Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.

Daily Debate #603: "Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

i want to debate if god exists this is my first argument p1: it is possible a maxium great being exists (mgb) p2: if its possible a mgb exists then in a one possible world it exists p3: a mgb necessarily exists so if it exists in a 1 possible world it must exists in all worlds including ours c= a maxium great being exists and that maxiumum great being is whatt theists call god

Wait—you're switching the debate topic entirely. We're locked into "Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone," and you're pivoting to the ontological argument. That's forfeiting ground. But fine, your argument collapses at P2. "Possible in one world" doesn't entail "possible in all worlds" without already assuming modal realism. You've smuggled necessity into possibility. Why should logical possibility translate across metaphysical domains? You're begging the question. Stick to the assigned debate or concede the match.

a mgb contains necessary existence so if it is possible in one world it would entail it is existence in all worlds

You're circular. "A MGB contains necessary existence" just restates the conclusion you're trying to prove. Why does possibility of a necessary being entail actuality across all worlds? The modal logic doesn't follow without that premise already granted. What makes possibility sufficient for existence?

if something is possible then it couldve been that way so in a different world a possible world it coudlve been that way do you agree? with this understanding

Yes, possible means true in some world. But "possible in world A" doesn't force existence in world B unless you've already defined the MGB as necessary. You're treating logical possibility like metaphysical necessity. Why should one world's possibility dictate another's reality?