On balance, the concerns with Global Warming are exaggerated
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Rules:
1. One forfeit is a concession.
2. BOP is shared.
I vote Con, here's why:
1. I buy that the cause of global warming is an irrelevant question.
2. I buy that plants are a carbon sink and absorb more than they produce.
3. I buy that human activity is the major cause of carbon production.
4. I buy that the current path of global warming solutions is inexpensive and we would have to create alternative energy regardless of global warming.
5. I buy that the melting of glaciers is real and creates multiple feedback loops that cause displacement of people through rising sea levels. There is no risk of a cooling event because water vapor makes the issue worse.
6. I buy that the rapid acceleration of the climate from man-made carbon is a unique issue compared to previous global warming.
7. I buy that previous catastrophe is irrelevant as it is tectonic.
8. I buy that rapid environmental change is bad and that sharks and roaches prove you don't need change at all.
9. I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, however, this doesn't impact the question of climate change.
In conclusion, humans are producing carbon that is causing the plant to warm. This melts glaciers and causes all the bad things. Even if I buy that CO2 makes the planet greener, this doesn't answer glacier melting or alternative sources of greenhouse gases (water vapor, methane, etc.) Argumentation about alternative sources of energy and the issues that come from solutions to climate change are answered by Con sufficiently when they say that it is inevitable and not unique to climate change. Anyways, the conversation is about if climate change is over exaggerated, and I don't know how I weigh those in the question anyways.
Notes for Pro
1. Answer the glacier argument. Gives them the debate.
2. I saw this debate once today as it is, how do you not know that the politics thing is an irrelevant question?
3. Care about the debate. Maybe reading that you seem to not be trying three times will make you take on less debates and engage in more good-faith debates.
Notes for Con
1. Answer the greener argument, you didn't answer this.
2. Con asked the question why the planet isn't 3x hotter because of CO2, but since it was a question and I don't know if he was saying that disproves the science or what, I didn't weigh it. You still should handle this.
3. You won that the cause of global warming is irrelevant, why didn't you do a bunch of work on methane or something? Very easy ballot that way.
If yall have any questions or comments, feel free to reach out!
RFD:
https://youtu.be/HUuJa4co5gA
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1imTJlGfcMDFN2ZkHs29uSrvsNrkXmxUYcepJCCsIQT8/edit?usp=sharing
I will try my best, and thank you!
Thank you! I likely would have. Perhaps not because the main points you lost were related to arguments you didn't address. It would really depend on how you chose to argue.
Out of curiosity, would you have awarded more arguments to me if the BoP had been on Pro? Trying to calibrate how effective my usual strategy is, largely rebuttals.
Thank you for the vote. It was very insightful to see how you evaluate arguments. Not sure how those two links got broken, but I can try to find the sources again if you are curious.
Voted, my RFD is being processed on YouTube
Voting is open.
Remind me to vote on this one. I am debating on voting on it.
Following this to eventually be a judge
Exaggerated? Compared to what? Without a comparison, I cannot be sure that anyone will or will not pull an almighty trigger.
I got donowalled?
Whose concerns? The average citizen vs politician vs climate scientist all have very different views, which are often more influenced by political affiliations than any "current evidence" as you put it.
I will almost definitely accept if you clarify this, barring some nebulous category like "anyone who believes in climate change."
The resolution needs a lot of clarification IMO. What part of it is misunderstood? Misunderstood by whom?