Global Warming Exists
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 13 votes the winner is...
Danielle
| Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
| Started: | 6/1/2010 | Category: | Miscellaneous | ||
| Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
| Viewed: | 10,330 times | Debate No: | 12206 | ||
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (84)
Votes (13)
 Con  Pro Con sent me this debate challenge, though apparently had no intention of defending his position. Technically I don't have to say anything at all in this round considering Con is the instigator of this debate, and thus has the burden of proof. I have nothing to respond to, meaning I can/should leave this round blank. However since Con decided not to say anything at all, I guess I'll provide a few opening statements. == OPENING ARGUMENTS == Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans. Since it has been scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, then the definition of what global warming is has already been affirmed. Most people acknowledge that global warming DOES exist (and is occurring); the main conflict is whether or not humans are responsible for it. While there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" again exists. Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, which are all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. This is undeniable. Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Another fact. These gases persist in the atmosphere for years; one must only know simple science to understand The Greenhouse Effect and how this issue impacts the earth's heating and cooling [1]. Our endeavors have led us to produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide, a heat emission. Simultaneously, we have implemented continuous deforestation... meaning we rid of the trees and plant life that help balance out our carbon emissions... so obviously there is going to be an impact. I'll leave it at that for now. == SOURCES == [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com... |
 |
|
Con What? You are the highest ranked debater on this website but don't know what a burden of proof is? What a shame. You are the one who claims that "global warming exists". You agree with this and promote this idea. So it is you that must prove that it exists, not me that it doesn't exist, especially when there is no proof of what this bogus theory is founded on reality. It is the pro side that has the burden of proof, not the instigator, which can take each side. Nice try though. global: involving the entire earth; not limited or provincial in scope, In all places or situations; Over the entire planet (1) warming: heating: the process of becoming warmer - (1) It is not scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed up around the world. There are plenty of scientists that support and have documented the opposite. Here's an example, and others can and will be provided if necessary . (2) "Most people acknowledge that global warming DOES exist" . Who says so and based on what? Was there a poll on the whole planet? Some people actually die from frostbites and from extremely low temperatures, you know? Here's some news from 11 January 2010 This season, hypothermia has already claimed at least 28 MORE lives than last, and the weather forecasts said the cold might not ease until late March. Hypothermia is taking MORE lives and the winter season isn't showing signs of letting up. The FREEZING over of electrical lines also caused problems in Poznań, Częstochowa, Opole, Krakow, Kielc and Katowice The white stuff is creating havoc outside of Poland as well, with roads, public transport and airports paralysed. Conditions were so desperate that people stocked up on supplies just in case (3) And because I know you like Wikipedia so much, how about checking this link out? It's about the winter storms of 2010. (4) The time scope is between October 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010. VERY COLD and/or snowy weather was reported across the Northern Hemisphere, with many severe cases being reported in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland, Finland, Russia, India, South Korea, China and Japan over the winter of 2009-2010. Even places that do not get more than an inch of snow on a single day, such as Texas, got up to five to ten inches and MORE overall. What do you think about a few dozen milions of animals biting the dust due to freezing just 5 months ago? Quite cool, isn't it? Pun intended. (5) UP to 20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the FIERCEST WINTER in living memory grips the country, International Aid Agencies warned today. The winter of 2009-2010 was the coldest in a few dozen years in Europe at least. (6) Russia had the worst winter in 40 years. (7) Britain : There is no doubt that the winter of 2009-2010 was exceptional, both in its severity and duration. The coldest winter in Britain for 31 years saw temperatures plummeting to the minus-20s in Scotland and the unusual sight of London blanketed in snow. We saw transport chaos, salt shortages and closed airports. (8) So people all over the world are NOT buying into this HOAX anymore. Talks of Global Freezing is everwhere. (9) The global deep FREEZE now striking North America, Europe, China and other regions may lead to severe food shortages and price hikes throughout 2010. Right now, rare freezing temperatures are destroying root crops in their ground, wiping out citrus orchards and devastating food producers around the world. Scientists CAN'T agree on whether the trend is global warming or global cooling. Contrary to the commonly held scientific conclusion that the Earth is getting warmer, Dr. Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University and author of more than 150 peer-reviewed papers, has unveiled evidence for his prediction that global cooling is coming soon. (10) Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed . (11) And to conclude with the websites and sources for now, be absolutely sure to check this website out. It debunks the myth of global warming and it exposes it like the hoax that it is. (12) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DEBUNKING STATEMENTS OF MY PARTNER. "While there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community that global warming is man-made, there is less agreement on the specific consequences of this warming. In other words, it is undeniable that human activity has contributed negatively to the environment, meaning "Global Warming" again exists." There is no such thing as unanimous agreement. Only if you want to have faith you believe such a thing. Also, "contributed negatively to the environment" =/= Global Warming. Negative Impact of human activity can lead to a lot of things. Increasing the average temperature in SOME parts of the globe may actually be an effect. "Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Another fact." Even if this is true, this does not mean that it is necessary for the average temperature of the globe to increase overall. So Global Warming is just a hoax, ok? It's a matter of faith to believe it. 1 google define:global 2 http://epw.senate.gov... 3 http://www.masterpage.com.pl... 4 http://en.wikipedia.org... 5 http://www.news.com.au... 6 http://en.wikipedia.org... 7 http://www.eutimes.net... 8 http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 9 http://www.naturalnews.com... 10 http://www.fairfaxunderground.com... 11 http://www.dailymail.co.uk... 12 http://www.iceagenow.com... Pro Con states that I automatically have the burden of proof in this debate because I am Pro. That is false. The instigator always has the burden of proof in a debate, because they are the ones making a declaration or assertion. Con took it upon himself to debate the fact that global warming does NOT exist. To choose a resolution of which he is Con to make the other debater go first is a huge cop out. Con could have easily made the resolution "Global warming does not exist" and choose the PRO side, so that he could man up and post an argument first. Any non-noob to DDO will attest to the fact that "allowing your opponent to go first" is nothing short of a punk move that often loses conduct points in the voting period. Additionally there are hundreds of debates in which Con instigates the debate and goes first, such as these examples [1], [2], [3], etc. Ergo that sad attempt at ad hominem was actually just evidence of his own ignorance regarding debate etiquette and procedure. == Re: Temperature Increase == Con writes "It is not scientifically proven that average temperatures have climbed up around the world. There are plenty of scientists that support and have documented the opposite. Here's an example, and others can and will be provided if necessary." Let the records show that Con's source [4] actually says "THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE REMAINS UNKNOWN..." In other words, the source doesn't deny climate change (in fact it admits it) but rather only questions whether or not man is responsible. As I said in the last round, global warming is undeniable even if whether or not man is the cause is debatable. Fortunately for me the resolution has nothing to do with proving that global warming is man-made - only that it exists. == Re: Cold Weather; Harsh Winters == Con notes that people continue to die from frost bite and low temperatures, and then presents a bunch of irrelevant statistics and sources regarding hypothermia and cold temperatures all over the world. This hilarious "argument" only demonstrates Con's ignorance about the science of global warming. My opponent is confusing weather with climate; cold weather is NOT an indication of a cooling climate. For my opponent's viewing pleasure (and hopefully a source of knowledge and information) I will provide several links which explain exactly why weather and climate are not synonymous such as these [5], [6], [7], etc. In short, my opponent has proven that he knows absolutely nothing (and is completely incompetent on the science regarding) global warming. Just because the globe has experienced bouts of cold in no way disproves the reality that the earth on average is warming. Again, Con's own source [4] confirmed this fact. == Rebuttal to my Arguments == 1. Con states that there is not a unanimous agreement global warming exists, and I admit that this is obviously true. However, the most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it. "This conclusion is shared by the national science academies of developed and developing countries plus many other organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established by the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization to provide the world with 'a clear scientific view' on climate change. The only real debate is about how fast warming will occur, and how much damage will be done, as a result of human activities that produce heat-trapping CO2 and other greenhouse-gas emissions" [8]. 2. Next I said that humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it. Con responded, "Even if this is true, this does not mean that it is necessary for the average temperature of the globe to increase overall." Once again, this only proves his scientific ignorance. It is a FACT that excess carbon dioxide alters the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat before it can be released back into space. Excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet. For proof and a picture demonstration, check here [9]. == More Arguments for Pro == 1. Between 1961 and 1997 the world's glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. Melting sea ice can accelerate global warming. The overwhelming majority of glaciers are still losing ice at an alarming rate. The IPCC estimates that melting ice caps and glaciers accounted for about 25% of sea level rise from 1993 to 2003 [10]. 2. "The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world" [11]. Records from scientific organizations such as NOAA, HADCRU, JMA and even NASA show that the earth's temperature on average (globally) has showed a warming trend since 1850. Atmospheric temperature measurements taken from orbiting satellites also show warming. During the 20th century, sea level rose an average of 7 inches after 2,000 years of relatively little change. At low latitudes, 20th century climate was unusually warm compared to the previous 2,000 years. Records of tree rings show that 20th century warming was unusual compared to at least the past 500 years. Coral proxy records indicate sea surface warming in most tropical locations over the past century [12]. These are all indisputable facts; I would love to see Con try. == Conclusion == Con finishes his round by saying that global warming is a hoax; however, this is only after his own source agrees that global warming exists, and just disputes the cause (whether or not humans are responsible). Again, whether or not humans are responsible is still up for debate (though I think it's quite obvious that humans are, as demonstrated by my sources) though it's undeniable that the temperature of the earth is increasing and thus global warming exists. My opponent's sources were irrelevant and his arguments had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Any person with any knowledge of this would understand that colder weather or harsh winters that Con described have nothing to do with global warming and do not prove that global warming does not exist. So far, however, I have presented a plethora of evidence in favor of global warming's existence. == References == [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] http://www.debate.org... [4] http://epw.senate.gov... [5] http://abcnews.go.com... [6] http://www1.voanews.com... [7] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [8] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [9] http://www.pewclimate.org... [10] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [11] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... [12] http://www.environmentaldefense.net... |
 |
|
Con Pro is still persisting in error despite the fact that I sent her to do her homework regarding Burden of Proof. To her, and anyone who still doesn't understand, I recommend google "burden of proof" and spend some time to see what is about and how it works. Maybe you will now understand: You can't prove God doesn't exist, so he exists! You can't prove global warming doesn't exist, so it exists! If you don't find anything wrong with this kind of argument then you have a serious problem. You state that global warming exist in your profile. I challanged that opinion. You are pro for it, I am con. You have burden of proof, not me. "Any non-noob to DDO will attest to the fact that "allowing your opponent to go first" is nothing short of a punk move that often loses conduct points in the voting period." Why do you insult me? Are you this weak, really? Or must be that time of the month maybe.. Conduct points and also grammar are irrelevant things when deciding who has more merit in an argument. The fact that conduct and grammar can win you an argument shows that this debate thing on this website is just a game, nothing more. And I take it as such. I don't care about perfect conduct and I don't care about perfect grammar. "Convincing arguments" is only thing that matters, and I use my wisdom from my brain as a source, mostly. You accuse me of poor conduct but insult me after this. Can you spell hypocrisy? === Refutation of her arguments === All her arguments are basically one FALSE assumption : Global Warming = Climate Change. Then , she makes a straw-man, saying that I don't believe in Climate Change, and that people are responsible in part for it. Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Weather changes all the time. The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually stays pretty much the same for centuries if it is left to itself. However, the earth is not being left alone. People are taking actions that can change the earth and its climate in significant ways. It is obvious that human activity influences the climate change, I am not disputing that. Pro says: Con notes that people continue to die from frost bite and low temperatures, and then presents a bunch of irrelevant statistics" Statistics regarding temperatures and whether from recent years are irrelevant in a topic called "global warming" ??? This should be only about these kinds of statistics. "In short, my opponent has proven that he knows absolutely nothing" As the highest ranked debater on this website you sure are lame. I know that the last winter was the coldest winter of my entire life. I know that in some parts of the globe , average temperature increases, and in other parts, it decreases. And I know that somebody, somewhere, makes tons of money because he or she was able to fool a huge part of the massess to believe this bogus "global warming" theory. I have nothing more to add. If I could vote, I have 3 points for convincing arguments, 2 points for source, and theLwerd has 1 point for grammar. Conduct is tied. Pro Con is once again completely wrong in his shifting of the burden of proof. This is fallacious. He writes, "You state that global warming exist in your profile. I challanged that opinion. You are pro for it, I am con. You have burden of proof, not me." Nowhere in my profile did I STATE that I believed in global warming; it is simply listed that I am Pro in the Big Issues section. My opponent is the one making a claim - that global warming does not exist - and thus if he wanted to debate it the proper resolution would have read "Global warming does not exist" in which he would have accepted the Pro position. Because the instigator always has the burden of proof, we do not require Pro to have the burden of proof. I have presented several debates as evidence of this both in the last round and in the comments section - which conveniently my opponent has completely ignored. Moreover if you look up the BOP, it never once states anywhere that *Pro* has the burden [1], [2], etc. In fact it specifically states that it is the burden of the one making the claim to prove their point. Con began this debate trying to prove that global warming does not exist, ergo he has the BOP. Additionally, calling my opponent a n00b is not insulting -- it's a fact. He just joined this website and is therefore ignorant to debating etiquette. How is that insulting? My opponent on the other hand has insulted me on more than one occasion, even insinuating that it must be "that time of the month" just because he is probably embarrassed by the fact that a woman absolutely destroyed him in this debate. What a pity. He also presents a slew of ad hominems (more fallacies) and says that he does not care about conduct points. == Re: Temperature Increase == Con states that global warming does not equal climate change. The definitions of global warming read an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere - especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes [3], an overall increase in world temperatures which may be caused by additional heat being trapped by greenhouse gases [4], etc. Con is straw manning me; I never said that an increase in temperature alone referred to global warming. Instead I proved how carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect was relevant to global warming. I fulfilled the burden in affirming these things; Con did not even address the arguments I have presented regarding carbon dioxide, earth's trapping of gases, etc. Con does however concede that humans are responsible for climate change. == Re: Cold Temperatures and Harsh Winters == Con writes, Statistics regarding temperatures and whether from recent years are irrelevant in a topic called "global warming" ??? This should be only about these kinds of statistics." Quite obviously this is completely contradictory to his last assertion that climate change and global warming are not the same thing (which I have also proven by giving a handful of sources who note that Con's assessment was completely wrong). If Con is saying that temperature (climate) has nothing to do with global warming, then why is he talking about cold weather? Moreover I've already explained (and again cited and sourced) a plethora of evidence that cold weather and harsh winters have absolutely nothing to do with disproving global warming. If Con chose to remain ignorant and not educate himself on that reality, then that is his problem. However he has done absolutely nothing to refute that fact. Instead he concludes, "I know that the last winter was the coldest winter of my entire life." Once again, I've explained and sourced in the last round exactly why that is entirely irrelevant. == Conclusion == Con ignored pretty much every single one of my arguments from the last round. He didn't refute the fact that the most reputable scientists and organizations in the world all affirm that global warming exists. He did not respond to my point that excess carbon dioxide alters the process by which naturally occurring greenhouse gases trap the sun's heat before it can be released back into space, and that excess carbon dioxide (which we output into the atmosphere) creates a warming effect on the planet. Furthermore, Con did not address my argument about all of the glaciers melting. He did not respond to my contentions regarding all of the records showing overall warming, satellites all showing evidence of warming, the sea temperature warming, the proof regarding tree rings, the proof regarding coral proxys, etc. Basically Con did not respond to any single argument I made, and instead just repeated the comment that some parts of the world are experiencing harsh winters. Since that it is his ONLY contention, and I have already disputed how that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, then the audience has no choice but to vote PRO. == RFD == Before the Debate: PRO After the Debate: PRO Spelling and Grammar: PRO Better Arguments: PRO; Con did not respond to any of mine and I refuted his one (awful) argument Better Sources: PRO; Con did not provide any relevant sources and instead listed his 'brain' as a source Better Conduct: PRO; Con did nothing but straw man my arguments and present one ad hominem after another. He resorted to insulting me, and shifted the burden of proof. He also left one debate round blank (R1). == References == [1] http://www.nizkor.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [4] http://www.crh.noaa.gov... |
 |
13 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Acts2-38 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: |  | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
Vote Placed by Brandonmaciel333 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 5 |
Vote Placed by George_Bush_Rocks 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 4 | 3 |
Vote Placed by whatisx 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 0 |
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 7 |
Vote Placed by surfride 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Vote Placed by Railsguardian 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | - | | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | - | | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 0 | 6 |
Vote Placed by tBoonePickens 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | - | - | | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | - | | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | - | - | | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 3 | 1 |
Vote Placed by m93samman 7 years ago
| gamemaster | Danielle | Tied | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agreed with before the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Agreed with after the debate: | | - | - | 0 points |
| Who had better conduct: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Had better spelling and grammar: | | - | - | 1 point |
| Made more convincing arguments: | | - | - | 3 points |
| Used the most reliable sources: | | - | - | 2 points |
| Total points awarded: | 7 | 0 |
Let me spell it out for you, Bwerd. You are 17 years old so Global Warming exists.
You and your invalid-assumption-making self. It makes me laugh that I have to say something 3 times for you to get it. I'M NOT THE MOST KNOWLEDGEABLE PERSON ON THE SUBJECT. But I'm more knowledgeable than you are on it. I SURE hope you don't tell me that I think I'm the most knowledgeable person on the subject in your next comment, because I would have to quote myself again.. again. What a waste of time this has been. Oh and this made me laugh
"yet you, some 17 year old nobody on debate.org has all the answers lol right. Gotcha."
Yea, I think it's feasible to say that I can have answers to a question I spent a significant amount of time on. Meanwhile, it's unreasonable for me to say that (again) I'm THE most knowledgeable person on the subject (which I didn't).
Make sense yet?
"the fact that you think you know me enough to have this kind of judgement is just absolutely hysterical"
Really? It's funny that I give insight on the debate (i.e. BOP)? I'm not laughing, I'm just extremely disappointed that the top ranked debater on this website is so incredibly lost. Proof that America is in decline... maybe. I won't go to say that, but i'll leave the possibility open.
m93: Just because you've "done a lot of research" doesn't mean you have the right answer lmfao there are plenty of people who have done a crap ton of more research, have far more experience, education and credibility etc. so whatever research you think makes you the expert is irrelevant. Also, if you wanna v-bomb me then GO AHEAD I really don't care... but don't say you didn't. How can you give my opponent points for sources when I had more and more quality sources? How can you say he had better spelling and grammar when that is blatantly false? Again, I don't care how you vote but don't call me a liar when the evidence is right there. Also, how dare you say that I have been arrogant and disrespectful when you took it upon yourself to insult me FOR NO REASON? I have never seen you before in my life. You're nobody to me. I have never interacted with you before in my life nor have I ever seen you engage with anyone, so how and why are you judging my actions? In case you haven't noticed this is a debating site and some people are bound to come off arrogant. If you think I am, so be it. If you think I'm disrespectful (though I have never said anything to you... anything... ever) then that's your preoragtive. But you're the one commenting mean stuff on my debates for NO reason completely unprompted. Hypocrite.
@theLwerd: m93, not mp3, first off. Second, if you've been reading my comments at all you would know that I didn't vote bomb you; rather, I've said multiple times that if there is anybody here who has authority to make a decision on this with the little knowledge available to them it is me, because I spent over a month researching nothing but this. And no i'm not insecure, it just aggravates me to see people like you carry out there business so arrogantly, disrespectfully, and (apparently, as now added to my knowledge) hypocritically.