Nuclear energy, carbon tax, plastic bans, and conservation. Explore all 35 motions with balanced arguments and counter-questions.
Debate whether high-capacity nuclear power is required to back up wind and solar or if radioactive waste and meltdown risks are too dangerous.
Assess whether making polluters pay for carbon emissions accelerates clean tech or imposes an unbearable cost on working families.
Debate whether outlawing disposable plastic packaging, cutlery, and bags stops marine devastation or causes supply chain chaos.
Debate whether outlawing luxury private aviation sends a necessary climate signal or infringes on executive mobility for negligible global emissions.
Debate whether forcing a 100% transition to zero-emission electric vehicles solves air pollution or breaks electric grids and rural drivers.
Debate whether ultra-fast fashion retailers (Shein, Temu, Zara) should be penalized for textile landfills, water pollution, and sweatshops.
Assess whether bottled water is an ecologically catastrophic corporate scam or an indispensable emergency necessity.
Debate whether reintroducing top carnivores restores ecosystem balance or threatens rural ranchers, livestock, and local communities.
Assess whether eliminating bus and subway fares accelerates decarbonization and social equity or bankrupts transit agencies.
Debate whether harvesting potato-sized mineral nodules from the abyssal ocean floor is cleaner than land mining or devastates fragile ocean biomes.
Debate whether ending oil and gas tax credits immediately forces clean energy adoption or triggers catastrophic spikes in consumer fuel prices.
Debate whether mandating living vegetation or solar panels on urban rooftops cools cities or makes housing construction unaffordable.
Assess whether taxing beef and bacon like tobacco reduces cancer and deforestation or penalizes the working-class dinner table.
Evaluates whether tobacco-style marketing bans on oil and gas corporations prevent climate greenwashing or violate corporate commercial speech rights.
Debates whether carbon border adjustments prevent domestic industrial outsourcing (carbon leakage) or ignite trade wars with developing nations.
Examines whether granting legal standing to ecosystems stops ecological degradation or clogs judicial systems with endless lawsuits by environmental proxies.
Debates whether outlawing two-stroke small engine yard tools significantly cuts toxic neighborhood pollution or imposes unfair equipment costs on small landscapers.
Evaluates whether removing river dams revives dying fish populations and indigenous treaty rights or sacrifices crucial zero-carbon baseload electricity.
Debates whether outlawing 5,000-passenger cruise liners protects coral reefs and historic cities from overtourism or damages local tourism-dependent economies.
Evaluates whether outlawing food scraps in trash bins cuts dangerous methane landfill emissions or creates costly, odorous urban sorting headaches.
Debates whether curbing chemical fertilizers stops massive ocean dead zones or triggers catastrophic global crop yield declines and food price spikes.
Examines whether carbon offset programs enable genuine forest conservation or function as fraudulent accounting gimmicks that excuse continued pollution.
Debates whether trophy hunting revenues fund vital African wildlife anti-poaching reserves or accelerate the slaughter of threatened keystone species.
Evaluates whether 15-minute city models build vibrant, walkable low-carbon communities or restrict personal freedom of movement through state surveillance.
Debates whether covering farmland with solar panels threatens long-term food security or provides vital income diversification for struggling farmers.
Evaluates whether outlawing ornamental turf saves billions of gallons of drinking water or infringes on homeowner property rights and recreation.
Debates whether congestion pricing clears gridlock and funds public transit or acts as an unfair regressive tax on suburban workers.
Examines whether logging ancient trees destroys irreplaceable carbon vaults and biodiversity or eliminates essential sustainable timber and rural forestry jobs.
Debates whether sonar surveys and pile driving for ocean wind turbines harm endangered whales or whether fossil fuel lobbying is exaggerating green energy impacts.
Evaluates whether expanding the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention to include climate-displaced people protects vulnerable populations or overwhelms asylum systems.
Debates whether outlawing routine gas flaring stops massive methane pollution and resource waste or forces oil wells to prematurely shut down.
Evaluates whether adding mass environmental destruction alongside war crimes and genocide deters corporate polluters or creates an unworkable legal framework.
Debates whether artificial grass sports fields save water and withstand heavy athletic use or leach toxic forever chemicals and microplastics into children and water supplies.
Evaluates whether banning single-use takeout boxes and cups ends massive packaging litter or creates unhygienic, expensive return logistics.
Debates whether atomic desalination provides drought-proof freshwater for growing populations or introduces unacceptable radiation and toxic brine risks.