The Instigator
megabyzus
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
james_quac
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Global Warming is a Hoax (Assertion)

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 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 784 times Debate No: 37041
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

megabyzus

Con

The data is manifest in showing the rise in sea levels, increased violence in weather patterns, etc.
james_quac

Pro

The myth is that humans are causing the ecosystem to warm. The fact is, Earth has gone through many warming and cooling periods, and this is just one. We'll have to adapt but warming (and the evidence you bring up) is due to natural causes.
Debate Round No. 1
megabyzus

Con

That is the lazy way out. Plus in saving energy? Keeping our air clean? Creating new green-tech jobs?
james_quac

Pro

You are lazy with this tired rhetoric. Energy savings tend to increase consumption, since saved money on energy will be spent elsewhere (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Keeping air clean is great, but they need not be justified by a myth of global warming, as they have other benefits for us.
Debate Round No. 2
megabyzus

Con

It's not being lazy to do more and be active in creating a clean environment for us and our families. On the other hand, leaning back in denial and doing nothing IS lazy. Why not put some human flesh and brawn behind a good endeavor that is positive all around?
james_quac

Pro

I never once said we shouldn't do these things. I'll quote myself so maybe you'll actually read it this time: "Keeping air clean is great, but they need not be justified by a myth of global warming, as they have other benefits for us". Again, there are sometimes weird effects: increasing efficiency leads to higher consumption, and the last thing America needs is to consume even more, from an environmental point of view.

The topic of the debate is 'global warming is a hoax'. I do not think we need to believe in myths in order to encourage good behavior. Please stay on topic, its appreciated.
Debate Round No. 3
megabyzus

Con

megabyzus forfeited this round.
james_quac

Pro

james_quac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
megabyzus

Con

So, let's see if I get this straight. As a society, that has a tendency to over-consume and waste, and engage in all manners of illogical habits that the are harmful to the environment, including the very air they breathe themselves, you see them just dropping all this so they can smell the daisies? Even under the sword pf 'supposed' global environmental disaster (which dfalls under 'benefits for us'), these people don't act. I'm not in anyway, saying we should use GW as a bogeyman to frighten people into action. I'm just saying depending on people's sense of responsibility is totally daft.

You, sir, are daft.
james_quac

Pro

james_quac forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by anonymouse 3 years ago
anonymouse
if western multinational corporations would stop selling carbon credits, and peddle their trillion $ green technology onto 3rd world countries, then i might take global warming seriously
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by calculatedr1sk 3 years ago
calculatedr1sk
megabyzusjames_quacTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Awful! Just absolutely awful! Both sides had forfeits, Con should get conduct for having one less, but then he uses his round to levy personal insults against Pro, cancelling out the conduct point I would have otherwise given. Neither side presented a compelling case or used sources effectively. I'm tempted to give sources to Pro because at least he ued one, but the one wikipedia source just isn't quite enough to clench itit. I can't give anyone anything, beause neither side earned victory.