October 2012 Public Forum Debate/Discussion Thread

Resolved: Developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

This is for all you public forum debaters out there. Or for you people who just love debating. This thread is for discussion about this topic as well as help with cases or just practicing for a debate tournament.

I am currently working on my case, I will post it as soon as I finish my rough draft thingy.

MY OPINION ON THIS TOPIC:
Well, all I can say is that this topic seems a little out of place. Traditionally, the National Forensics League will select a topic related to a current event of some sort. For example, The "Stand Your Ground Law" topic right after the Trayvan Martin shooting or the "Assault Weapons Ban" topic right after the Aurora,CO shootings. This topic is not really based of any major events that have happened recently. This is more of a "long-term effects" topic. I personally despise these types of topics for two main reasons. The first being that most of the debate is not in the Status Quo and is debating over assumptions. The second being that there are only a limited number of contentions that people can have. This means that your Aff/Pro case is probably similar to theirs. This can be an advantage as well as a disadvantage. Either way I will be creating my case to the best of my abilities and will be debating at two tournaments with this topic.


What is mitigation, and why should we mitigate?
Strategies for responding to the prospect of climate change are generally grouped into two broad categories: “mitigation” and “adaptation.” Generally speaking, “mitigation” refers to efforts to prevent the climate from changing (or to limit the extent of change), whereas “adaptation” refers to efforts to respond to a changed climate. So, for example, efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby to limit the extent of global temperature rise, are paradigmatic cases of mitigation. By contrast, building barriers around cities to prevent flooding in the event of sea level rise, or investing in different agricultural technologies in light of changes in regional temperatures, represent “adaptation” to a changed climate.

Mitigation and adaptation strategies are generally not mutually exclusive. So, for instance, nations could both attempt to limit the extent of climate change (mitigation) and make preparations to cope with this more limited change (adaptation). Realistically, because the relevant science suggests both that the climate is already changing, and that the world’s emissions patterns “lock us in” to some further climate change no matter what our future mitigation efforts, some adaptation will inevitably be part of any climate policy. The relevant question posed by the resolution, then, is not necessarily whether mitigation should be pursued to the exclusion of adaptation, but whether developed countries have an obligation to mitigate as well as to pursue some adaptation policy. The pro team presumably must argue that some mitigation is obligatory, while the con team could win by arguing that an adaptation-only strategy is sufficient.

Please start the discussion
(Note: Please do not treat this as an attack thread. An attack thread is where you go back and forth with those who agree and those who don't agree. In this thread you must back up your attacks. You must also post evidence for factual claims. Lastly, you must provide a "case" stating why you support or do not support the resolution, rather than just purely attacking others attacks, then they attack your attacks, etc.