The Instigator
Extremely-Far-Right
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Heathen
Pro (for)
Losing
3 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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,366 times Debate No: 15393
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Extremely-Far-Right

Con

I thank my opponent in taking this debate. I shall be con and say that Global Warming is false and doesn't exist and/or is insignificant in science.

Good luck.
Heathen

Pro

I thank my opponent for challenging me. I must say that global warming is true but it is not humanitys fault. There is evidence that the Earth has gone through multiple dramatic climate changes with both extream heat and cold through out its existance and what is happening now is simply the Earth following the pattern.
Debate Round No. 1
Extremely-Far-Right

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting this debate and posting his argument.

Global warming definition: an increase in the earth's atmospheric and oceanic temperatures widely predicted to occur due to an increase in the greenhouse effect resulting especially from pollution.

Global warming definition: The phrase global warming refers to the documented historical warming of the Earth's surface based upon worldwide temperature records that have been maintained by humans since the 1880s.

So as you notice, the definition of global warming from various websites (whose sources I have listed below) all state that global warming is primarily resulting from pollution, and not the Earth going though multiple dramatic changes. Even an environmentally leaning website has the source as pointing towards humans causing it. Not that I believe that either is happening. But then again, we have been there before.

If you look at a lot of global warming activists such as Al Gore and among others, the things they say are extremely out of context. Especially his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. He even talks about his son getting hit by a car at one point. What does that have to do with global warming I may ask?

Sources:
http://www.eoearth.org...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Heathen

Pro

I thank my opponent for posting his argument.

The first definition you gave mentioned the greenhouse effect resulting from pollution, and while I agree with that, the definition for pollution does vary and many never actually mention humans as a cause. I feel the need to point out that natural air pollution, the pollution of the air through nature simply going about its buisiness, is real and is a very large contributor to greenhouse gasses, and since natural air pollution usually does not happen largley in one specific area but infact all over the earth at almost a constant rate, it has a bigger effect on the amount of harmfull gasses in the air.

With all of the natural disasters that have been happening latley like the volcano eruption in Iceland and the large earthquakes that have been happening over the past few years, one would find it hard to deny that something is happening and changing with our little planet. Along with natural disasters expelling gasses into the air, arctic landmasses hold a substantial amount of Co2 and other harmfull gasses inside, and with tempatures rising, the land will start to defrost and release an extremly large amount of greenhouse gasses into the air, just another prime example of natural air pollution. So I say again, Global Warming is not humans fault.

Also I do agree with you about Al Gore's movie.
Debate Round No. 2
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zealous1 5 years ago
Zealous1
Extremely-Far-RightHeathenTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: That was barely a debate... Pro wins because he had a good point about natural pollution. Secondly, Con NEVER proved that Global Warming is false. He only attempted to prove that it's caused by humans. What does that have to do with his position? Nothing.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Extremely-Far-RightHeathenTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: No argument made by Pro.