The Instigator
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
TUF
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points

Global Warming is Good

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 6 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/17/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,541 times Debate No: 21225
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (6)

 

xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Con

Global warming, the act of putting unnatural heat into the atmosphere, is harmful to the world. According to McClure and Stiffler in 2007, Warming is in fact real and the leading climate scientists are agreeing that warming needs to be stopped. "The world's leading climate scientists are reporting that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries." They add that, "Warming is likely to mean intensified droughts and heat waves, along with unusually strong storms. The scientists also highlighted an increasingly worrisome global trend; acidification of the oceans, which could unravel the marine web of life."

Added, according to Deibel in 2007, "there is one major existential threat, which demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the blimate upon which all earthly life depends. It is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. we are experiencing the effect of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species extinction, and inundation of low-lying countries. [It] is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth's climate and humanity's life support system. We're going to burn everything up and then everything will collapse. It is the equivalent of nuclear winter. It is a threat to the continued existence of life on this planet."

Unless you would argue that extinction is good, I believe I have won this debate.
TUF

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for making this debate and wish him the best of luck in the upcoming rounds.

I will be arguing that Global warming cannot be good or bad, because it is merely fake. Global warming is a hoax.

1. Sunspot activity is in a cycle in which it reduces warming radiation from the sun.

Have you looked at your own outside thermometer? Record lows and snow storms abound. Global warming is simply a natural part of nature that has occurred many times over the millions of years that the earth has been around. The earth has experienced similar sunspot cycles throughout history, and yet remains abroad.

http://kutwrite.hubpages.com...

Global warming, in a sense, has happened many times before.

"The basic explanation for global warming is an overall, and relatively dramatic, increase of the earth�€™s temperature caused by several factors. The main argument is that the earth�€™s ozone layer is getting chipped off little by little by the countless chemicals that humans spout off, ranging from hairsprays to emissions by automobiles and all the other pollution-causing substances that environmentalists rage against. The decreasing number of trees also contributes to the process, putting humans on an endless, and seemingly losing fight, against keeping the planet from overheating."

http://globalwarming-articles.org...

The earth naturally goes through cycles of heating and cooling. This is an illusion brought up by people to scare others out of their wallets. My question is, if the earth has experienced this many times before, why would we be in any more danger now, then we were then?

The earth has survived through countless years and millennia, and any suspicion of global warming is easily explained by natural cycles.

Around the year 4500 BC, archaeologists have dug up proof for a very real, very big flood a few thousand years ago. What did they find? Countless fossils of fish and other marine creatures stuck up on the mountains in the Middle East region. Speculation to this was caused greatly to believe that the polar Ice caps melting were the cause. So in that case, thousands of years ago, we polluted the atmosphere to recieve these effects? Unlikely. Again, this is purely a natural cause.

2. Why is it that the big scares always mean big profits for companies connected to governments?

((Howard C. Hayden, emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut, told a Pueblo West audience that he was prompted to speak out after a visit to New York where he learned that scaremongering billboards about the long-term effects of global warming were being purchased at a cost of $700,000 a month.

"Someone is willing to spend a huge amount of money to scare us about global warming," Hayden said. "Big money is behind the global-warming propaganda."))

http://www.prisonplanet.com...

Companies promoting global warming spend and receive large sums of money advertising the global warming myth ever day.

People will spend and donate money to prevent this "mythical disaster" from occurring, but what are they really achieving with this money? How does Al Gore plan to stop the "inevibility" Of Global warming, as humans continue to use man made products into the world?

I have a riddle that solves global warming quite inexplicably.

The earth weights approximately 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 pounds.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu...

If man builds a wall the weighs 6,000,000 pounds, how much would the earth then weigh?
The fool will answer: 13,170,000,000,000,000,006,000,000.

But the correct answer is: 13,170,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. If were using our own earth materials we aren't in fact changing it's weight.

Same applies with global warming. If we are using our own materials and just re supplying them back into nature, how are we in fact causing global warming?

Now I will move on to my opponents arguments.

Mostly he just copied and pasted things from other sites, But I am assuming he means the same things that they do.

My opponents first source says that warming is intensified by droughts and heat waves. Also in the same source, it talks about how gasoline and fossil fuels are the major cause for unnatural heat waves. I dis-agree that this in anyway proves his point.
His point being that the heat waves are unnatural. We are nature, thus nature is unperturbed by us. We again are only giving nature back what it gave to us, and our climate will remain un-affected.

"there is one major existential threat, which demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the blimate upon which all earthly life depends. It is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming. "

The fundamentals of global warming, are simply natures course of action. I have proved that man kind will sustain life as global warming essentially happened over 6000 years. Global warming, is not harmful to the extent of the extortion of man kind.

I conclude:
Global warming is simply a natural process of sun spot cycle that has proved itself through history. "History repeats itself". We have no cause to believe that global warming is harmful, nor that it is caused my man rather than nature.

I thank my opponent for this debate and again wish him luck in the next rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Con

WHAT????? did you read the resolution?????? i did not make this for you to talk about fake things!!! i made this to have a real debate on the TOPIC!!!!
TUF

Pro

You are arguing on the basis that global warming is "bad" based off of the resolution. I am arguing that it is not bad, or caused by mankind.

I don't understand " i made this to have a real debate on the TOPIC!!!!"

This is a real debate, and a real topic.

Dear audience, please deduct a conduct point from the con for not making an argument.

Extend all arguments please.
Debate Round No. 2
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx

Con

i don't think you have answered my points either, and this is not the topic, the question is that is global warming good or bad not is it real or not.

Also, you can not just say that you should deduct points, its their decision.

if you believe that this is a good website about actually debating, then you will vote for me.
TUF

Pro

My dear audience, I am sorry for the dis-appointment this debate may have brought.

I did in fact, attempt to debate someone hoping intellectual arguments would be made concerning global warming. I have indeed answered all of my opponents points, while he, infact, has touched none of mine. My opponent is arguing that I am not debating the subject he intended.

I would like to argue that neither has my opponent.

He is trying to prove that global warming is bad based on false pretenses, so my goal in this debate was to prove that global warming cannot be "bad" if it doesn't exist. I also spent the majority of the first round arguing that global warming wasn't something created by mankind, which was heavily argued by the con.

If the con expected someone to take this debate trying to argue that "The sun burning up the world is a good thing", he has another thing coming for him.
My goal was to accept this debate and argue the resolution the best I could, my falsifying the pro's case (which wasn't really a case, just copy pasta from a website), and I believe I have done so. I have carried my BOP and done my job as pro to the best of my knowledge and hope that you, the voters, see that as well.

In that regaurd, I wish my opponent luck during the voting period, and strongly urge you vote pro.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro said he wasn't arguing the resolution, so it doesn't have to be proved. In the opening argument, con made weak arguments that global warming was bad, and Pro presented no evidence that global warming was good. Failure to argue the resolution is a conduct violation because it kills the topic without debating it. Con's time and his case are wasted because of Pro's action. since Pro didn't debate the topic, he didn't meet the burden of proof.

Pro admitted that global warming occurred in the past, so he knew he cold have debated the historical record. It could also be debated an hypothetical.

The debate never made it to the real issue, but I'd have argued that some global warming is good, since the Medieval Warm Period brought substantial prosperity to Europe. Greenland was green, and grapes grew in Scotland. Too much global warming would be bad, but the Holocene Optimum, 4000 years ago and warmer than now, was marked by the rise of civilization in the Middle East.

Recently a Nobel-prize physicist and bunch of other scientists jumped off the global warming crisis bandwagon, so it seems the death-awaits us theory is losing steam.

Too bad the subject was not properly debated.
Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 years ago
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx
how is he winning? just because he was being polite? (obviously faking it just to win)
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
I agree with Ginger that Pro is not arguing the resolution, but Con has not proved that. I'll not say why (that would be giving you hints in the middle of the debate) but you need to argue why pro isn't arguing the resolution. Unless you do that you will lose arguments, because pro has BOP and thus default right of definition of the motion (unless you prove him wrong).
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Hey Ginger. TUF's position is still valid, but in a strange way.

Think about it in this kind of context. Let's consider a hypothetical resolution that's "Unicorns are Red, not blue" where the pro argues that they're red and the con argues that they are blue. Pro stands up, lists a bunch of reasons why unicorns are red and not blue, we'll call them x y and z. If the con stands up and says "Unicorns don't exist, thus can't be red." that's still saying that they can't be red. If unicorns don't exist, there can never be a red unicorn.

Same thing applies in general. If the resolution was "Object is x, not y" and the con stands up and says "object doesn't exist, therefore object is never x" that's still a valid argument.

Applying it to this resolution makes it a little stranger. His argument is based off of the premise, as I understand it, to be that since global warming doesn't exist, we can't call it bad. It's a valid point, but really sketchy to make. You should've stood up and said that if his position is true, then it can't be good either, thus making the resolution indeterminable. But since you didn't and decided to rage instead, the debate's going to go to TUF. He refuted your points, posited a valid, if strange, case of his own, and you didn't refute it.

What else do you want people to do?
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Too slow imabench. Too slow.
Posted by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
Well, it has been a little chilly lately...
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Why am I always too slow to see these debates? I have the awesomest as-yet-untested case for this! Good luck anyway Imabench!
Posted by Zaradi 5 years ago
Zaradi
Calm down bro. No one is really gonna take this debate, because nobody wants it. It's all yours.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
I WANT THIS ONE, NO ONE ACCEPT IT

Or else...
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 5 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
Ugh, such a weighted debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved that global warming isn't bad. That's different from proving that it is good. While pro successfully refuted con, pro did not meet their BOP. Mulling over this, I've decided con does actually deserve the arguments point. Con should not get in a rage, rather continue to argue the topic rationally even if his opponent isn't, so conduct to pro. Pro also gets a point as con had many grammar mistakes, such as failing to capitalize. Countering hardcore's sources vote also.
Vote Placed by Hardcore.Pwnography 5 years ago
Hardcore.Pwnography
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Essentially an FF
Vote Placed by Mimshot 5 years ago
Mimshot
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made a better argument that global warming was not real; however this was not the topic. The topic was, assuming that it's real, is it a good thing or bad thing?
Vote Placed by THEBOMB 5 years ago
THEBOMB
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argued the process by which the Earth's atmosphere "heats up" is a natural phenomenon. It is neither good nor bad. Con "argues" man causes global warming. But, Pro successfully refuted all of Con's arguments but, neither side upheld their BOP as Pro was a bit off-topic and all of Cons "arguments" were refuted. Since neither side could hold their BOP == no argument vote. Con's outburst == Pro get conduct. Pro having more sources == pro gets sources. Con's failure to capitalize sentences....
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con basically didn't argue
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxxTUFTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Even if global warming is not present currently, it can be debated either as a hypothetical or with reference to past historical periods of global warming, such as the Medieval Warm Period. Pro refused to debate the topic, a conduct violation, and made no arguments relevant to the topic, losing arguments.