Ooh, this topic came up. Looking forward to seeing how you both handle it.
It's not a topic I know a lot about, either, so I'll be starting my research from scratch on this one. This is the side I would pick, but it's also my 5th Ultrarated round in a row as Pro. Would've preferred to roll devil's advocate on this one.
I'll give it a look.
Well, the formatting got changed, but it's fine.
Yep, it's happened before. I only learned my lesson when it comes to debate rounds, apparently.
*sigh* well, I just filled out a full vote and tried to submit it only to be told that I need to be logged in to do that, and of course I didn't save it so now it's gone. FML. I'll write it up again later...
Alright, got this assigned to me. Going to work through reading this tomorrow, get a vote up within the 3 days.
Alright. I’ll keep an eye on it, going to be busy tomorrow and Sunday, so I might just check Sunday night/Monday morning.
Understood. I'll still read the debate regardless.
I'll keep an eye on it.
Hmmm... I tried applying to vote on this one and it appears someone's already assigned to it. Would you guys still want a vote from me (posted here in the comments) regardless? Might not be able to get to it until next week, but I'd still be happy to read through this and post a vote if desired.
Thank you for voting! I said it to Savant earlier, but I do think this debate could have swung either way and I appreciate all the feedback.
Oops, quite right.
I'm just impressed with the extent of your due diligence here. Really appreciate your taking the time!
Haven't had the time to dig back into this over the last few days. I'll be getting into it next week.
Damn that's a big vote. You clearly did a mess of work going through this debate. I appreciate your voting!
The time scale is the main question, not so much whether what’s mentioned as effects of climate change could happen. It’s hard to predict when it will happen, though, so I get your point.
I’ll keep it simple:
Global warming? Happening and a growing problem.
Cutting emissions? Necessary, but almost certainly insufficient at this point.
Geoengineering? Probably necessary, but has to be carefully managed, tested, and controlled. Full speed ahead causes way more problems than it solves.
At last, I'm assigned to vote on this debate. Going to have to read back through the whole thing, but I'll get a vote up on this one in the next couple of days.
I'll be voting here next, guys. Hopefully have something up tomorrow.
I'm voting on this debate next. Should have something up tomorrow.
Now that the game of Mafia's over, I've got the time. I'll be working on catching up on the Ultrarated debates over the next few days.
Only skimmed it so far, but I appreciate the vote! Probably won’t agree on all of it, but it’s clear you did the work going through it.
News to me. Something to consider for future changes.
It's a bit complicated.
Go to your account. You'll see a bar up top that, on the far right, says "Badges", click that. It'll bring you to a page with a button that says "Find a Debate to Judge". It will randomly assign you as a judge to one of the Ultrarated debates that still needs a vote. If it's not this one, just go back to this page and try again. You are not required to vote on every debate you are assigned to, there is no penalty for letting the 3 day period run out.
I'll work on it.
That wasn’t my impression when I read your opening. You clearly did your research here, but there’s always more to do.
I'll work on this in earnest after I've posted this next round.
>Reported Vote: Kohai // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/vote-rubric
>Voted for: pro
>Reason for Decision: doesnt-vote-basis-arguments
>Reason for Mod Action:
Generally speaking, if your RFD requires delving into the comments, it's going to be a little problematic. Decisions have to be based on points made within the debate and not drawn from material posted outside of it. I also think you need to at least talk about arguments presented by both sides, even if it's just to point out how they're insufficient to affirm/negate.
---Kohai's former vote---
Voted for: pro
This is unfortuantely a trap debate with no way for con to actually win. The burden of proof is for con to prove to pro that cigarettes are not their best friend. In the comment section, they stated "thats okay, I read your argument. I am not convinced." Which means that pro automatically wins. Essentially no matter how good con's arguments are they would always lose because pro would simply say they were not convinced.
