The Instigator
12345t
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Oppenheimer1934
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Global warming is a myth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
12345t
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/9/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 697 times Debate No: 86327
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

12345t

Pro

There is no evidence to prove that global warming actually exists. Any photo, study, or data to suggest that it does is either....
1. Taken out of context
or
2. created by a currupt source
Oppenheimer1934

Con

You're a bloody idiot. There is plenty of empirical evidence from both big name and peer-reviewed sources that proves Global Warming is occurring.

SOURCES:
http://climate.nasa.gov...
https://www.skepticalscience.com...
https://www.skepticalscience.com...
http://www.ucsusa.org...
Debate Round No. 1
12345t

Pro

Lets play fair here.
What is it that I would have to do to convince you that Global warming is a myth?
https://www.theguardian.com...
Oppenheimer1934

Con

"The Guardian is a British national daily newspaper. Founded in 1821 as a local paper replacing the radical Manchester Observer, it was known as The Manchester Guardian until 1959. It has grown into a national paper, and forms part of a media group with international and online offshoots. Its sister papers include The Observer (a British Sunday paper) and The Guardian Weekly (an international roundup of articles from various papers). In addition to its UK online edition theguardian.com, the paper has two international web sites, Guardian Australia and Guardian US. The Guardian is influential in the design and publishing arena, sponsoring many awards in these areas. Other media projects include GuardianFilm. The Guardian was edited by Alan Rusbridger from 1995 to 2015, when Katharine Viner succeeded him.[2][3]

The Guardian is a part of the Guardian Media Group, owned by The Scott Trust Limited. The Trust was created in 1936 "to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of the Guardian free from commercial or political interference." The Scott Trust became a limited company in 2008, with a constitution containing the same protections for the Guardian. Profits are reinvested in journalism rather than to the benefit an owner or shareholders.[4]"

Yeah, "Valid Sources".
Debate Round No. 2
12345t

Pro

Can we first agree on what global warming actually is: a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.
Have you ever considered that maybe:
-A higher power has been able to convince a massive group of people that the earth is heating up due to human activity.
because
-It is in the best interest of national governments to skew public opinion by testing propaganda techniques.
?
Oppenheimer1934

Con

Have you ever considered:
You're a f*cking idiot?
I have sources from multiple organizations.
Your source is weaker than LeBron's hairline.
Christianity was able to convince a giant amount of people that gays were evil because some fake higher power said so?

You may be the biggest moron I've ever encountered.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: LostintheEcho1498// Mod action: NOT Removed<

3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct and arguments to Pro with spelling/grammar going to neither. I give conduct to Pro for Con's blatant insults, and I quote "You're a bloody idiot" and "You may be the biggest moron I've ever encountered." I give arguments to Pro for two reasons. First, sources are not arguments. Placing 10 sources on a page and calling it an argument is invalid, which both sides attempt to do. I give argument to Pro then only for the reason that he makes some attempt at real argument in round 3 whereas Con only presents sources, discredits Pro's source, and ends by only insulting Pro with no substantial argument. Forgot to add this, sources go to Con. Con presented many more sources and Pro presented only one that Con spent an entire round discrediting with no rebuttal from Pro concerning it. As such, Con gets sources.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter sufficiently explains every point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by TheResistance 1 year ago
TheResistance
Conduct:Pro
Con called Pro a f*cking idiot! This is very rude and disrespectful.
Arguments:Con
Con had more sources, that were more reliable than Pro. Pro's argument was that it was a myth, however, that was dropped by Con because con pointed out the sources were not reliable. Pro pointed out a definition that wasn't really gaining him offense. However, Con pointed out many sources that contained arguments, and none of them were attacked by Pro. Thus, I must give Con the points here.
Sources: Con
Con had more reliable sources, and were from organizations. However, Pro's only sources was a newspaper, which Con proved to be false.
Spelling/Grammar: Con
Pro had 2 errors on question marks. Con had no errors as I found.
6-1(con-pro)
Posted by jayvon 1 year ago
jayvon
This argument was derailed, whether intentionally or not, by "The Instigator" in their first argument. The claim they should have asserted was not that global warming is a myth, but that the evidence that leads to the conclusion of global warming is false. It does no good to discuss whether or not global warming is real unless it is first established the validity of the evidence required to support the side of the occurrence of global warming.

This first claim casts to broad of a net. Though in the second argument "The Instigator" offers a hand by asking "Oppenheimer1934" for the falsifiability of their claim, "The Instigator" presents an argument that has no falsifiability because any physical evidence produced is then assumed to be false. The warrant of this argument causes a fundamental shift in the conversation. So, in future arguments, such a claim that all scientific evidence being false should not be assumed true and must be significantly backed in order to build to the claim that global warming is a myth.
Posted by Linkstart 1 year ago
Linkstart
Though I think it is silly that con posted a insult in his response, He has proof that global warming does exist.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
12345tOppenheimer1934Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con resorted to cursing and name calling, so conduct to Pro.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 1 year ago
kkjnay
12345tOppenheimer1934Tied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: Oppenheimer uses ad hominem attacks throughout the debate, and did not make a single argument to refute Pro's assertions. Yes global warming is real, but based off of this debate Con did not prove that. Sources to Con as he had reliable sources.
Vote Placed by Hayd 1 year ago
Hayd
12345tOppenheimer1934Tied
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: con resorts to personal attacks, thus loses conduct. Cons had no arguments, just cites a list of sources that agree with him, this isn't an argument, and thus doesn't convince me. Since Con has no arguments, Pro wins by default
Vote Placed by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
12345tOppenheimer1934Tied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's calling pro an idiot is a loss of a conduct point. Con wins arguments because pro never made an argument. The conversation takingnplace within thw debate iz what needs to actually be hashed out before the debate starts or in the comments. Pro next time make some arguments to support the resolution, and provide prenises for those arguments
Vote Placed by LostintheEcho1498 1 year ago
LostintheEcho1498
12345tOppenheimer1934Tied
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:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I give conduct and arguments to Pro with spelling/grammar going to neither. I give conduct to Pro for Con's blatant insults, and I quote "You're a bloody idiot" and "You may be the biggest moron I've ever encountered." I give arguments to Pro for two reasons. First, sources are not arguments. Placing 10 sources on a page and calling it an argument is invalid, which both sides attempt to do. I give argument to Pro then only for the reason that he makes some attempt at real argument in round 3 whereas Con only presents sources, discredits Pro's source, and ends by only insulting Pro with no substantial argument. Forgot to add this, sources go to Con. Con presented many more sources and Pro presented only one that Con spent an entire round discrediting with no rebuttal from Pro concerning it. As such, Con gets sources.