The Instigator
Mr.Cotton-Balls
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
saamanthagrl
Pro (for)
Winning
49 Points

Global warming

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  
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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/22/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,725 times Debate No: 7054
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

Mr.Cotton-Balls

Con

global warming is real!!! c===3
saamanthagrl

Pro

global warming is real!!! c===3"

As the pro side of the resolution I also believe that global warming is real.
With the statement my opponent has made, I have won the debate.

Vote in affirmation that global warming is real (:
Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Cotton-Balls

Con

ok well i didnt know that that was my first speach i thought that was were the resolution was put.... but with no further delay iI am in strond negation that global warming is real i am going to base my case off of the worlds geological history and human growth.

Deffinitions== Global warming= un natural heating of the ozone caused directly by human beings.

1.)First of all the world we live on is billions of years old and in this time period the earth has went threw many cooling and heating periods this is a fact curently we are coming off the last ice age and the world is gradualy heating back up.

2.) My next point is a point i have come up with my self and supports my first point. it is largley accepted that the resone dinosours grew so large is because a slitly more heated earth than we know now, and a excess of oxegen and carbon manoxide. over the last 400 years litterly not even a second in Geological time the average hight of human beings has grown a foot and a half. this is likly do to the increase in carbon monoxide and oxeygen in our ozone layer.

because of these to points i have proven that the idia that global warming is caused by humans is real and i propose the current heating of the planet be given a different name since global warming is not whats happening.
saamanthagrl

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for continuing into the second round of this debate, and I accept his definition of global warming.

I would like to point out that my opponent has not prove any piece of his argument,nor has he provided any sources. For these reasons, again, I strongly urge you to vote in affirmation of the resolution.

Now I will present an overview, of my points then negate my opponents.

Whether we choose to take action or not is a different story, but once I prove to you that global warming is real, I promise you will think twice about selecting "con" in the BIG ISSUES spot for your profile on debate.org.

Now when it comes down to it, the whole debate is centered around proof. Well I know that I am not a scientist, nor my partner. So as the Pro side of this resolution I would like to provide you with a source that shows, "scientists" agree that global warming is real. (http://www.cnn.com...)

My contentions,

1. Glaciers have melted and retreated dramatically, proof that global warming is real
'Around the world these massive moving fields of ice have been posting record losses. The World Glacier Monitoring Service, based at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, looked at nearly 30 reference glaciers in nine different mountain ranges across the globe. In March, its scientists reported disturbing news. The average melting and thinning rate of those glaciers has more than doubled between the 2004 and 2006.

"The latest figures are part of what appears to be an accelerating trend with no apparent end in sight," said Wilfried Haeberli, who directs the glacier-monitoring group.

In Antarctica, a large chunk of the Wilkins Ice Shelf recently collapsed into the sea. Satellite images show the Wilkins Shelf began falling apart in late February, when a large iceberg 41 kilometers by 2.5 kilometers (25.5 miles by 1.5 miles) broke away from the shelf. This triggered a runaway disintegration of an additional 405 square kilometers (160 square miles) of the shelf. The total loss was 8.5 times the area covered by New York's Manhattan island. As of March 23, only a 6 km (3.7 mile) wide strip of intact ice was protecting the shelf from further collapse.

Scientists from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center and the British Antarctic Survey put the blame for the Wilkins' massive melt-triggered event on a warmer world. "We believe the Wilkins [Shelf] has been in place for at least a few hundred years," said Ted Scambos, a lead scientist with the snow and ice data center. "But warm air and exposure to ocean waves are causing a break-up."

With strong evidence that ice is melting globally atop mountains and at Earth's poles, scientists say that it's pretty clear our planet is warming. And that could spell big changes even in regions where the only ice you'd normally encounter is in a beverage.'

Refuting Mr. Cotton Ball's arguments,
"1.)First of all the world we live on is billions of years old and in this time period the earth has went threw many cooling and heating periods this is a fact currently we are coming off the last ice age and the world is gradualy heating back up."

'This is not new news. These changes started 18,000 years ago, as the earth emerged from the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when ice-covered mammoths and mastodons roamed the earth.

Geologists know great ice sheets once covered large portions of the continents. These glaciers have alternately retreated and advanced as the earth has warmed and cooled, in cycles spanning hundreds, thousands, and millions of years.

Historical data from ocean sediments and ice cores indicate warm interglacial periods of 15,000 - 20,000 years separate each major ice age. We currently are in an interglacial period, and are due for the next 100,000- year Ice Age.'

"2.) My next point is a point i have come up with my self and supports my first point. it is largley accepted that the resone dinosours grew so large is because a slitly more heated earth than we know now, and a excess of oxegen and carbon manoxide. over the last 400 years literly not even a second in Geological time the average height of human beings has grown a foot and a half. this is likely do to the increase in carbon monoxide and oxeygen in our ozone layer."

I do not agree with this, because their is no proof. Making the ground to debate this point, hard.

Sources:
(http://www.millenniumassessment.org...)
(http://climate.weather.com...)
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Cotton-Balls

Con

First id like to refute my opponets contentians of glacers and ocean ice melting she would like to say i have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption.

1.) my apponets first point and only point is that ice is melting ice is melting off mountains , glaciers and of the north and south poles she didnot say how human beings are the cause 4 this nor did she say that this is not the cause of the planets naturale climate changes. so in away u could see this point of melting ice supporting my side of the debate.

now i would like to go over my points

First off i would like to reintroduce my point of the earths natural heating and cooling. we human beings have been on earth a very short time this world we live on changes wether we want it to or not and it will. over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period.
saamanthagrl

Pro

As my opponent made a mistake in their first round, I would like to say that I have also made a mistake by accepting his definition. The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world's oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible.

As the Pro side of this resolution I would like to define global warming as,

"Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming"
(www.ifdn.com/teacher/glossary.htm)

"-she would like to say I have given no proof but nether has she she neglects to say that global warming is a theory and has not been proven scientifictly but on my side i have history not lose assumption."

You are correct you have given no proof, no sources, no research, no anything that I can accept is true on your behalf. Every argument I have gotten I cannot accept merely because it was written, in poor condition and their is no proof, unless you are a new scientist that I have no heard of, I find every argument of yours is wrong.

I would like to define proof as a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it. (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

I neglect to say that global warming is a theory? The whole point of this debate is for the Pro to prove that global warming is real, and not a theory. Why would I contradict myself?

Do you find everything I am posting to be lose assumptions? Maybe you should scroll up to my sources.

"-over the last ten million years the world has been around 4 billion of those years have had living life on her contanents and with that said 67% of the time the world has hade living life on it the planet had little to no ice on it. 65 million years in the past a astroid hit the planet this set of the trend of heating and cooling that we are experancing 2 day. There has been 4 Major ice ages since then. along ith many other little ice ages. and off course with the end of a ice age u have a warming period."

"As early as the nineteenth century, scientists recognized that greenhouse gases warm the planet, and that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) could lead to global warming on much shorter time scales than the natural, cyclic fluctuations related to ice ages and interglacials. Around the same time, global temperatures began to rise, and scientists became increasingly concerned that humans were interfering with the climate. In the 1950s the upward trend in global temperatures unexpectedly halted and temperatures declined somewhat. This led some to become concerned about global cooling, and, in turn, newspaper headlines proclaimed an imminent ice age. Climate skeptics often point to that period as evidence that climate scientists are not to be trusted – warnings of global cooling back then, warnings of global warming now. Over the past quarter century, scientific research on global climate change has intensified; international programs have been organized. We now have detailed, global data sets from satellites and ever-more sophisticated instruments. Computer models, incorporating more and more data and capable of recreating past trends, can more precisely predict future scenarios. As a result, our understanding of the climate system is immeasurably stronger than in the 1970s. The National Academy of Sciences, which admitted we did not know enough to "pose the key questions" in 1975, now says:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures ... to rise." (NAS, 2001)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. ... We urge all nations ... to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change." (NAS [pdf], 2005)"
(http://www.nicholas.duke.edu...)

Once again, I apologize for the confusion that has been caused in the first and second rounds. I strongly urge for a vote in affirmation of the resolution.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Watch this,

changed my views.
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
u dident make eny def so i did you have to debate by my definition u cant bring up a definition in the last round? that lessens the grounds for debate my young padawon
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
yeah really u cant trust half the crap the media shuves down your mouth. the only resone the media puts stuff like that out there is because it scares people and thats the way they make money. thank u brendizzle my nizzle fizzle! Gs 4 life lol
Posted by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
Because we both agree.
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Anthony and Brendon, why don't you guys debate this topic?
Posted by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."...

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."
Posted by Mr.Cotton-Balls 7 years ago
Mr.Cotton-Balls
how did i go against my own voc i didnt mention eny thing about it?
Posted by gregthedestroyer 7 years ago
gregthedestroyer
Anthony you went against your own vocab. And you had no evidence.
Posted by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Thank you Brendon, I will make sure to menchen that in my next argument.
Posted by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
I have something for pro too, though. Samantha, keep in mind that he said in the definition that you accepted "Global warming= un natural heating of the ozone caused directly by human beings." You have to prove that definition of global warming and you've said nothing about humans causing global warming, only that it exists.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by resolutionsmasher 7 years ago
resolutionsmasher
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by pieman 7 years ago
pieman
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 7 years ago
TheRaven
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by sorc 7 years ago
sorc
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by brendizzle29 7 years ago
brendizzle29
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by Epicism 7 years ago
Epicism
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Vote Placed by saamanthagrl 7 years ago
saamanthagrl
Mr.Cotton-BallssaamanthagrlTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07