The Instigator
124275
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Lexus
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Climate change is real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 956 times Debate No: 91630
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

124275

Pro

Climate change is real.
Debate Round No. 1
124275

Pro

On reason that I believe that climate change is real is the increase in global temperature and the shrinking of the Arctic ice. This is shown on this website : http://www.nasa.gov....
Lexus

Con

Nothing, not even our own minds, are real -- we are living in a simulation. I believe that RationalWiki does a good job of explaining the gist of the argument, since I can't explain it any more briefly with such small character amounts allotted:

  1. The ability to simulate: Although human-level minds we are currently familiar with are all implemented by biological brains, there is no reason in principle why a human-level mind might not be implemented by other means, such as a computer with artificial intelligence.
  2. How to simulate: One possible method for achieving this level of artificial intelligence, at least in principle, is to simulate the operation of the human brain on a computer so that it is indistinguishable from human intelligence (see Turing test). If the human mind is ultimately material, and there is no immaterial soul needed to explain the human mind, this assumption would seem to be correct.
  3. Simulation of people and environment: So, it should be possible, with enough computing power, to simulate many human-level minds (even billions of them), complete with a virtual reality environment for them to inhabit and interact with each other in. These simulated people need have no idea they are being simulated.
  4. Computational power: Although the level of computational power needed to achieve the above is far beyond our present capabilities, it is not inconceivable that one day (possibly centuries from now) we will achieve the necessary capabilities to do so
  5. Multiple simulations: If we had the power to create such simulations, it is likely we would use it, and use it extensively, creating many such simulations.
  6. More simulated entities than real entities: Hence, the number of simulations (millions or billions) will far exceed the number of actual non-simulated worlds (one only)
  7. Concluding that we are a simulation: Therefore, almost certainly, we are not actually in the real non-simulated world, but unbeknown to us in one of these simulations.
Debate Round No. 2
124275

Pro

I do not believe that I am a simulation but still believe in climate change.
Lexus

Con

Nothing exists, and as an extension of this fact, climate change cannot exist.
Debate Round No. 3
124275

Pro

If we are a simulation and are unreal, how am I conscious?
Lexus

Con

Clever programming leads you to believe so.
In any case, the case of the affirmative has been dropped and the negative is the only one with extensions pulling through this entire time, leading only the negative ballot to be justified in the end - nothing is real, climate change can't be real.
Debate Round No. 4
124275

Pro

Have you got any other arguments, or have you only got your silly theory?
Lexus

Con

Extend. World is not real. Nothing is real. We are simulations, including climate change.

Bless.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Lexus is right that the west is evil, though Islam is perhaps even more evil. Not as evil as the Jews, but close.

That was a sad display pro, I would have conceded we live in a simulation and still won.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
thanks tejretics, I understand your criticisms of my case. I accepted wanting to have enough space to actually criticise climate change but I had such limited space for it, it wasn't very possible for me.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
RFD:

I reluctantly vote Con on arguments because when the resolution is drafted so poorly, it sounds abusive - which means a kritik that even distracts so much from the topic is permissible. Con argues that the universe is a simulation, so nothing is real. She doesn't warrant it, but since Pro has the burden of proof, she merely criticizes the resolution itself, and challenges an assumption in Pro's argument. When the resolution is so criticized, I don't have any proof that anything - climate change included - is "real." Pro doesn't actually respond to the theory outside of generally being dismissive, and asking about consciousness, which Con counters with "clever programming." I'm lacking a lot of fundamental warrants, and I buy the kritik as relevant due to the abusive nature of the resolution (i.e. the topic is a truism), so I vote Con.

Regardless, I award Pro the conduct point because such a kritik deliberately distracts from the topic at hand, which could have been fairly interpreted (using debate theory to re-draft it into "man-made global warming exists and is a threat") and argued against with some actual negative ground. Instead, Con interprets the resolution literally, and criticizes the resolution itself while being non-responsive to more topical arguments. I find this to generally be a form of "noob sniping," generally distracting from the topic in order to win. It's permissible in this case, but still worthy of a conduct violation, in my view.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
This resolution is talking about man-made global warming - that is interpreted contextually. Under that interpretation, there is some ground for the Con side. On a topic "light is not matter," there is no non-kritikal ground whatsoever on the Con side.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
lol tejretics, you've done the same thing :p look through your old debates, you will see kritiks (kritik of 'matter' or 'light', and one of reality)
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
I wrote an RFD on this, and I would have voted Lexus, but I really don't want to vote because I view what Lexus did as unethical.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: BenD// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: As far as the arguments presented, climate change, by Con's argument, is as real as this ballot. Therefore arguments go Pro. Wiki should always loose the source point against anything but Huffington post.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than state that one side's argument is invalid - the RFD must include an assessment of that argument with points made in the debate. This appears to be mainly the voter's own views against Con's argument. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. The voter has to do more than just state that Wiki sources automatically lose to everything. It should be clear after comparing the sources of both sides that one had far better quality, and that has not been established.
************************************************************************
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
:* luv
Posted by 124275 1 year ago
124275
"I am Lexus, a fighter for recognition that the Islamic State is good and that the West is the worst evil to face the Earth." Lexus's description of herself.
Posted by Lexus 1 year ago
Lexus
it can't exist objectively is my point. to say that a dragon exists because it is on a minecraft game is misleading and false.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
124275LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
124275LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm loathe to reward slapdash Kritiks like this, but it's pretty clear how the argument Con makes works: if nothing is "real," then climate change is also not real. Con puts this in on balance terms: we are more likely to be in a simulation of some kind than not, and therefore the reality in which we exist is more likely a simulation than not. Pro's responses don't accomplish anything, simply expressing disbelief and asking questions that Con addresses satisfactorily. Pro's original argument doesn't matter unless he can establish that the data he's using is taken from the real world, and since we are more likely to be in a simulation, it's likely that said data came from the simulation. Hence, with no proof that anything is real and with far more reason to believe that everything is simulated, I'm forced to vote Con.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
124275LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not offer much of a case, a single source he believes but without any analysis thereof to tie it in; then when con offered any case at all against it, pro dropped the whole thing. Not that I care for con's case (we're just a simulation, so our perception of climate isn't real...), as it's irrelevant, but pro failed to offer anything at all against it (seriously, just pointing out we're programmed to believe the simulation, thus should proceed assuming it's reality... that would have done it), thus con wins.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
124275LexusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side stepped into the realm of insults, so conduct is tied. Spelling and grammar was a non-issue. However, Con offered an outlandish counter-resolution (the world is a simulation) and was unable to prove her point, but made a more compelling argument than Pro, so convincing argument points go to Con. Pro did barely any arguing, but at least linked an article on the subject, so sources go to Pro. You can both do better than this. Con: counter Pro's argument, don't overstep into outlandish theories for which you have no evidence. In other words, stay on topic. Pro: point out what in your link proves your point. Elaborate on your argument more than just linking an article. However, based on this voting system, I give my vote to Con.