The Instigator
SpicyChicken
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
TheMarketLibertarian
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Is Climate Change Real?

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...
TheMarketLibertarian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/30/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,591 times Debate No: 102314
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

SpicyChicken

Pro

Climate change is real. There is no other viable explanation that proves that climate change is faulty or a fake claim made by China. About 98% of scientists agree that climate change is real and relevant. Now, there is more CO2 in the air then ever, and over the years, that amount has increased and at the same time, temperatures have gone up. You can also see the impact, as glaciers are melting all over the world and all people can clearly see that. Natural phenomena are not viable, because if the temperature rising was due to natural causes, it would not be going up this much. The only reason that our president and conservatives all across the world deny climate change is because they make money off oil and other fossil fuels. If you are worried about jobs in the United States, think again as clean energy would provide a lot of jobs for building these energy facilities, maintaining, engineers to make the cables, electricians for electric upkeep, and more while also paying taxes, which will give our economy money. Because of climate change, sea ice has shrunk by 35% and temperatures have increased globally on average by 2 degrees. You may ask, if climate change is real, why is there still snow? Climate change is only beginning, and there is less rain, less snow, and lower animal survival rates. There are less snowy days, animal habitats are dying and there is an overall increase in the Earth's temperature. That claim takes the average of everything into account. Denying climate change is like saying that the Earth is flat. There is clear evidence, but you have to choose to listen. Don't deny that solar activity could have not caused 2.5 degrees of higher global temperatures.

URL of Sources:
http://climatechange.procon.org...
https://climate.nasa.gov...
http://www.refinery29.com...
https://skepticalscience.com...
https://www.nrdc.org...
TheMarketLibertarian

Con

Let's first analyse my opponent's claims:

"There is no other viable explanation that proves that climate change is faulty or a fake claim made by China."

An arbitrary claim- there is a large body of evidence showing that globa warming is false, but I will get into that later on in the debate.

"About 98% of scientists agree that climate change is real and relevant."

This is called the Appeal to Authority Fallacy- and if this is what counts as an argument- the President of the United States said that global warming is a myth made up by China- and hich one has more authority? Donald Trump of Climate Scientists? You see how absurd this can get?

"Now, there is more CO2 in the air then ever, and over the years, that amount has increased and at the same time, temperatures have gone up."

Actually we used to have a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere, and global tempartures have risenm and fallen systematically. To say we are all going to die because of this trend of rising tempartures is like san ius going to burn us to a crisp because it is rising todauy, and as it rises the hotter it gets. It's just absurd- the sun rose yesterday and the day before that, and we were fine all those times. Like the sun rising and setting, global tempartures go up and doiwn systematically and we are just at a point in which they are growing.

"You can also see the impact, as glaciers are melting all over the world and all people can clearly see that."

Actually Antartic icecaps ae growing.

"Natural phenomena are not viable, because if the temperature rising was due to natural causes, it would not be going up this much."

You mean 0.1 degree over a span of 70 years?

"The only reason that our president and conservatives all across the world deny climate change is because they make money off oil and other fossil fuels."

Or it's because they have a few braincells to rub together. It takes like 2 IQ points to tell that global warming is bullsh*t, and Conservativs have 3 IQ points while Liberals have 1

Imoutofspace
Debate Round No. 1
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by byaka2013 9 months ago
byaka2013
" Don't deny that solar activity could have not caused 2.5 degrees of higher global temperatures."
That's not how climate change works.
Posted by Deathwolf 11 months ago
Deathwolf
Really? Just one round? Nowhere near enough to get right into the thicket of the debate.
Posted by Coveny 1 year ago
Coveny
Did not know there was a need to go into depth on it. Ok.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Coveny // Mod action: Removed<

6 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Con Ad hominem attack against IQ, bad conduct. Pro presented sources to back up his claims, con just disagreed with claims without providing any evidence to support his side, Pro more convincing. Pro had sources con did not, Pro has most reliable sources.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter is required to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. These generalizations about what support each side used for their arguments is not sufficient. (2) Sources are insufficiently explained. Even in cases where only one side uses sources, the voter still has to establish the reliability of those sources (i.e. their relevance to the debate).
************************************************************************
Posted by DrCereal 1 year ago
DrCereal
"Actually Antartic icecaps ae growing."
Cherry picking data. Arctic ice has shrunken drastically.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 1 year ago
CosmoJarvis
While I do believe in climate change, this debate is a clear win for TheMarketLibertarian. While pro did make interesting points, because he didn't cite his sources for each piece of quantitative data and claims, his argument is unreliable. His argument is also fairly disorganized, somewhat informal, and uses bad transitions from one idea to another. His conclusion is also unfitting and fails to summarize his argument. TheMarketLibertarian, on the other hand, made an outstanding analysis of Pro's arguments followed by powerful rebuttals which properly refuted many parts of Pro's claims. His argument was well organized and used proper grammar. However, while TheMarketLibertarian tried to use quantitative data to refute some of Pro's arguments, but, like Pro, failed to cite proper sources to support the data.

If I were to vote, I'd give TheMarketLibertarian a point for better spelling and grammar and for the more convincing arguments, and give Pro the point for more reliable sources.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
SpicyChickenTheMarketLibertarianTied
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: Conduct - Con blatantly insults pro's intelligence. S&G - no significant errors. Arguments - Pro's arguments are mostly rhetorical. The bulk of information is at the beginning where pro cites an agreement of scientists, glaciers melting, and CO2 in the air, but I don't have proper citing to accompany these statements. I'm not going to read through them all to connect them to Pro's case. So I'm not sure what's supported in his case specifically. Con makes the same mistake except without using any sources at all. However, con's job was simply to cast doubt on pro's case enough for me to be unable to affirm the resolution. Con attacks the key points displaying either logical fallacy or a lack of support for a fact. After reading the debate, I'm not convinced pro won, so I cannot award pro the arguments point. Con fulfilled his duty. Sources - sources weren't utilized properly on either side so they did not play a significant role in my RFD.