The actual risks of Global Warming are overestimated
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 10 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
The actual risks of Global Warming have been exaggerated and dramatized by politicians and environmentalists.
RfD in comments
Good round. I vote Con for everything besides conduct, here's why:
1. I buy that the debate is about all warming, not just man-made.
2. I buy that CO2 creates global warming because of how it absorbs and reflects infrared light and historical links.
3. I buy that plants don't exist or are heavily damaged post-warming.
4. I buy that all of carbon in icebergs makes this an urgent issue.
5. I buy that all one article of the scientists is an exaggeration.
6. I buy that claims about political action do not interrogate the risks/impacts of climate change.
7. I buy that natural disasters are getting much worse from warming.
8. I buy that glaciers haven't been melting at a constant rate and current trends of warming are making it uniquely worse except for the one glacier that Pro cites.
9. I buy that green energy is rational and that quality of life and transportation is completely destroyed post-warming.
10. I buy that costs do not interrogate the risks of warming.
11. I buy that the Permian Triassic extinction was solely from warming and killed 95% of the planet.
12. I buy that scientists being wrong about details doesn't mean they are wrong about concepts.
13. I buy that climate change is an impact magnifier and can cause anything, with plagues and food shortages being the example in the Con argumentation.
14. I buy ocean acidification is real and a negative feedback loop.
In conclusion, I have an easy place to vote that the debate could be about all warnings and the Permian Triassic warming killed 95% of the planet. Even if I don't buy that, I'll go over the other arguments just to give myself a reason to sit in this Starbucks a little longer. I buy that CO2 does cause warming, so it's real. With that, I buy there's no plants, worse and more natural disasters, and causes extinction through diseases and food shortages. I buy that ocean acidification is a negative feed back loop, as are glaciers, which exacerbate these issues. Pro only has two pieces of offense, the responses are dumb, which doesn't answer that green energy is good and that this doesn't interrogate the risks. The second is that this one article was wrong about some details and that's an exaggeration, but this isn't enough to overide all of Con's points and doesn't answer that details don't make the concept wrong.
I give the source and grammar point to Con because I was asked to before the last speech and Pro didn't contest it.
I don't grant the conduct point because Con said it was up to the judge, and while I don't think Con was rude, justly telling Pro that hard science fact statements are different than social sciences or hypothetical action debates and the forfeit was "bad conduct", however I just never vote on anything besides argumentation unless I'm told to. Giving me the choice lets me be lazy and push less buttons. (This is a joke, I have genuine reasons I don't vote on those, and I'm willing to defend them publicly if anyone cares to ask.)
Notes for Pro
1. Care about debates. Judging more of your debates and debating you myself has made me realize that you either don't care or you overwork yourself. Don't accept more than a couple debates at a time if you can't contribute to them, both for the debates sake, but for the usefulness of this site to foster debate.
2. You need to do more work connecting the political responses to warming as the exaggeration of warming. I don't get the connection and Con calls it out as non-existent.
3. You need to answer literally any of the arguments Con makes. I give them every argument but this one example of one journal that was an exaggeration, but Con has defense on that an offense with every other issue.
Notes for Con
1. On the conduct point, if you're going to make claims, then make bold claims. Truth comes out when we bash to extremes against one another, so go as hard for you should win as possible, and then let the judge sort that out.
2. I know that the political responses don't respond to the question of impacts, but you should still answer it. Electric cars, even if propaganda are good because X, Y, and Z.
3. There are a million impacts to climate change, so as a strategy to help get you a win in a debate where Pro gives a shit, start throwing out much smaller impacts and say that you proved a bunch of small impacts and Pro only disproved one big one. Some of these can include migration, solastalgia, animal extinctions/genocides (animals are beings that feel pain and deserve moral consideration), political lashout, etc.
Good round, if either side has questions or comments, feel free to message, question, or comment me!
Thanks for the vote. My only issue would be that the quantity of sources shouldn’t get the sources vote solely based off that. The quality of his sources were pretty low and didn’t have much correlation with his claim. Even if they were deeply cross referenced it still didn’t add much to the debate.
I’ve got no objections.
Also forgot to mention, if you have any questions or concerns about my vote, just DM or tag me. I'll try my best to fix them.
Thanks for the vote!
Arguments:
To start off, the burden of proof in this debate is clearly on PRO. Not only is he the instigator and the claimant, he is also making a claim that goes against the status quo (I.e., the common understanding the actual risks of global warming is accurate).
Let’s analyze it round by round.
R1: PRO starts off with an argument that CO2 is necessary. This argument is irrelevant, as the fact that some CO2 is necessary for life doesn’t negate that too much CO2 is bad for life.
His second argument is that the correlation between CO2 and global warming is unproven. Although usually a claim that something is unproven doesn’t need a source, in this case, because he is ignoring widespread scientific consensus that the link is proven, he needs some strong proof. PRO fails to provide this.
His third argument is that the effects of climate change have been exaggerated, and provides a link to prove this. This looks somewhat convincing, so I’ll see how CON responds to this.
His fourth argument is that the sea level catastrophe is fabricated. Again, I’ll see CON’s response.
His fifth argument is that the worries are causing more problems than they’re solving. This is irrelevant, as the societal net harms/benefits of taking action on climate change are outside the scope of this debate.
Now onto CON, who quickly makes short work of arguments one and two.
He then shows how CO2 (and global warming) is a serious enough threat that the risks are significant (and therefore not exaggerated), so he wins argument three.
He refutes argument four with a counter-source... some back-and-forth here, I’ll see how PRO responds.
Furthermore, he presents a very strong constructive case about the enormous risks of global warming if it is ignored.
R2: PRO switches gears and focuses on media perception. He completely drops his R1 args, so I’ll treat them as refuted by CON. He also dropped CON’s R1 args, so I’ll treat them as uncontested by PRO.
CON points out that PRO is straying from the resolution in terms of what risks he’s claiming are exaggerated. Also, that political grandstanding doesn’t change the environmental risks of global warming.
R3: PRO forfeits and CON extends.
R4: PRO waives (de facto) and CON doesn’t forfeit.
It started off pretty well, but losing 2 rounds of a 4 round debate, after dropping pretty much every single R1 argument, was too much. CON’s points on the risks of global warming went uncontested, while PRO’s points were refuted as irrelevant, poorly sourced, or simply false.
Sources:
Both sides did their due diligence with sources. Although PRO used more of them, he had a greater burden of proof, so it balances out.
S/G:
OK from both sides.
Conduct:
PRO forfeit, so it goes to CON.
Feedback:
To PRO:
Try to stick to the resolution, and focus more about specific, impactful examples of exaggerated risks. Keep your case simple – don’t gish gallop points that are very easily refuted. Also, don’t overstretch yourself – if you had a good R3 and R4, it wouldn’t have been too late to mount a comeback.
To CON:
You had some great points – try to keep them organized and clear. Also, when refuting your opponent’s points, try adding block quotes so it’s clear what you’re replying too.
Overall, good debate from both sides.
That was such a fun debate!
I'm re-posting this challenge.
Care to vote gentleman
You should read that britannica link. The thing that seems to have caused the Permian Triassic extinction at least in some part was heightened levels of co2
I don’t believe that humans are the driving force of the current climate change we are experiencing. We could discuss that, but to say the risks of global warming are over estimated is just incorrect.
No, there is no evidence to support the claim you are making right now.
Let’s go mate, let’s get your argument in today I just responded.
No biggie.
On the DO events I miss typed, I meant 15 degrees in 20 years or less not 25
I also forgot to address the point of ocean acidification. Feel free to bring that up in your next argument lol
Lmao this a fun topic. I just like having the discussion on this topic with people who have truly considered their stance on the issue.
Better go easy then, Heisenberg.
I just wanted to point out to you, that I am a chemistry and geoscience major. I understand this topic in very deep detail. Simple points that don’t carry much thought won’t stand up to the amount of research and time I’ve put into to studying the changing climate.
Not trying to sound cocky, I just want you to know that it would be nice if you could bring some really solidly researched and thought out opinions on this topic. It’ll make the debate more entertaining.