COP27 agreed to a Loss and Damage fund; COP30 added pledges but no enforcement. Pacific Island nations built legal cases via attribution science — the US and EU refuse to call any payment 'reparations.' Two debaters, opposing sides — you score who makes the stronger case.
Friday, October 23, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
What's at stake
Accept the liability framework and Loss and Damage becomes a binding obligation shaping global cooperation. Reject it and developing nations bear costs they didn't cause alone.
Starting positions
These are starting points for the question. Bring your own reasoning, qualifications and perspective.
Contribute now
Record a 60-second take or write an argument. Your contribution can stand on its own, and the discussion stays open.
Start here
A 60-second video or a written argument. You do not need an opponent to get started.
Share only material you have permission to make public.
Optional
Choose whether to be paired. An exchange starts only after both people accept.
Pairing is not available on this page yet. You can still contribute or respond to a public take.
At a set time
Live attendance is separate from your contribution. Check the showcase details for any scheduled session.
Check showcase details“The 'common but differentiated responsibilities' principle in the UNFCCC already acknowledges that wealthy, high-emitting nations bear special obligations. Loss and Damage financing is the logical extension of a principle all parties have already accepted. The question is not whether rich nations owe something but whether the amounts pledged match the scale of harm.”
“Aid framed as charity can be reduced or eliminated by any new government. Legal reparations create binding obligations that survive elections, giving vulnerable nations the financial certainty needed to plan multi-decade adaptation investments in seawalls, drought-resistant agriculture, and early-warning systems.”
“The most effective form of climate justice is rapid decarbonization and clean energy technology transfer, not wealth redistribution. Every dollar and political unit of energy spent on reparations litigation is a dollar not spent on the solar panels, grid investments, and climate-resilient infrastructure that actually stop the damage.”
“The emissions that caused current warming were largely produced before climate science established their harm. Standard tort law requires that defendants knew or should have known their actions were harmful — a standard that is difficult to meet for emissions produced before the IPCC existed. Moral culpability follows knowledge, not just causation.”
The Format
Standard SuperDebate: two people, cross-examination, moderated from start to finish.
4 min · PRO · opening case
4 min · CON questions PRO
4 min · CON · opening case
4 min · PRO questions CON
3 min · PRO
3 min · CON
3 min · PRO · final case
3 min · CON · final case
— · You pick the winner
Don't miss it
The debate happens live with real-time audience voting. Get one email right before we go live, with the watch link.
Premieres
Friday, October 23, 2026 · 7:00 PM EDT
Open debate runs on the people who show up. Tell us how you want to be part of it.
Structured debates on the ideas that matter most. You score who makes the stronger case.