] http://www.reproductiverights.org...[2] O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 8-


Question: Should Contraceptive Pills be Accessible Over-the-Counter?

Contraceptives should be categorized as preventative healthcare for insurance purposes. Beverlee, thank you for engaging in this discussion. Let's clarify that we're focusing solely on whether contraceptives should be classified as preventive care, not the broader topic of preventive care or reproductive health, which encompasses more than just contraception. For this debate, preventive care is defined as "a healthcare approach that emphasizes disease prevention and health maintenance, including early disease diagnosis, identifying individuals at risk, counseling, and necessary interventions to prevent health issues. Common examples include screening tests, health education, and immunizations."

Preventive care serves two main functions: disease prevention and health maintenance. These functions are achieved through screening, early diagnosis, education, counseling, and proactive prevention methods like immunizations. While some aspects of contraception fall under preventive care, contraceptives as a whole do not meet the definition. FDA-approved contraceptives include hormonal (e.g., birth control pills), barrier (e.g., diaphragms), emergency contraceptives (e.g., morning-after pills), and some over-the-counter (OTC) options. Certain OTC contraceptives for women are covered at 100%, such as female condoms, emergency contraceptives (Next Choice, Next Choice One-Dose, Plan B One-Step), and contraceptive film, foam, and gel. My argument will be structured around the functions of preventive healthcare and how they relate to the three FDA-approved categories of contraceptives.

A. Disease Prevention
Barrier contraceptives (condoms) can help prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). However, this is a secondary function. I will argue that STD prevention is not a critical objective for preventive healthcare, the primary purpose of contraceptives is not disease prevention, and sexual activity is a choice, not a right.

Point 1: STDs are not considered a critical objective for preventive healthcare. The CDC's USPSTF recommendations for preventive screening do not prioritize STDs, except for Hepatitis B in pregnant women and HIV for high-risk individuals. Other STDs, like gonorrhea, are not part of the preventive care regimen.

Point 2: The primary purpose of contraceptives is pregnancy prevention, not disease prevention. See the definition of contraceptive. Most FDA-approved contraceptives (hormonal, barrier other than condoms, and emergency) do not prevent disease. Only condoms protect against sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV.

Point 3: Sexual activity is a choice, so the use of condoms

Abortion is the right of an individual woman. Whether they choose to get one or not it should always be an available option. It is not the right of myself or anyone else to deny that woman her rights to an abortion. If you do not wish to have an abortion than don't get one but why strip others of that right. A woman should be able to decide what she does with he own body. Every child born should be wanted. The consequences of not allowing abortion in a steryl place would result in women going into back-alley abortion clinics.

Abortion is a sensitive topic for billions of people around the world and to pose an argument in support of it is to bring upon you the scorn and disapproval of many. The issue of abortion is especially sensitive among those whose religion speaks against it, and why not? let us not shirk from the facts, abortion is murder of sorts, the killing of an unborn child, the extinguishing of a perhaps bright and promising future with a few simple drugs. A life put out as quickly and as painfully as blowing out a candle. Abortion can in no ways possible be argued to be a pleasant and enjoyable experience. What the religions say is clear cut, abortion is against god/gods/great ancestors will, and i cannot argue against this, and nor do I want to, nor is it possible for me too. And it is also very true that many people who do not follow a faith also are strongly against abortion, and I would just like to point out that neither do I find It a pleasing nor happy concept that abortion is legal, BUT I do strongly, wholeheartedly understand that it is a completely necessary process, just as was world war I and II, horrific, dreadful, but necessary to protect the world as we know it. And please excuse my perhaps crude comparison but that is exactly the reason why abortion should and will remain legal, it is a process of protecting the planet, because what is the planets most important concern? Not global warming, but over-population. The world is vastly over populated. Global warming, disease, war, is all derived from overpopulation. Contraception, education, and abortion are all methods of curbing the disastrous increase of human population. Again forgive my terrible analogy but we humans are like an infestation of rats on this beautiful planet, except in our case there is no exterminator. Nobody likes being told this and even less will accept it, but stop bloody ignoring it, because it's the truth. The fact that this planet has continued to sustain us humans as long as we have existed in our diabolical number, is a miracle in itself, far greater, than Moses splitting the red sea, or Jesus turning bread to flesh and water to wine. Agreed abortion is but one of the ways to curb the overpopulation of the planet, but it is still a way, a way that that would help millions of impoverished women to ease the strain on themselves and their families, already beset by poverty and in many cases starvation. By having a further child they are putting further strain on their family, and in many cases the new born child will not live to adulthood. Many charities these days are forever preaching to us more privileged ( the fact that whoever reads this has access to a computer, internet cafe or not, makes us privileged) that we must fight against children in poverty and give them a chance to survive and grow up and lead a better life. I am all for this, I have donated many times to children charities and recognise it as a heroic and worthwhile cause. But is it not fair to say that so many more children could benefit far more if, (dare I say it) there were less of them? Hard as it may seem to accept, this is a case where the unborn, unconscious child, has to be murdered so to help the survival of his born conscious living breathing siblings, who would otherwise would be murdered through war, starvation, and disease. And to whomever thinks that the birth of more siblings would not make a difference, to the rest of their families lives, I say, wake up. Simple abortion is a cruel and cold way of helping this planet, but it is a way, we must not forget that while we sit comfortably at our warm homes drinking cold beer while typing away on our laptops (me anyway) That millions people women, men and children could benefit from abortion. And I know the question all you readers are asking right now, is even though it is legal, why are these people still suffering? The answer is two reasons. The first understandably is the mothers reluctance to kill her own child, the second is religion, both of which unfortunately I cannot argue against for I am neither a mother nor religious. But still does not undermine my view the potential that abortion could have to these millions of families. Let us not think about our own needs, our own beliefs, or what we would want for ourselves and our children. But let us think what would help others instead.

So, maybe in the hypothetical super-religious got what they wanted in a sex-negative society, but it hasn't markedly decreased the immorality of today's youth. While teen births may be down, teens are still having sex. Something like 3 in 5 high school seniors are not virgins when they graduate from high school. Clearly the abstinence-only education has not scared everyone away from sex. Because teens are having sex despite the sex-negative society, it would only be logical that we provide the knowledge and tools for them to do so safely. If more people are having safe sex and not getting pregnant or spreading STDs/STIs, it would follow that there would be less abortions and abandoned babies as a result.

Because my opponent has forfeited this round I thin that it is obvious that if the man is not the who is going to have to carry and take care of the bay there is no reason that he should have the final say in whether they have the abortion or not. If he does not want a child then he shouldn't have sex. It is as simple as that.

I support that abortion should just be the choice of women. First of all.There should be some limits:1.women who have been pregnant for 3 months shouldn't be allowed to have abortion. 2.the frequency to have abortion should be limited. As we all know.Sometimes pregnancy happens accidently.Many women are too young to bring up babies.Some women are still in school.They don't have enough time to work to earn money.And the most important is that they are immature and they don't know how to bring up babies and they can't distinguish from bad or good. So actually, it's not the right time to let them educate their babies.As the official report, the percentage of pregnant women in America increases 45% among unmarried women.It's definitely a large percentage. Based on this amazing data, many women choose to do abortion because of their situation.So,in my opinion,just care more about these women.And give them rights to decide their babies lives, they're not preapared.So it's not the righest time.And also give them rights to go on their own lives.On the other hand,the agreement of the abortion should be signed by the physical father and mother together.Even though babies have rights to be alive in our world, if their parents really want to give them up.We can conclude that the babies won't be as happy as other children.Abortion is not reasonable,however,we just need to address the importance of contraceptive method when people have sex. This will be more reasonable and let the women have the rights please.

My conclusion is simple: Con's law would result in more maternal deaths due to its absolute nature. Under Con's law, a woman with an ectopic pregnancy is likely to die, and Con appears to accept this premise. I understand that Con does not want any woman to die, much less a pregnant woman, but his law allows as much, and he did not show a compelling reason to allow this increase in maternal death. Hoping that both the mother and child live is not enough to compel a female onto such dangerous ground. I have little concern over any issue in this debate other than maternal death, despite my position that abortion should not hinge on such a matter. I did not see a need to debate any other issue. All the material I presented suggests that maternal death rates would increase under Con's new law and such a position is not desirable. Maternal Death: Con presented an absolute resolution and I chose to combat the position by showing that abortion is much less dangerous than childbirth for some women. Updated statistics show that I am correct. This fact, in combination with the dangers of ectopic pregnancies is more than enough to reject Con's position. I see no need for a long conclusion.

“By this argument, women must either practice celibacy (the only 100% guaranteed form of contraception-well almost, if you count the Immaculate Conception) or else risk being the hostages of their reproductive biology, up until to the age of final fertility.”The pro argues that women have a right to their bodies. The pro also argues that individual men and women have the right to defend their body however they wish as long as it does not encroach on other individual’s civil liberties. What the pro believes is what is inside the pregnant woman is in fact a separate human being, and the termination of that separate human being is immoral. The situation is comparable to killing a human being outside of the womb. "With regard to the legislative aspect, I would like to know by what authority Pro, or anyone else would claim the right to force child birth?"The pro claims the right to force the child to live because the child is a separate individual from the mother. The pro would like to ask another question. Is it moral to end a person’s life while they are in a coma from which they might awake?“1. Conservative, pro-life opinion is superior to a majority vote of a supreme court2. Conservative, pro-life morality (usually of the religious stripe) should replace the overarching law (the constitution) of the explicitly secular, United States?”The pro in no ways wishes a government supporting a single church. The pro also believes that governmental religious toleration should be practiced throughout the land. The pro also argues that individual voters should use whatever beliefs they choose because it is their choice. No one should tell an individual what to think let alone what beliefs to vote on. The pro does not believe that because some beliefs are religious, they should all be discounted. Gallup polls show that only 29% of all US citizens believe that abortion should be made legal no matter what the circumstances (1). The Roe vs. Wade decision was a complete breach of state’s rights. The pro does not want to dive into the benefits of federalism, but the main point is that it allows for more direct representation of US citizen’s wishes. The nine unelected jurors took the decision of states on major issues away in a de facto tyrannical way. "Can a zygote open a bank account? Can an embryo vote? Can a fetus tell us if it prefers existence to non? Even if we were to agree on some point, we still have all our work ahead of us."Using this logic, what stop a mother who does not want to bear the responsibility of their already born child from murdering her child. The con’s logic is confirming the argument that any justification for abortion can be used against human beings outside of the womb. "I assume that Pro wishes to converge on the question because Pro anticipates this would demonstrate that, if life is said to exist then objectively, it cannot be taken away. However we have a difficulty: Pro is also pro death penalty (as are the majority of Conservatives ). This displays that Pros side subjectively believes there exist scenarios in which the ending of life, by human intervention, is sometimes a justifiable action. That leaves us with the problem: arguing as if we will reach incontrovertible, objective truth. I would like Pro to rethink, re-frame or clarify this question if he feels I have misunderstood it."The con uses faulty logic here and is also assuming what the pro believes with no evidence. The pro believes that the unnecessary loss of any human life is a moral evil and a terrible sadness. The pro believes that any execution should never be committed unless there is an existing threat from a guilty individual to another human. This argument derives from the inherent right to self-defense which precedes government. What the pro finds evil is the execution of the most innocent part of our society for no reason besides the burden they pose. It equates a human being to property. "Does Pro intend to mean that the natural order should not be interfered with at all, for any reasons? Would this then extend to and cover all forms of human intervention that assists or ends life, e.g. should we take polio vaccines? Should we pull the life support plug on the brain dead, etc?"These strawman arguments, which aim to deflect from the issue of abortion, are easily answered. Yes, the pro does not agree with contraception. As to the arguments of human intervention maintaining lives, the pro believes that all options should be exhausted for as long as possible to save the endangered life. The sad and heart-breaking act of ending a human life should only be performed when the human being can no longer return to life while not on life support. "As a brief and blunt example of possible arguments, I will employ the poor go to, end of life, coma patient. They have no agency, nor autonomy. They require external forces to survive. If they do not survive without life support, the action of pulling the plug is not considered murder and is made often times for purely pragmatic reasons, such as financial pressure."Continuing on the last point, a fetus has the potential for animation while a patient surviving solely because of life support has no potential of reanimation. The fundamental difference is the potential of animation. "I am afraid that, unless Pro can produce evidence that abortion is directly linked to "the murder of millions of people" this premise would be shaky, at best."The evidence is that the fetus is a seperate human being. If the human race does not plant the flag of human value at the conception of life, there is no defense against the murder of any individual. This leads to justifications of horrific ideas such as the holocaust or gulag camps. The life of the child inside of the mother starts at conception. If left to its natural processes, it will become a human being. The human race must protect the most innocent among us. Thank you(1) https://news.gallup.com...

My opponent has claimed that those conditions are part of the resolution. I will accept that as an irrelevancy. The resolution is still negated on my counter-arguments. My opponent contends that an incognitive girl (not capable of distinguishing right or wrong) should always decide to get rid of the child and therefore the choice should be given to her. However, this is absurd; there are plenty of 12 year-old pro-life girls that would not do such a thing and therefore this refutation is entirely false. Even further, the child would probably not be able to weight financial costs as my opponent assumes. The guardian of the child is much mroe cognitive and capable of making the abortion decision. The guardian is also financially independent. Ethically and legally, the pregnant girl is still the property of the guardian and therefore does not have the right to make her own decisions without the warrant of the guardian My opponent also mentions a situation that is irrelevant to the negation I have mentioned. So, let's review: -12 year-olds can not make responsible decisions. -My opponent has conceded this. -Guardians can make more informed decisions than 12 year-olds. -Guardians generally have a greater cognitive ability than 12 year-olds. So: -Not all women should be able to make decisions over their own body. Thank you.

Pro says: Thank you, Sitara, for a prompt response. I think that our positions aren't actually all that different. I believe that you will actually come to agree that the current law needs to be repealed and replace with something that will actually work, as I have argued... and as you have stated in your post. I will demonstrate below." I say: maybe so. I feel dumb now. Pro says: "-The law makes it more difficult for people to get access to health care, as evidenced by higher premiums, longer waits to see a doctor due to an impending doctor shortage, a smaller number of doctors willing to accept insurance, and fewer treatments they are "allowed" to do for you." I say: Not to sound like I am 10 years old, but that totally sucks. I believe that healthcare is a right so that bothers me. Time will tell I guess. Pro says: "-The law is riddled with loopholes, corruption, uneven enforcement, bureaucratic abuses, political favoritism, and other tools that the government can use to impose its will upon the people." I say: Over taxation causes a multitude of problems including this. Pro says: "-The law over-regulates what treatments people are allowed to receive based on factors that have nothing to do with medicine, and it creates lots of barriers between doctor and patient, damaging the doctor-patient relationship." I say: The law already does that. Did you read about my experience with my HMO? Pro says: "-The law does nothing to address the real costs of medicine in this country and in fact has cost much more than originally projected." I say: How so? I am detail oriented. LOL. Pro says: "In a consumer-driven subsidy plan like the one in Indiana, this wouldn't be a problem. The difference is that instead of the government making the decisions about what care you're allowed to have for you, you get to make those decisions by paying for your care out of a Health Savings Account that the State contributes to much as it would have paid the hospitals or doctors or pharmacies directly under Obamacare. Now, you have the power to make decisions about your health instead of letting some bureaucrat do it for you." I say: Privatization is not always the answer. That is a big problem I have with libertarians. Pro says: "In light of all of these things, it seems to me that you actually agree with me and think that Obamacare should be repealed... and replaced with something a) that works better, b) that gets voted in by a fair and open referendum without any tricks, and c) that doesn't leave the door open to governmental corruption." In that case, I do agree. I am so sorry.

I will reply briefly to Pro's comments. I am aware of the awful nature of abortion (though some pro-choice advocates argue that there is nothing bad about abortion). Germaine Greer is simply mistaken about the nature of relationships. Certainly some relations are of a coercive nature, but not all (or even most) of them. Additionally, even if a woman is "coerced" into having relations (which is a very dubious statement), she still bears moral culpability for the child she was instrumental in conceiving. The real solution is to raise boys to be better men and treat women with respect, not to kill a living human being that she conceives. My statement that women should be prevented from having abortions is not a horrible statement (and indeed, Pro has decided to attack a strawman). Women have control over their bodies, but no one has absolute right over their bodies. Pro-choice philosopher Louis Pojman provides an example: "Consider 500-pound Fat Fred who decides to sit down, but your money-packed wallet happens to be directly on the spot where he sits. You request him to move his body so that you can get your wallet, but he refuses, claiming that he has an absolute right to do with his body what he wills. " [1] No one has an absolute right to bodily integrity, and if the unborn are valuable human beings (as we are), then prevented an abortion is not attempting to control womens' bodies, it is preventing abortionists and women from murdering the most vulnerable members of our species. I will now respond to Pro's criticisms of my argument. P1 -- The unborn, from fertilization, are human beings. Pro mentions that from the sixth month (it's actually a couple of weeks before the sixth month) the unborn are not able to live independently. But he doesn't support his contention as to why this is a morally relevant reason to allow us to kill them. Until he supports this contention, it should be regarded as a baseless assertion, nothing more. The unborn is the same entity from fertilization past viability past birth, so there is no reason to grant the unborn rights at viability and not before. Abortion, medically, is merely the separation of the unborn from the woman. However, medical methods to perform this procedure are not mere separations, it is direct killing -- through dismemberment, poisoning, etc. As Frank Beckwith writes, "euphemistically calling abortion the withholding of support makes about as much sense as calling suffocating someone with a pillow the withdrawing of oxygen. " [2]P2 -- Killing human beings is [prima facie] immoral. Point taken in regards to certain types of killing. I have amended my statement to read that killing humans is prima facie immoral. It is not always wrong to kill, especially in self-defense. While there is some privacy involved in moral decisions, if abortion kills an innocent human being then it can't be justified in the name of privacy, any more than child abuse or spousal abuse could be justified by claiming that it was done in the privacy of their own home/bedroom. P3 -- Anyone can stand against immorality (this is not limited to a particular gender, race, etc. ). Immorality is not subjective. When I say abortion is wrong, I am not saying "I dislike abortion" like I dislike guacamole. I am saying that it is wrong for all people, at all times (this would include men, if they had the capacity to become pregnant). If Pro can say that murder is wrong (as he seemed to have conceded in his critique of my second premise), then he could admit that if abortion were murder, it would also be objectively wrong. And by "stand against," I merely mean "work toward the ending of the practice. " I do not condone abortion-related violence from the pro-choice or the pro-life side. Slavery was once legal in the United States. It is now illegal. If morality were merely subjective, then slavery was a moral practice, and the abolitionists who opposed it were moral monsters, not heroes. I am sure Pro would also concede that slavery was immoral, even when it was legal (at least, I hope he would). As such, all human beings are deserving of dignity. What is legal is not always moral, and what is moral is not always legal. It is not right to mistreat women, even if it is legal to do so. In the example from Bangladesh, I would say that no, it would be wrong for them to whack any "offending women. " I would hope Pro would agree. I would also hope Pro would agree it would be wrong of them to do so, even if it is legal for them to do so. But moral relativism would dictate that it is moral for some men to abuse women. Civilized countries hold to the same moral standard, e. g. that murder is wrong and is illegal. They may disagree on what constitutes murder, but they still hold "murder is wrong" to be an objective moral standard. The pro-life position makes a case that abortion is immoral and should be illegal (since murder is illegal). If this is true, then pro-life advocates are well within their rights to oppose it. C -- Therefore, men can take a stand agaisnt abortion (including making it illegal, etc. ). No, it was not a joke. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, we would have to overturn all the legislation on abortion that was voted on by men. Pro can't have it both ways. If men must stay out of the abortion issue, they must stay out on both sides. The sword cuts both ways. We must give abortion legislation back to the states, and then have only women decide on legislation about whether or not abortion should be legal. Pro states, ". .. if we were to overturn all decisions made by men, we would have to include the decisions that made abortion illegal in the first place, all the rulings of the Catholic Church, and indeed most of Chrsitianity, which has been very male dominated. "Pro misrepresents my position. Only abortion-related decisions that were made by men would have to be overturned. Nothing in my reductio would indicate that every decision by males would have to be overturned. Besides, this is what Pro's position entails, not mine. My position entails that if something is immoral, especially so immoral that it should be illegal (such as murder, rape, and abortion, if it fits), then men have as much say in restricting it as women do. I have sufficiently upheld my argument. Pro has failed to give any compelling reason as to why the abortion decision should remain the woman's considering it, and hers alone. [1] Louis P. Pojman, "Abortion: A Defense of the Personhood Argument," The Abortion Controversy, 2nd Ed. , ed. Louis P. Pojman and Frank J. Beckwith, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998, p.278. [2] Francis J. Beckwith, Politically Correct Death: Answering Arguments for Abortion Rights, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993, p. 133.


Question: Can Renewable Energy Sources Adequately Substitute for Fossil Fuels?

Nuclear energy is advantageous for society and can potentially replace fossil fuels.

In every argument, I intend to focus on a single point. To counter the notion that hydroelectric power, combined with wind and solar, could theoretically power the United States, I want to highlight the significant environmental impact of hydroelectric power. The construction of hydroelectric dams necessitates the flooding of large areas, leading to substantial habitat destruction. Moreover, the primary issue with hydroelectric power is its dependency on water, which often involves damming rivers. However, in many regions across the United States and globally, water resources are insufficient for damming, as they are required for other essential uses. To address the claim that the most accessible energy source is the best alternative, one could argue that fossil fuels should be considered the superior choice due to their abundance. However, I disagree with this perspective. My opponent might cite catastrophic incidents in the nuclear industry as evidence of its dangers. However, it is crucial to note that there has not been a single fatality or injury in the United States resulting from nuclear reactor operations. I anticipate that my opponent will mention the Chernobyl disaster as a reason to avoid nuclear energy. It is important to understand that the Chernobyl nuclear plant lacked a containment dome, which is a standard safety feature in nuclear facilities. Additionally, the plant was constructed using Soviet-era designs that have since been significantly improved. All nuclear plants in the United States are built using Western designs, and there have been no fatalities due to nuclear plant malfunctions in the country. Contrary to the claim that hydro, solar, and wind power pose no threat to citizens, a table obtained from http://nextbigfuture.com... reveals the number of deaths per TWh produced by various energy sources. Nuclear power has the lowest death rate, with 0.04 deaths per TWh, compared to coal (161 deaths per TWh), oil (36 deaths per TWh), and natural gas (4 deaths per TWh). The assertion that nuclear technology can easily be stolen and used to create nuclear weapons is misleading. Countries that possess nuclear weapons typically developed them for military purposes before transitioning to civilian nuclear power. North Korea has nuclear weapons but has not used them against another country, contrary to the claim that a dangerous country would likely use nuclear bombs. If nuclear technology were as easily stolen as claimed, why haven't terrorists seized the thousands of nuclear weapons already in existence in the United States? Returning to my second point, nuclear power has the potential to replace fossil fuels effectively

It is good for the environment because it doesn't release extra greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and damage it. Also, it repays what you payed for it overtime because you don't have to keep going and buying oil and coal.

Roy Latham is considered as the best debater at DDO. However this is not one of his best debates and he appears to be clearly distracted. In R3, he has ignored many of my arguments, dropped his own arguments and posted ‘quotes’ which are actually comments on some other blog. Reader will also notice that there appears to be no continuation between arguments made by him in R2 and R3. == My arguments == My arguments were brief. However as they have been ignored by Pro, I will first recapitulate them. CCS internalizes cost of CO2 removal from atmosphere into production. CCS is technically feasible, as confirmed by organizations like IPCC, IEA and CURC. IEA is already working towards global adaptation. Countries which are part of Kyoto protocol have already accepted it, at least in principle. Modalities of global implementation are being worked out. It is projected to be as cheap as conventional method once the technology is widely accepted. Pilot projects are already being implemented worldwide, including 12 sites in United States. This is remarkable for a technology which only gained prominence in 2005. == New arguments by Pro == Pro introduces a number of new arguments without any theme: Global Warming / Cooling and its cause: Suddenly it turns out that Pro is not sure whether global warming is real and is caused by CO2 emission into atmosphere. This is just a cunning debate tactic. If we are debating economics of CCS, it should be obvious that we are concerned about global warming caused by CO2. There is no point in debating CCS, if my opponent believes that global cooling is going on. Note that Pro does not even specify what he believes in. He just tries to present all possibilities and inflate the scope of the debate. There has been lots of research on the result of global warming [1]. Even the most optimistic ones sound eerie. Unfortunately for my opponent, his lack of awareness of recent research makes his tactic worthless. Global warming is taking place and it is caused by burning of fossil fuel. This is the inescapable conclusion of a research conducted by Berkley Earth Group [2]. This is the conclusion of a team of 11 leading scientists including Robert Muller and Saul Perlmutter. Saul Perlmutter won the Nobel Prize for physics last year. This paper is still under peer review process. There are no shortcuts in science. However it is obvious that this path breaking research has settled the debate on cause of global warming. I will argue the readers to read the New York Times article by Robert Muller [3] announcing key components of his team’s work. Climate Engineering: Pro would like to invest as much as needed in ‘climate engineering’. I have no problem with further research. However rejecting a solution we already have in favor of an unknown solution which we don’t even know even exists is not rational. Pro not only assumes that a solution exists and will be found, he also assumes that the solution is going to be cheap and would solve all the problems all alone. Too expensive to be globally accepted: Pro thinks that this technology will not be accepted globally. However he ignores the fact that it is already being globally accepted. He thinks only US and Europe would use it. As it turns out, lots of work on CCS is being done by China. [4] Costs of CO2 unknown: There is no doubt that exact costs of removing CO2 emission are not known. However unknown costs does not mean no costs. Voters will agree with me that the cost is likely to be high. It is better to shift too CCS whose costs are comparatively well known. I am not arguing for internalizing cost of CO2 removal just because it is fair. Internalizing cost is an essential component for any stable and pragmatic economic solution to the problem. CO2 is not like a normal pollutant. However it may interest my opponent to study effects of global warming. Balloon baloney: Pro offers an extremely non-serious alternative to CCS. Everyone should blow into balloon. However he fails to explain. Feasibility of scheme Cost of scheme How much of CO2 is emitted by human beings, and whether he plans to extend it to animals as well How he plans to dispose the balloons Until he can present more serious proposal, voters are argued to ignore it as a juvenile attempt to derail a serious debate. == Rebuttals == CCS would provide negligible reductions in global warming: Pro considers 13% reduction in temperature increase to be insignificant. It can be argued that this is significant since this is the contribution from a single industry. I am not saying that CCS alone would solve all global warming problems. However it is clear that Pro is not having any better proposal at present from power industry. The Cost Makes CCS Impractical: Pro wrongly asserts that the costs are projected future costs without providing any quotes. Here is the relevant quote from the article Pro quoted [5] All studies were made using commercially available technology and include the cost of compressing the captured CO2 to about 100 atm for pipeline transportation. The results do not include cost of CO2 transportation and injection, which will add about $10/tonne of CO2 avoided. Another problem is that this is a 1999/2000 paper. A lot has changed in this industry since then. I admit that cost of coping with CO2 in environment is not precisely known. However my argument was that cost of CCS should not be compared to cost of conventional production directly. It should be compared with cost of production and the cost of removing the excess CO2 from atmosphere. The cost of CO2 damage to our environment is likely to be high. To buttress his arguments Pro raises the issue of risk with CCS and it’s associated cost. Unfortunately he has posted ‘quotes’ which are actually comments on some other blog. There is no doubt that there are some risks associated with CCS also. However as per IPCC reports the risk associated are comparable to risk associated with current hydrocarbon activities. [6] Nuclear, Climate engineering and adaptation: Pro has ignored most of my arguments against nuclear power and rather relies on few assertions. Pro asserts that if nuclear power is located away from population centre, the cost of accidents can be minimized. I agree, that is not feasible for many countries including India. Also that is not the only problem with nuclear power. I listed several problems, which Pro has ignored. In any case, there is no reason why both CCS and nuclear cannot be used. There is no sense in debating nuclear power unless my opponent wants to take the extreme position that all methods of power production except nuclear should be abolished. Pro blandly asserts that there is no problem to spread of nuclear power. This is clearly not true. The biggest problem is that the Pro’s own country refuses to trust a large part of globe. I do not want a full international politics dispute here. It should be clear to readers that while nuclear is controversial, CCS is being enthusiastically welcomed by everyone except my esteemed opponent. Roy believes that climate engineering offers the only solution. Problem is, climate engineering has not got any solution at present. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://berkeleyearth.org... [3] http://www.nytimes.com... [4] http://www.globalccsinstitute.com... [5] http://sequestration.mit.edu... [6] http://www.ipcc.ch...

I would like to remind my opponent that he has the burden of proof in this round, as the instigator, to prove that government-funded "fracking" would do more good than harm in the United States. I also take issue with my opponent's second Whereas: "the United States furnishes just two percent of its supply from native sources, and much of the oil in the rest of the world exists in conflict areas" This is empirically false. According to the Energy Information Agency, two of the top exporters of oil to the U.S. are Canada and Saudi Arabia, which are definitely not in a conflict zone. [1] A great deal of the oil that China is currently pursuing is in conflict zones in Africa, but the U.S. has already secured much more secure foreign sources of oil. In addition, approximately 50% of the oil consumed in the United States is from domestic sources. The Energy Information Agency furthers, "In 2009, about 51% of the petroleum consumed by the United States was imported from foreign countries." [2] The rest is produced domestically. In addition, oil and natural gas are not really substitutes for each other. Natural gas is mostly used in power generation and heating; oil, in contrast, is mostly used in transportation (cars). People do not own cars that can run on natural gas. So my opponent has yet to provide a real reason why fracking would be desirable. In addition, I challenge my opponent to prove that fracking is profitable, meaning that the cost of fracking is lower than the price that the natural gas can be sold for. Countries with access to cheap natural gas sources (like Russia) will be able to keep the price of natural gas far below the price at which fracking becomes profitable. According to the Energy Technology Systems Analysis Programme, producing natural gas from unconventional sources like fracking costs 5 times more than producing it from conventional sources. [3] If fracking is not economically profitable, the U.S. would lose money by pursuing fracking. Companies would refuse to pursue a drilling technique that loses them money. The United States does not need huge increases in domestic natural gas production. We currently produce about 85% of our natural gas domestically. [4] There is no need for Congress to step up production by subsidizing fracking. In addition, fracking is bad. 1. Contaminated groundwater Fracking is dangerous because of its potential to contaminate groundwater supplies. According to Daniel Gross of Slate in 2010, "In recent years, discoveries of reserves locked in shale rock in Texas (the Barnett Shale) and in the Appalachians (the Marcellus Shale) have spurred a boom. But shale gas is also tough energy. The gas is produced via fracking—fracturing the rock with water and chemical solvents to loosen up the gas molecules. The environmental risk? The water mixed with solvents could filter into underground aquifers. Inconveniently, the Marcellus Shale overlaps with the watershed of the New York City region." [5] Any major fracking increase would likely result in drilling the Marcellus Shale, which would contaminate New York Cities drinking water. Fracking fluids contain many potential carcinogens, and according to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study, between 20% and 85% of the fracking fluids stay underground and do not return to the surface. [6] The potential for these cancer-causing drilling fluids to seep into groundwater is enormous. In addition, the natural gas itself can seep into drinking water. Josh Fox's documentary "Gasland" shows people lighting their sinks on fire because so much natural gas has seeped into their drinking water (see citation for a picture). [7] 2. Water consumption To fracture the natural gas shale rock, massive amounts of water are needed. The typical fracking well (which is usually a horizontal well) takes 6 million gallons of water to frack.[8] According to the Government Accountability Office, 36 states currently face water shortages and cannot afford to divert massive amounts of water to fracking. [9] Reader's Digest explains that the situation is dire: "The drought currently punishing the Southeast has been rated ‘exceptional' by climatologists—the kind that happens once every 50 to 100 years. As one dry month follows another, states and municipalities have imposed tight restrictions on outdoor water use for landscaping, swimming pools, and car washing, and Georgia's governor has required local governments to cut water consumption by ten percent . . . While lack of rainfall is the immediate culprit, the underlying problem is more profound: a water supply that cannot keep pace with a rapidly expanding population." [10] The U.S. cannot spare the massive amount of water that fracking requires. 3. Global warming What my opponent is proposing in this round is a government subsidy to the natural gas industry to help them pay for fracking. However, this is a move in the wrong direction. The United States should instead be subsidizing renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. From 2002 to 2008, the U.S. spent $72.5 billion subsidizing fossil fuels and only $29 billion subsidizing renewable energy. [11] If the government is going to subsidize anything, it should subsidize green energy. The International Energy Agency actually recommends that countries cut fossil fuel subsidies to encourage greater fuel efficiency, in order to decrease the use of fossil fuels. [12] Subsidies artificially drive down the price of fossil fuels and increase consumption of these dirty forms of energy. In addition, money spent on green energy creates more jobs than money spent on fossil fuels. According to the Center for American Progress, "The clean-energy sector produces more jobs per dollar than the fossil fuels industry." [13] The drilling process for natural gas shale (fracking) releases more carbon dioxide than traditional drilling techniques. According to Alternet, "Government studies show that exploiting unconventional fossil-fuel reserves generates more C02 emissions than drilling for conventional oil and gas and uses three to five times more water. ‘It's a pact with the devil,' says Randy Udall, a consulting energy analyst from Colorado." [14] Lastly, if we want to avoid the very worst scenarios for global warming (like massive flood damage and crop losses amount to a 20% loss of world GDP), we need to leave unconventional fossil fuel sources in the ground. This point is underscored by Jim Hansen of Columbia University, who says that to avoid the worst climate change scenarios, "we cannot heavily exploit unconventional fossil fuels . . . and we should not be pursuing every last drop of oil on the planet." [15] [1] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [2] http://www.eia.doe.gov... [3] http://www.etsap.org... [4] http://www.eia.gov... [5] http://www.slate.com... [6] http://www.mnn.com... [7] http://www.nytimes.com... [8] http://www.timesleader.com... [9] http://www.naturalnews.com... [10] http://www.rd.com... [11] http://www.grist.org... [12] http://news.cnet.com... [13] http://www.americanprogress.org... [14] http://www.alternet.org... [15] http://www.columbia.edu...

Ecological You state, “1st water is a renuable resource and we shouldn't worry about whether or not it takes more water for a cow then wheat, because it is all going to be renewed and if we chose not to eat those cows they would consume more water to live longer. “ Believe it or not, water usage is a concern. Though fresh water is replenished by the water cycle we have a limited amount at a given time and it takes vast amounts of energy (non-sustainable) to treat the water. In 50 years, our population will increase by 3 billion people. It will become increasingly difficult to provide water for everyone. You can read about it here: http://www.whyzz.com... Also, you say that if we didn't eat the cows, they would consume the water anyway. The meat industry breeds these animals in MASSIVE quantities. They are forced to reproduce much more frequently than if they were wild. If we stopped breeding them for slaughter their numbers would decrease dramatically in a few years. Also, you did not consider that meat production not only takes the water the animals drink directly, but all the water it takes to grow the food they eat. You state that if we all switch to eating plants, we would decrease the world plant population and thus decrease the oxygen on earth. Most of the plants farmers grow are fed to meat animals. If we switched to plant diets there would be more plants, and, according to you, more oxygen. http://www.news.cornell.edu...... About global warming, if you don't believe it is a concern, I'm not sure what to tell you. You might consider having a look at some of these articles: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca...http://www.independent.co.uk... Animal Rights You state: “Next I would like to say why animal rights shouldn't be a question. If you are an evolutionist you believe in survival of the fittest and that the better smarter species will weed out the lesser species, yes of course now days we try and keep a couple around but working against extinction of animals is very condridicting if your an evolutionist. “ Evolution is not a philosophy, it is a scientific concept. Survival of the fittest is not a code of conduct for life, it was never intended to be that. Evolution does not define morality. Just because something behaves a certain way in nature does not make it ethical (e.g. causing other species' extinction). 97% of scientists accept evolution as scientific truth. This does not change what is ethical. http://www.people-press.org... I want to bring to attention that this is not a religious debate. It is a debate on ethics, which to some people does include religion, so I will address it briefly. I am a protestant Christian and I think that evolution is probably true. I don't see a conflict between Christianity and evolution. God has the power to bring about life on earth in the way he chooses. I believe this way to be evolution. All the life on earth shares some percentage of DNA. This makes sense if you believe they come from the same Creator. You mention that the Bible gives authority to man to rule over the creatures of the Earth. Does this mean we can do whatever we want to them? No, we must take care of them. Before the flood, God forbade the eating of meat. After the flood, he designated certain animals as “clean” to eat. Does this remove our responsibility to rule over the creatures with respect? Here are some other things the bible has to say: "The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither hunt nor destroy on all my holy mountain," says the LORD.” -Isaiah 65:25 “The godly care for their animals, but the wicked are always cruel. “ - Proverbs 12:10 “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain. “ -Deuteronomy 25:4 “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or ask the birds of the air, and they will tell you. Speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea tell you. Every one of these knows that the hand of the Lord has done this. The life of every creature and the breath of all people are in God’s hand.” -Job 12:7-10 (NCV) Many early Christians were vegetarian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great to name a few. In some early church writings, Matthew, Peter and James (Brother of Jesus and first leader of the New Jerusalem Church) were all vegetarian. Clement wrote, "It is far better to be happy than to have your bodies act as graveyards for animals. The Apostle Matthew partook of seeds, nuts and vegetables, without flesh". God giving us dominion over the animals does not give us license to mistreat them. God rules over us, and he is merciful to us. We rule over the creatures of the earth, should we not be merciful? I do not think we should give rice plants rights. We only share 15% of our DNA with it. Plants have no brain, no central nervous system. There is no reason to think that plants have emotion or feel pain.There is a reason to think animals have emotion and feel pain. Animals are closer to us than plants, some animals are very close to us. Even bacteria share about 2% of our DNA. Does this give them rights? No. When you wash your hands, you kill thousands of bacteria. If you have ever felt pain, than you can surely understand why we should hesitate to inflict pain on the things that can feel it (animals, not plants and bacteria). I agree with you about abortion. For the same reasons I think we should not kill animals, I feel we should not kill unborn humans. But this debate isn't about abortion. Human Consumption I'm not sure what you are saying about the health implications of a vegetarian diet. 8 years more of life is 8 years more of life. To me, that indicates it is healthy to be a vegetarian. Yes, there are many healthy, long-lived people who eat meat, but a diet without meat can be just as healthy (or possibly more-so). http://www.huffingtonpost.com...... You conclude: “Eat meat there is nothing unethical about it.” 18,000 children die every day for lack of food. If the entire nation switched to a completely plant-based diet, there would be 5 times more protein food than the meat produced. We feed farm animals enough to feed 800,000,000 people every year. This world needs all the extra food it can get. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... “And it tastes darn good and just the fact that eating a nice steak can make a good day for someone that's proof enough for me that it's a good thing.“ Well, maybe punching my neighbor in the nose would “make a good day” for my neighbor's ex-wife, but that doesn't make it ethical. Note: I apologize if my arguments seem a little strong, I'm just trying to present the situation as accurately as I can.

From an economic point of view, why are pollution, global warming and climate change such big problems. The problem is that they are negative externality of industrial operations [1]. The idea is that the cost of pollution is paid by the world community; where as the entity which indulges in pollution reaps immediate benefits. The best economic solution would be where the polluter has to pay the cost of clean up as well.Thermal power plants (TPP) account for a large proportion of CO2 pollution as they burn large amount of fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide (CO2) capture and storage (CCS) is a process consisting of the separation of CO2 from industrial and energy-related sources, transport to a storage location and long-term isolation from the atmosphere. CCS is a neat idea which can reduce fossil fuel emission from thermal power plants by over 90% [3]. It also internalizes the cost of clean up into cost of power production using TPPs. Whatever is the cost of power production today, it does not include the cost of cleaning up the atmosphere later on. If that cost is also considered as part of production of power, CCS will definitely turn out to much cheaper.The status of CCS was raised dramatically in 2005, when IPCC found CCS to be fundamentally feasible scheme and argued for research to fill in the gaps in the knowledge [4]. Since then lots of progress has taken place in this field making it one of the foremost tools to tackle global warming. International Energy Agency (IEA) prepared a target of converting 30% of power using fossil fuel to CCS by 2040 [5]. In December 2011, 7th session of Kyoto Protocol accepted CCS as the major mechanism for reducing global emission and worked on its modalities [6]. Coal Utilization Research Council expects that CCS technology will cost less than conventional method by 2025[7]. In its roadmap CURC lists at least 12 CCS projects which are under development in United States alone [8].== Rebuttals ==Roy relies on some rough back of the envelope calculation to argue against CCS. The calculations actually bolster my case, once some questionable assumptions are addressed.Negligible reduction in global warming: Effects of global warming will be felt across the globe. The whole world will have to naturally work together in mitigation effort. Roy assumes that this is a United States policy debate and tries to prove implementation of CCS in United States will have negligible effect on global warming. He succeeds in doing the opposite.As per his calculations, United States can achieve (1317/5424)*100 ~= 24% reduction in emissions by using CCS alone. This is no mean achievement.24% reduction in emission by US amounts to (1317/30398)*100 ~ 4.5% reduction in global emission. This is also a large amount once it is considered that this reduction would be the contribution of United States alone, by only working with thermal power plants.Pro correctly points out the effect of CO2 increase on global temperature may not be linear. Some extremely approximate calculations are used to argue that by the time global temperature rise by 3.0 degrees Celsius, CCS would have reduced it by 0.1 degree Celsius. Pro ignores the fact that effect of temperature rise on our planet may be exponential. However we will ignore that for the moment.However even this is significant once we consider that this is the contribution of United States alone. Let us extend this calculation to rest of world.Globally, power generation accounts for 10 billion tonnes of carbon emission [9]. If we can save half of this through CCS, the savings will be of 5 billion tonnes. Adapting my opponent’s calculations:Percentage saving in emission = (5 / 30)*100 ~ 16.7%Over an unspecified period, instead of doubling carbon rises by 1.83Increase in temperature ~ 3*log(1.83)/log(2) ~ 2.6 degree celcius.The savings are indeed significant.Cost makes CCS impractical: As per study presented by my opponent:...carbon dioxide capture increases the busbar electricity cost (COE) from 5.0 to 6.7 ¢/kWh at IGCC plants, from 4.4 to 7.7 ¢/kWh at PC plants, and, finally, from 3.3 to 4.9 ¢/kWh at NGCC plants.There are two factors to be considered. This is the extra cost based on current technology. A major factor which is contributing to cost is that this technology is relatively new. As per CURC the cost of energy production using CCS is likely to level off with conventional production by 2025. The cost of. CCS internalizes the cost of pollution. If the cost of removing CO2 from atmosphere is factored into cost of conventional production, CCS will turn out to extremely inexpensive. CCS does not come free. However considering the benefits offered by this technology, CCS offers value for money.Pro uses weird and old argument that 'China' would never do it. Let us get thing straight. We are talking about global warming. Major global players will have to work together on this issue. If United States and China, both use 'they won’t do it' excuse to wriggle out of any action, no efforts to mitigate effect of global warming are going to succeed. Pro should not be allowed to use such arguments in this debate.3. Nuclear, Adaptation, and Climate Engineering are Better Alternatives: Pro throws in major red herrings into the debate.There is no doubt that nuclear power is a good option. However there are some major problems with using nuclear power to replace fossil fuels.I accept that nuclear power poses very little risk if proper safety precautions are taken from design stage itself. However the human and economic cost of accidents is disproportionately high. If the cost of accident relief is internalized into production cost, nuclear may not remain a very feasible option. If Pro is urging for world-wide adoption of nuclear power, nuclear technology will have to be given to large number of countries. This could be problematic. In case of world-wide adoption it is possible that the safety standards will go down, increasing the risk of accident. After the Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan, there has been huge political opposition to nuclear power. This makes widespread adoption unfeasible. If Pro is arguing for adoption of nuclear power by United States only, his own calculations can be used to show that the impact on global scale would be negligible. Pro mentions adaptation, however he fails to explain what he means by it. He mentions research into climate engineering. While I do support further research; as an old parable goes, 'a bird in hand, is worth two in bush'. Pro offers no evidence that any solution which may be offered by climate engineering is likely to be less expensive.If the only alternative which Pro can offer is nuclear, that makes my case for world-wide adoption of CCS stronger. We can always adopt both nuclear and CCS options to reduce emissions.== References ==[1] http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://sequestration.mit.edu...[4] http://www.ipcc.ch...[5] http://www.iea.org...[6] http://unfccc.int...[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://www.coal.org...[9] http://www.sciencedaily.com...

we should stop using fossil fuelw because its rly bad for the environment we are taught at school to stop this so we should stop itt!

corny get real I refer wind eaters as in the human body the wind turbines turn the wind into energy. Now to sum up my arguments. Firstly they are useful and efficient for the world and secondly they are Eco friendly. Thank for listening and I hope I have convinced you that Wind turbines are a good source of energy. There is the AIR of defeat.

CHERYNOBL . I Cherynobl was really no ones fault. It is just an example of lack of knowledge and why humans should not be allowed to have that kind of power. ECO-FRIENDLY . I Natural gas might be bad for the enviorment but nuclear energy plants have multiple examples of causing medical problems and harming the people. "With an eye to the first anniversary of the tsunami that killed 20,000 people and caused a partial meltdown at the Fukushima power plant in Japan, a recently formed nongovernmental organization called Rebuild Japan released a report earlier this week on the nuclear incident to alarming media coverage. "- Slate. com's Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger Source: . http://tinyurl.com... This shows how even in Japan, a very advanced first world country was nearly wiped off the face of the earth because of nuclear power plants. Japan now plans to rid of them in 40 years. Source: . http://en.wikipedia.org... CONCLUSION Why my opponent makes some good points, he simply does not have a good argument against the massive risks.

Hello debate. com. Oops, I mean debate. org. I negate the resolution that the federal government should mandate that by 2040, all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the US must run on alternative fuels. I have three reasons: 1) Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. 2) Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? 3) Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then.

I guess Pro's busy, so I'll elaborate on a couple points, but won't put too much down, as I already have a significant amount for him to respond to. 1.) “...the facts about the coming catastrophe are so obvious. Just apply a little grade-school math and economic common sense: Our planet’s natural resources can reasonably support about 5 billion people. That’s a fact. Another: Today we have 7 billion. That’s a problem, 2 billion too many. We’re consuming commodities and natural resources at a rate of 1.5 Earths, according to estimates by the Global Footprint Network of scientists and economists.” This was from Pro's cited Marketwatch.com article. The author here is citing Global Footprint Network's conclusions that Pro also cited. It is reasonable to assume that if we are using 1.5 Earths worth of resources, we have a serious problem. So let's take a look at some analysis by someone who's DAY job it is to dig into the numbers that are so central to Pro and his supporters' claims. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 2.) “The fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and thus limited is an established fact that is not the focus of this debate. It is therefore reasonable to state that the present consumption of hydrocarbons is unsustainable because it is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted. The same logic would apply to other finite resources.” No, it's not the focus of the debate. But if you cite an article to back that up (as you did) that has no citations or hard scientific data, just a statement of conventionally held ideas, and I cite a published paper with many citations to the contrary, http://www.csun.edu... I suggest one should draw back from the claim of factuality until more research is done, and a more scientifically transparent source is presented. I do not claim this paper establishes fact as I have not yet made time to study his claims and figures thoroughly, I am just saying that my source's claim calls yours into question, and seems to do a better job at presenting the argument, and actually cites research.