From For to For, almost entirely because I was thinking exactly like what Bjorn described in the Q&A at the end: this was a problem with how the motion was phrased. It couldn't been something like "more resources should be expended on climate adaptation than mitigation".. since that is essentially how John Donvan put it right in the beginning anyway. But that confusion meant that the debaters spent a lot of time talking past each other and in the end I was still faced with which question to answer. I stuck with the motion as written. As to whether I think we should put more resources into mitigation or adaptation... I dunno. If that had been the motion I would've started undecided. Having not quite heard a debate on that, I still would have to answer undecided. Definitely an interesting distinction I hadn't ever considered before though. I thought that each debater had a couple points that they made really well that either made me go "yeah! that!" because it articulating something I was thinking so well, or made me go "huh... yeah, I hadn't considered that". Some of the jokes they made in their banter also made me laugh out loud (e.g., some things going on here in Richmond we're not privy to... ; I get asked these questions about nuclear energy every time I cross the border too.

Question should have been : Can humans adapt to climate changes at our current standards of living (or higher) We can go back to caves or tiny communities if our population is decimated, but is that what we want?

This was a pretty disappointing debate and it was set up to do so from the start with the premise. Can humans adapt, well yes of course they can and everyone agrees that they can. But how far can we adapt and at what cost. It needs to have a clearer distinction between the sides. Like, adaptability alone is enough and we should not look at any mitigation. Then you have a clear disagreement to debate. I think both parties believe in some level of mitigation and adaptation, as such we have a false dilemma.

Thankfully the debate moved quickly off the literal interpretation of "can" and towards the ethical and economic question of "should" we adapt to (or fight to suppress) climate change? Then we blew past a gas tax proposal which is the whole topic in microcosm: yes we should have a gas tax, simply to incorporate all the socialized costs of fossil fuels. I feel like I saw (and should have expected) a disingenuous pitch from the affirmative and boy did we get it! ...so I changed my vote out of fury at Bjorn's attempt to bamboozle.

The topic question was muddled. The only answer is yes which actually captures 'adaptation' and 'mitigation' as the grey between these two was touched upon by the debaters because to answer no is to say that humans will neither adapt nor successfully mitigate warming. The details were never brought into focus as to for example what are mitigation steps. We know that in the real world what's on the table and that's the Green New Deal which seems mostly an attack on capitalism and less on dealing with GW, and the implementation of which would not be a modest difference in GDP accumulation over the coming century but a disastrous negative impact on both existing and potential future living standards. Promoting global capitalism is the solution not the problem. However, there is another issue that wasn't touched upon, a deeply embedded and flawed assumption throughout the topic and discussion and that is that humans can control climate by manipulating the CO2 level. This ignores other causal factors such as Precession (the direction the Earth's axis points rotates over time), Axial Tilt (changes from the current 23.5 degrees over time), Eccentricity (how circular vs elliptical Earth's orbit is), Sun cycles, and other unpredictables such as volcanic eruptions. The idea that humans can determine climate changes by manipulating CO2 is probably delusional and certainly unproven.

Mitigation is a form of adaptation. This debate has been more of an exercise in illustrating the problem of why there is no political will to do either. Both sides are arguing about what to do and not doing anything. Yes this is going to hit people in the poorer countries first so do something even if it does not work well, it will be something. Yes the structures that brought this about need to change. (They need to accept blame). Since they are unwilling to change because of their bottom line change the laws that govern their bottom line. Also if that does not work band together buy enough stock to get on the board and make them change. Please somebody out there start a fund that buys enough stock in the worst polluters to get on the board and change them from within. The question is not can we but will we in time to not loose 80% of the world's population of humans.

With all due respects, I'm not sure the question was appropriate. Both sides could have easily argued in the affirmative. Mitigation doesn't preclude adaptation and adaptation doesn't preclude mitigation.

Brian Pride... Obviously I can't speak for Michelle, but I suspect she's referring to horizontal travel of 40 feet, not vertical change of 40 feet. Depending upon the slope of the beach area, a 40 foot change horizontally could occur with a 2 inch change in depth.

I've nearly finished listening to the debate, but when a debater (Michelle Wucker) state that Lake Michigan has risen 40 feet I immediately discount the rest of her arguments. While Lake Michigan does fluctuate it has risen to approximately 11 feet above its long term average recently and it has also had near historic lows recently. I live in Michigan and go to Lake Michigan at least once per year, I started looking up data as soon as I heard this point made because personal experience and now the data found online say it is false, or at least greatly exaggerated. If you're not truthful, or greatly exaggerate, with things that can be easily checked then I have to throw my vote to your opponent. This is generally why I'm skeptical of alarmists.

I'm a strong believer of mitigatión, the governments of the world must take firm action against pollutters, stablishing harsher penalties for the infractors of mitigation efforts(pardon my grammar)

We can cut emissions and adapt to the environment. We have been adapting for thousands of years.

Having said that, it is important to adapt no matter how the environment changes.

Looking at the main points, nothing in the "against" actually says we can't adapt.