The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

ManBearPig is real.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
AdmiralSlaughter has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 99824
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.

I will contend that ManBearPig exists.

My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist.

R1 Acceptance & definitions
R2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.
R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.
R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.

Burden of proof
Burden of proof will be shared equally.

Previous debate.


I accept global warming or in this situation "man bear pig" does not exist
Debate Round No. 1


Round two arguments

Picture of consensus studies. [1]

Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [1]

Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [2]

Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [3]

Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [4]

Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [5]

Human fingerprint picture. [6]

As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver.



One reason is that global warming is one not that easy to test and in an article by American Thinker states "It is said that assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. Testing of models by the reliable and venerable Scientific Method has been unable to obtain reproducible test results." When people are presented with the question if global warming is real or not they are told about the icecaps and how they are melting and the simple answer is it is what happened before and like before it will freeze again.

Debate Round No. 2


Round three rebuttals

Fact: Burning of fossil fuels causes more Co2 in the atmosphere.

Myth: There is no connection between fossil fuels and Co2.

Fallacy: Cherry picking. If you look at the chart in the link my opponent provided, it is true that Co2 went down during WWII. Yet, the overall trend is upwards. [7] As you can see in 1850 Co2 was at 285.2 ppm and in 2011 391.15 ppm. Imagine a blueberry bush, and I state "blueberries are blue" then, my opponent finds one blueberry that is unripe and green, then says "all blueberries are green."

Next, my opponent's source has a right bias. [8]

As for the part about polar caps freezing and thawing, it is true that if you look back over millions of years that glaciers melted and refreeze. Yet, if you look at the rate of which temperature and Co2 are increasing and the human fingerprints, this is almost certainty not a natural event.

Fact: Glaciers are melting much faster than in the past.

Myth: Glaciers melted in the past and this is part of a natural cycle.

Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. The evidence does not support the myth. An example of this would be if a house had a broken window, a known criminal's fingerprints are all over the scene, and all the valuables were removed from the premises. My opponent then said "strong winds have broken windows before, therefore, the wind was responsible now."

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medv4380 1 year ago
One sided? You're Implying it's impossible for one side to win. It's entirely possible for ether side to win a Climate Change argument. It is difficult for con to win without any work but nothing in life worth while ever it. I wonder why all the boysterus commenters looking for a one sided show didn't vote on Stupidapes other Global Warming debate. A cheerleader or two may have given him the voting edge he needed. Sad
Posted by AdmiralSlaughter 1 year ago
I really am an idiot for always trying to argue the one sided arguments
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Looking forward to this one.
Posted by Taust 1 year ago
They use very logical techniques such as quote mining, cherry picking, strawman arguments, red herrings, and looking away and plugging their ears whenever evidence that proves them wrong is presented.
Posted by Ferociousfeind 1 year ago
MBP is very obviously a false ideology.
Umm, actually I can't come up with any mock-evidence against Global Warming. I have no idea how Fundamentalists, Moon-Landing Hoaxers, Anti-Vaxxers, Flat-Earth Truthers, etc. do it...
Posted by PowerPikachu21 1 year ago
Do you mean the thing from South Park? It exists as a joke within the cartoon, not in real life, not counting guys who wear suits like that. Global Warming is fact. I don't see how South Park relates to Global Warming though.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Human driven, the finger human prints prove it. The cooling up high and warming down in the atmosphere.
Posted by JimShady 1 year ago
No doubt global warming exists... it should be a debate whether it's primarily humanly or primarily naturally occurring, though.
Posted by KwLm 1 year ago
@ sboss18 I can't tell if you're being cereal right now
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
Awesome topic!
I'm so cereal right now, manbearpig is real.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.