The Instigator
ben671176
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
sadolite
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Global Warming

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...
sadolite
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,166 times Debate No: 64113
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

ben671176

Pro

First round for acceptance.
sadolite

Con

I will accept this debate, but my opponent refuses to define the resolution. Simply saying "Global Warming" is too vague and open to interpretation. I will define it since my opponent refuses to. I will argue that there has been no significant increase in global temperature for the last 20 years. My opponent must show that there has been and increase well outside of the margin of error. Greater than 1.5 degree Celsius or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit compared to 20 years ago

1 Celsius change is a change of 1.8 Fahrenheits while a 1 Fahrenheit change translates to a change of 0.55 Celsius.
Debate Round No. 1
ben671176

Pro

ben671176 forfeited this round.
sadolite

Con

Post to avoid forfeit
Debate Round No. 2
ben671176

Pro

No I am not. I am not debating you to just get some numbers on a screen, I want to prove to you that your wrong. But you won't believe me so I don't see the point in debating.
sadolite

Con

"I want to prove to you that you're wrong." The first step in proving that the global warming exists is by proving there is a notable temperature increase in the earth's average temperature. If global warming exists the global average temperature should show an increase outside the margin of error when calculating an average global temperature.

There has been no warming for seventeen years. And since 1880 the average global temp has only risen 1.53 degrees fahrenheit. But this average includes data that can be completely false or inaccurate as the vast majority of the data is derived from arcane and severely inaccurate measuring instruments and measuring methods. It was only until the advent of satellites and infrared measuring devices that accurate measurements even became possible which was only a paltry 30 or 40 years ago. 17 of those years show no increase.
Debate Round No. 3
ben671176

Pro

ben671176 forfeited this round.
sadolite

Con

Opponent makes no attempt at making an argument or a rebuttal, but rather forfeits the opportunity.
Debate Round No. 4
ben671176

Pro

Why should I??? To make hot air? It isn't going to change your views what so ever.
sadolite

Con

Opponent refuses to even try to address average global temp as a indicator that the earth is warming. If my opponent can't show that there is significant warming by showing temperature increases are well outside the norm, then one can only deduce there is no significant warming. There is a margin of error when measuring average temperatures globally. Since 1880 there has been an increase of 1.53 degrees fahrenheit. If one chooses to err on the cool side within the margin of error one could say the average global temp hasn't changed at all. Until the late 1950's temperature measurements within a tenth of a degree were not possible. So which way do you round? Up or down? And who decided and why?
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 1 year ago
bluesteel
============================================
Max.Wallace. 5 points to Con (conduct, S&G, arguments). Reason for removal: completely failure to explain S&G. Inadequate explanation for arguments. More specificity is required that a general assertion that a particular side's argument just "made no sense."

Reasons for voting decision: Con did not forfeit, and Pro provided no argument that made any sense at all.
=========================================

-bluesteel (voting moderator)
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
If you don't define what we are debating you can just jump from one subject to another only making me refute your sources while I can never pick the next topic of discussion within the realm of global warming. There are literally thousands of sub topics that can be debated under the topic of "global warming." By defining it, you have to stay on topic and I have to stay on topic. You have to prove that the global mean average temperature has risen outside of the margin of error of twenty years ago I have to prove it hasn't. That means talking about polar bears, doomsday predictions, sea ice, sea levels, computer climate models etc,etc are all irrelevant to the debate. We are not debating any of these, only whether the mean global temp has risen or not.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
I am 'Pro' of the debate 'Global Warming', you are 'Con' of the debate 'Global Warming', why must I tell you what we are debating?
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Well there will be no debate. You must define what specifically you want to debate about global warming. Your resolution is like me starting a debate that says "CARS" Your resolution can encompass thousands of things. You give nothing to debate but only state "global warming" Ya,what about it. "Cars" ya what about them.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
I am not providing you any levargage or arguments until the debate is actually formal, not some comments.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Ya I know, you have yet still to define how I can win the debate. Just saying global warming can mean anything.
Posted by ben671176 2 years ago
ben671176
This is the comments not the actual debate.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Your link does not define the debate
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
Better you explain
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by intellectuallyprimitive 2 years ago
intellectuallyprimitive
ben671176sadoliteTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture from Pro, and Con provided arguments.