Instigator / Pro
6
1438
rating
6
debates
0.0%
won
Topic
#537

CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

Status
Finished

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

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

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Ramshutu
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1764
rating
43
debates
94.19%
won
Description

CO2 doesn't cause climate change.

-->
@oromagi

To ramshutu

You had entered the data in good faith that it was all about rising sea levels. If it was about droughts and wars, then the data is fraudulent.

“average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008”

After this there is a “Full stop”, or “Period”, which indicates the next sentence is separate from this one. It is not saying that earthquakes are climate related disasters. The second sentence is talking about big disasters in general, not solely climate related disasters.

-->
@oromagi

Still telling even more lies? lol

Quote round 4 Ref 9

In photos: Climate change, disasters and displacement
01 January 2015

Since 2009, an estimated one person every second has been displaced by a disaster, with an average of 22.5 million people displaced by climate- or weather-related events since 2008 (IDMC 2015). Disasters and slow onsets, such as droughts in Somalia in 2011 and 2012, floods in Pakistan between 2010 and 2012, and the earthquake in Nepal in 2015, can leave huge numbers of people traumatized without shelter, clean water and basic supplies.

The source didn’t say that.

-->
@oromagi

Environmentalist lying scum bags 1 - Humanity and truth - 0. lol

-->
@oromagi

I clearly proved that con had lied in round 4 by his quoting that "20 million people were displaced by rising seas". This claim was fraudulent because his own reference stated that the displacement was caused by land subsidence and not by rising seas. That proves that con doesn't read his own references and that con is just a bare faced liar. By voting for con, you have joined the scum bag parade of liars and of which includes Maurice Strong who spent his last days hiding in China trying to avoid accusations of embezzlement and fraud.

-->
@Barney

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

-->
@oromagi

*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: oromagi // Mod action: Not Removed

>Points Awarded: 5 points to con for arguments and sources

>Reason for Mod Action: The vote was found to be sufficient per the site voting policy standards.
************************************************************************

Hi Somebody- strange conversing with somebody who has blocked me. You didn't respond to my request for debate topic. Let me know when you're ready. You'll get no arg from me re: my logic which is often faulty- I am here to learn. My point regarding IPCC report was that whether the link was broken or not, anybody arguing climate change should be familiar with IPCC4 and how to find a copy. If we were arguing re: the nature of the holy trinity and I cited John 23- I'd expect you to find that cite, link or no link. Saying you can't find it suggests a lack of familiarity with the primary document- one third of the reason I docked you one point on sources. I agree that Round 5 was your best round. The problem was you started the debate suggesting a focus on CO2 and ended with a general critique on IPCC. I think everybody would have enjoyed an "IPCC is a Socialist tool" thesis better and if you had focused on that from the start I think you might have fared far better. Happy President's Day!

Click the link. Seriously. Just click the link. The link works. The link I placed in the sources works. Click on the link, it takes you to the IPCC climate change PDF.

Simply saying it doesn’t work when it does, is insanity.

-->
@oromagi

Pro couldn't find the data supplied by con because the link was FAULTY stupid. Read the debate with your eyes open next time. lol

-->
@oromagi

Note - Its your comment that is messy. The debate was well structured and logical. Whereas, your assessment of the debate was illogical, biased, confused, faulty and messy.

-->
@oromagi

I proved that con was a fraud in round 5. Thus, you can't vote for a fraud. Hint for people with low IQs - (He used false information as does the IPCC.)

-->
@Death23

Not a problem

-->
@David

TBH it was merely a test vote to see if I could vote

oops- I've been blocked by somebody but I'm sure he'll read this here:

sorry to vote against your terrible piffle, somebody. So your comment is what? outing me with the shit I wrote on my own profile last week? Your comment, like your debate, is fairly fuzzy regarding intent. Hey, tho- If you want to debate somebody I'm happy to oblige- maybe something with less fact & figures this time. I love conspiracy theories and if you think the IPCC is a commie plot I bet u got a million of em. do you have a favorite false flag op? Jade Helm? something like that? Hope so. and hey, man- Happy Valentine's Day.

-->
@oromagi

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy4mztkndHk

-->
@oromagi

Quote from your biography - "Likes dungeons and Dragons and play mafia". Thus you are an "F" wit. and you hate Trump. Thus, you are a left wing communist deviate and 'climate changer' and useless bludger on society. Your comment is just an irrational nonsense hysterical reaction to your fanatical and religious like beliefs.

-->
@oromagi

I thought that maybe what you meant, I appreciate you taking the time, and appreciate the feedback.

-->
@Ramshutu

I wouldn't worry about it, Ram. I'm not critiquing your style. I only meant that there wasn't much new here to interest somebody's who's read a few climate change debates. Given the circumstances, I don't think you had much a venue for new args or insights and having read a few of your forum posts I have no doubt of your capacity to deliver an interesting argument.

-->
@Somebody

That would be a shame. Not enough climate change skeptics on this site for my taste. I like to champion the IPCC myself and there aren't enough opponents.

-->
@oromagi

Thanks for taking your time to vote, I noticed that you said the walk through was dull, if you have any specific feedback on an area to improve there, I’d welcome (unless it was just a turn of phrase!)

-->
@Death23

Vote reported: Death23 // Mod action: removed
Votes: All points tied
RFD: 1234567890
Reason for mod removal: Tied votes without RFDs are removed. To award a tie on a debate that is neither FF nor when they agree on a tie, the voter still needs to evaluate the arguments at minimum.

-->
@Somebody

I beg to differ, it’s hilarious.

-->
@Ramshutu

Drop it, its not funny.

-->
@Barney

At least he isn’t using the word “dropped”.

Because that would be rude!

-->
@Barney

Yet still, even after quoting the exact words, you are still far, far away from reality. You have to prove that I said that CO2, quote "caused" clouds. Never stated. Only in your sick and demented juvenile mind.

Note: my previous reply was posted 43 seconds after the libel. I had not seen it. ... It is itself evidence of a YYW level mental failing (a user on another site, whom because I wouldn't trade votes with, he used this very tactic for awhile resulting in a restraining order). For obvious reasons, I shall not be interacting with him further.

-->
@Somebody

Interesting perspective, given your final sentence of R1: "...then this would be countered by cloud cover which would effectively cancel out this extra warming."

-->
@Ramshutu

Copy of an email sent from ramsutu to ragnar. (from Debategate scam.com)
"Hey rags, don't forgot to vote for me tomorrow. I have set up the same old scam of adding the word "dropped" at every possible occasion to give the false impression that I have won lots of free points. Just be sure to mention this so I can get an easy win as per our usual agreement." You'll get your usual reward later. I have to put some ointment on my lips first because last time I got a bit chafed"

-->
@Barney

Well, that escalated quickly!

I appreciate you taking the time to read the debate, and to vote.

-->
@Barney

Quote - "given that if CO2 caused nothing but clouds"

This was never stated in the debate which is evidence that you didn't even read the debate. Thus, you are a fraud and need to be expelled from all debating sites and put into a maximum security prison where you can't cause any further damage and harm to society.

-->
@Barney

I don't want to be lectured on debating rules by a rude little cretin and bias cheat.

-->
@Somebody

Since you insist you lack the skill the argue (your invented quotation can only be attributed to yourself), here's a lesson on the core concept you need to master before taking such a hard topic:

---Burden of Proof---
BoP is in simple terms the duty of each side in a debate, to present the minimal level of intellectual coherence necessary to be taken seriously. It is the most complex concept here, with agreement on its precise application rare... A basic way to look at it is as follows:

In each debate there are three sides, each with their own BoP.
*Pro has a duty to provide evidence in an attempt to prove the resolution.
*Con has a duty to attempt to disprove the resolution, be that by providing direct evidence against it, or (assuming pro is the instigator) refuting all the evidence provided by pro.
*Voters have duties both to show they read the debate, and they are not merely voting in favor of pre-existing bias.
This gives one tactic pro may use to attain BoP, but two con may use. Neither debater can win arguments without performing their duty. Should both fail, the argument cannot rise above the default position of a tie (often seen with duel Full Forfeits).

Of course the weight of BoP does vary, such as if the debate is centered on an absolute claim (all, must, none, etc) Pro has a much harder minimal standard to reach. Thus it's almost always better to say "____ probably exists," instead of "____ must exist."

In most cases the Latin maxim "onus probandi incumbet ei qui deceit, non ei qui negat" stands: the burden of proof rests on the one who gives an affirmative claim. This applies generally to deciding the chief burden of the debate, but also applies to individual arguments. If one gives a rebuttal, then one must prove the statements one is affirming in the rebuttal.

-->
@Death23

Thanks for sharing that video. I do wish this debate had been that entertaining.

-->
@Somebody

As a debater, it is your job to provide a convincing argument for judges/voters as to why your opponent is wrong, and your opponents points should be discounted.

If you provide no arguments as to why a point should be discounted, them this is your fault.

Whatever you think my reply should, or should not have been - it’s your duty as a debater to provide some form of valid, logical counter to it.

If you provide no argument at all, then regardless of your reasons, or motivations: you have failed to provide an rebuttal and the original argument must be considered unrefuted.

-->
@Barney

Quote "U donn hav da skiel toe argoo". lol Whoooa!!! What kind of retarded cretins inhabit this site anyway? I don't think I'll be debating here anymore.

-->
@Ramshutu

If I had said that a statement was rude, obnoxious or stupid. Then you would have just said that it was a personal opinion and thus, didn't carry any weight because you only value peer reviewed and other nonsense documents.

-->
@Somebody

In the context of formal debate - as this is - drop refers to the argument not being referenced, and no rebuttal to a point being common: it is an exceptionally common phrase used within the context of formal debate, rather than being some vulgar or uncultured term I am using to abuse you.

When someone drops an argument it means that one side has neglected to respond, and the original point must be considered unrefuted.

If you ignore an argument, and do not respond to it, in formal debate, it is very much considered that the person ignoring the point has given up contesting it. That’s what dropping an argument means.

If you felt a detailed scientific argument was rude, or obnoxious - then you should have argued this in the debate, rather than dropping almost every point raised with little or no further reference.

Voters ahould not need to read your mind to appreciate your arguments.

-->
@Ramshutu

To me, the term "dropped" its vulgar, uncultured, abrupt, insensitive, moronic, childish and immature. Thus, if the profile fits, then wear it.

Note - Just because somebody didn't mention a subject again doesn't necessarily mean that they have given up or lost that point to the other party. Thus, using the word "dropped" rudely assumes that the debater has given up on that point which would be a false or presumptuous conclusion.
In your case, I didn't mention it again because your reply was probably (a) obnoxious (b) childish (c) or stupid. Thus, I didn't see any further reason to repeat it again. When debating you deal with the supplied information as is and don't go looking for dirt that you can dig up on the suppliers credentials. All that matters is that the information is correct. The source is irrelevant. The peer review system is utter nonsense and corruption gone crazy as I have already proven in the forum section.

-->
@Somebody

Actually, “dropped” is a debate term that is used frequently to highlight when an opponent has ignored an argument or omitted a rebuttal. In general, debaters draw attention to this in order to highlight important omissions to the judges.

-->
@Ramshutu

The term "dropped" is a crude and rude terminology that only an immature and uncouth teenager would use. Thus, your poor use and abuse of language gives me an accurate personality profile. Not good!

-->
@Somebody

This was actually covered in round 5 (the crazy dousing guy with no credibility), and round 4 - where o pointed out the argument is a red herring.

Feel free to review the debate - where I went through and highlighted each individual point you dropped, I would do it again here, but I am limited by word count.

-->
@Ramshutu

No rebuttal of Nils-axel Morner's report Con? That's a shame!
No rebuttal of the wild 50 million people displacement scare tatics con? That's a shame too.
Oh, I forgot to mention the fraud that you committed when you defended the 50 million displaced people which you included 22.5 million people displaced by subduction, not seas level rising. Note - Fraud is a 10 year jail sentence in my country Con. See you in court Con. I have the evidence right here. lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgZfhnCAdI&t=3m05s

-->
@Ramshutu

Far south ocean cools kiss goodbye to polar amplication

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/12/far-southern-ocean-cools-kiss-goodbye-to-polar-amplication-around-antarctica/