Instigator / Con
14
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2840

Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
0
Better legibility
2
0
Better conduct
2
0

After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...

fauxlaw
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
15,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
0
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description

Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels

Description:

Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels. That is, by use of petroleum, natural gas, and/or coal.

Con BoP will be to argue against the Resolution. I am Con.

Pro’s BoP will be to argue for the Resolution. My opponent is Pro.

Definitions:

Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements, plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant. Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration. Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.

Caused: past and present sense of the intransitive verb, to cause, which is to be the cause of; to effect, bring about, produce, induce, make. [OED]

Use [n]: Senses relating to utilization, employment, application. [OED]

Human: All members of the genus, Homo sapiens.

Fossil fuels: Energy sources, to wit, petroleum products, natural gas, coal extracted for use by all current means by humans.

Debate protocol

Three-round debate.

R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense

R3: No new argument; rebuttal, defense, conclusion

All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.

No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.

No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.

Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.

Note: this debate was inspired by an argument in another debate regarding nuclear vs. fossil fuels.

-->
@ILikePie5

Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.

-->
@fauxlaw

Easiest vote of my life

-->
@ILikePie5

thank you for voting

-->
@Barney

Thank you for voting

-->
@Barney

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw

Not going to honor your word then. Ragnar will not enforce it. Alas, I will just have to crush you. Keep acting like a deadbeat. It's working out well for you.

-->
@Death23

Wasting time, again? Why do you keep hassling me? This is still obviously an active debate. You want a definition, ask Ragnar. Meanwhile, time's ticking...

-->
@fauxlaw

Please honor your offer for debate deletion by giving consent to the moderator. He apparently requires something called "positive consent" (I don't know what that is)

-->
@Death23
@fauxlaw

As there is most clearly not positive consent from both sides for the debate to be removed, nor extenuating circumstances, the debate shall be left in place.

-->
@Barney

I don't really want to delete the debate. As I said, I have arguments through 3 rounds already written, just needing to add rebuttals as needed, so I'd prefer to not have to consider that effort wasted.

-->
@Barney

He consented to it 6 days ago and again yesterday in post 18. You've mentioned wishes twice, but people don't control what they want. That's a feeling. People control what they say and what they do. If you make a decision based on what someone wants, then what you're really doing is deciding based on something that isn't within the control of the debaters.

-->
@Death23

> Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.

Again:

"I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.

This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago."

Your choice to delay things by so many days, has caused a situation in which both sides no longer consent to the debate being deleted. Deleting a debate against the wishes of one side largely because the other forgot about a debate and then forfeited, would be a massive expansion of moderation powers. Therefore, I've posted it in moderation chat for others to review.

From the extended policies, here are the current rulings on when a debate may be deleted:

"Subsection B1: Content Deletion

I. Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
II. Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
a. Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
b. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
c. Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
d. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
e. Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
f. Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"

-->
@Barney

Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.

-->
@fauxlaw

It is the objective intentions of the parties that are binding. It is obvious from the debate description that we did not intend to debate a situation where no air pollution exists. Mutual intentions trump unintended absurdities. Yet, what I foresaw was getting bogged down in a protracted debate over that principle. That's what I didn't want to do. If you really wanted to continue with the debate as it was, then you shouldn't have offered to cancel it. I wanted to debate it with a reformed definition. I waited to see if you would change your mind or I could find a different way to avoid the issue. Neither of those things happened. Then I kindof forgot about the debate and at some point I saw the 1 hour left notification. That's what prompted me to act.

Nothing to talk about, except that somebody accepted a debate after a concessional change was made at somebody's request, and then that somebody decided to let their argument go forfeit, complaining that there were no arguments available to present, after all, when acceptance assumes one has already done some research to determine arguments. The result may be called something else...

-->
@Barney

A stale dated check is still good. There's no stop payment. The guy says pay it. Nothing to talk about really.

I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.

This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago.

-->
@fauxlaw

I didn't see the problem until I began crafting my arguments and researching the concentration levels of the various gases.

-->
@Death23

Why did you accept the debate? Why?

Go ahead, challenge your watered-down debate. I will not engage it. Never again on any subject. You waste my time.

-->
@fauxlaw

I have offered to debate this issue if the 0.1% threshhold within the air pollution definition was resolved, either by the creation of a new debate or by stipulation within the existing one. The gases in question do not exceed 0.1% and therefore are not pollutants under the definition in the debate description. The concentration is not even half that. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition ) It's as though air pollution does not exist under the definition, and I don't think either of intended to debate that. I proposed pre-industrial revolution concentration levels for the various gases as a revised concentration level, but you rejected this for reasons I do not understand. If you wish to debate this with a sensible threshhold for the concentration levels, I am open to that.

-->
@Barney
@Death23

Meanwhile, waiting on you to make a bloody decision, having already accepted the debate as is, after already making a concessionary change to the Resolution on your request, I am devoting time to research and compose arguments. I'm already prepared with R3 arguments and some anticipated rebuttals while you're futzing around with bloody complaints that you can't make arguments, after all. Well too bloody bad, my friend. You accepted the debate. That means you should have already done some research to see if you could meet the challenge as given and accepted by you. Do the bloody work, damn it. I have. You're wasting my time, and it happens to be valuable to me.

Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate. I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of being jerked around. I'm tired encounters with people who seem too lazy to do the work. I will not debate this whiner again. What a goddam bloody time-waster.

-->
@fauxlaw

There was valid offer and acceptance for debate cancellation. Your offer was good unless you rescinded it, which you did not. Elapsed time or forfeits are not relevant.

-->
@Barney

Delete the debate.

-->
@Death23

First, you accept a debate. Then you want to back out. Then you're given a proposal with five days to respond, which you ignore until 30 minutes before clocking out, and at that, Forfeit R1. Come on, dude. Go whine to DebateArt. Again.

-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw

"I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered" - You said you would do something and I relied on that representation. Now you want to back out. Come on dude.

-->
@Barney
@Death23

As I have stated numerous times in several debate comments, once a debate has been accepted, I prefer to ignore comments. My focus is on the debate. Death23 has had five days to respond to Ragnar's various proposals with a choice, and did not until, apparently 30 minutes shy of clocking out. I do not typically look at comments once a debate is accepted. I look at the clock on the debate page and I respond to it when it has expired. When Death23's clock ran out, I noted the forfeit in my R1 argument and posted it.
Death23 accepted the debate, then raised his truism argument. Too late, gentlemen. If that is the belief, the debate should not have been accepted. It was accepted. I proceed accordingly.
In my opinion, the debate is enjoined. May we deal with it, please?

Or, I suppose one can appeal to DebateArt. Again.

-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw

Please cancel debate. The definition for air pollution provides that GHG's are only considered pollutants when their collective concentration exceeds 0.1%. (presumably not counting water vapor) The concentrations have not exceeded 0.1% and aren't projected to for a long time. It makes building a case in good faith overly complicated. I would like to continue this debate with a reformed definition.

-->
@Barney

I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered, or to continue the debate as is, that is agreeable to Death23

-->
@Death23
@fauxlaw

We can't reset the clock (I wish), but if you both desire that link be added to the description (pretty sure I'm seeing that definition already included), that is a change we can make. Similarly, if you both wish this debate can be canceled (even if making another) that is something we can do.

-->
@Death23

However, I note, to my dismay, that references which were intended to be included with the description did not copy into the Description field of the proposal as intended and I only now notice the absence. Here is the full definition of "Air pollution" with the references included. I will inquire with mods to either reset your clock for the first round to the full week [7 days], or, failing that, cancel the debate and restart a new one. Don't know how they'll respond or if they can do a re-set, etc. Mods, if you read this, I'm inquiring to Ragnar.

Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level] [1], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements,[2] plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere.[3] Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant.[4] Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration.[5] Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.

[1] https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid
[4] ibid

I made no attempt to force anyone's acceptance of the debate. It was merely offered, as are all others, some of which die on the vine unaccepted. As accepted, now is not the time to take issue, is it?

Caused? I think since the world is first formed the air is dirty. Humans just added to that, that's all.

I've corrected the Description to agree with the topic/Resolution.

The debate resolution being false is a truism because a single example of a naturally occurring greenhouse gas (e.g. an animal exhaling CO2 from cellular respiration) will show the resolution to be easily false using the rules of the debate description, which clarify that the debate resolution is referring to "all" air pollution. ("Definitions: Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth [...] counted as pollutants, are GHGs [...] some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2]")

"Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels Description: All air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels."

Generic generalizations are problematic in debates.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/

-->
@Undefeatable

Good observation, since trickery is not what it's about. Keep laughing, but not out loud. That's just a frightened little girl.

-->
@fauxlaw

you ain't tricking anyone here XD

Yeah it's definitely not all