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

ManBearPig is 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Capitalistslave has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 560 times Debate No: 100250
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.

I will contend that ManBearPig exists.

My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist.

Structure
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. [0]

Definitions

ManBearPig = global warming and visa versa, these can be used interchangeably.

Global warming "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."
[1]



Sources.
0. http://www.debate.org...
1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

I accept the debate and your definitions.

I will be arguing from a philosophical standpoint, specifically, a solipsistic view point.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Round two argument

What is science? Science is the study of the physical universe via empirical evidence. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis that is scientific, and it is assumed true until proven false. A hypothesis can never be proven true, but can have strong supporting evidence to reinforce the hypothesis. Given the number of people on the planet trying to disprove any given hypothesis, it is safe to say that most hypothesis that stand the test of time are true. Even if a hypothesis is proven false, usually only a small fraction of the hypothesis is proven false, and adjusted to fit the new evidence.

"science (G2;sa=8;əns)
n
1. the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms" [2]

That being said we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that global warming exists, is caused by man, and burning of fossil fuels that release Co2 is the main driver. I will support these claims with evidence.

Picture of consensus studies. [3]




Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [3]



Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [4]



Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [5]



Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [6]



Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [7]



Human fingerprint picture. [8]



The evidence for global warming is so vast, that it is equally likely that the moon exists as global warming exists.


Sources.
2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
3. https://skepticalscience.com...
4. http://www.climatecentral.org...
5. https://www.epa.gov...
6. https://skepticalscience.com...
7. https://skepticalscience.com...
8. https://skepticalscience.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

As I stated, I will be arguing from a philosophical stand point.

Now, if you notice, everything my opponent has used as evidence of global warming is dependent upon someone's senses. It required scientists' senses to determine this evidence, or at least we think it was scientists. It's merely our own perception that scientists are responsible for this data that my opponent is presenting.

Additionally, the interpretation of the data by my opponent requires their senses. Now, please tell me: what validates your senses? What validates these supposed scientists' senses? If you say our senses do, that would be circular reasoning and is a logical fallacy.

I will even bring up that the existence of this planet is even dependent on our senses. Perhaps there is not even a planet for there to be warming of.

Everyone usually accepts their senses as reliable, but as optical illusions show, our senses are not always trustworthy. Again, I ask, how does my opponent know for sure that these scientists claim these things without use of their fallible senses? How does my opponent know this evidence exists without use of fallible senses? I contend that we cannot know anything with 100% surety, and this includes global warming, or "manbearpig" as my oppoenent put it.
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Round three rebuttals

I never contend that we known for 100% sure Global Warming also known as ManBearPig exists. Nether do my sources, as seen from the below quote.

"Rather, it is extremely likely that human activities have been the dominant cause of that warming.[2]" [9]

We can never known with 100% certainty that our senses our correct. Yet, we can known that our senses are extremely likely to be correct. For example, social diversity helps avoid group think. That's why having scientists from all over the world is better than just scientists in Germany. Social diversity acts as mitigating factor for bias.

"What Is Groupthink?

Groupthink occurs when a group values harmony and coherance over accurate analysis and critical evaluation. It causes individual members of the group to unquestioningly follow the word of the leader and it strongly discourages any disagreement with the concensus. " [10]

Consilience of evidence helps too, that maybe the senses faltered on one line of evidence, but when you have multiple lines of evidence the chances of the senses failing on every line of evidence is much less.

Now as for the reader's senses, optical illusions are known to trick the senses, but there is only a finite number of them, and we known the science for why they trick us, and we are able to identify them. Thus far in the debate there is no known optical illusions, it would be up to my opponent to show that there was an optical illusion, since having to prove a negative would put an unfair burden of proof on me.

The same goes with mental illness, there is a finite number of mental illness that impair the senses, we can use science to test for the illness, and we are able to identify them.

We can use something other than our senses to validate our senses, logic. If most of the human race was so mentally handicapped that their senses couldn't be trusted we would quickly diminish in numbers. We would walk into ditches, not be able to drive cars, type on the Internet, power plants would fail, we wouldn't be able to feed our pets thus hungry packs of feral dogs would roam the streets, humans would not be able to feed and hydrate ourselves.

Logically, there is only a few scenarios where humans could survive yet not be able to trust our senses. One example is if we were all part of aliens' scientific experiment or some form of virtually reality. Yet, there is no evidence of a computer simulation or any intelligent aliens. There would most likely be some sort of maintenance, bug, virus, or rescue attempt eventually. The lack of evidence for being captured by aliens or computer simulation suggests they don't exist and we can trust our senses.

Next, there is feelings. Animals when under stress react. The same with humans, even if we were unaware of the stress, we would subconsciousnessly feel the stress. Finally, there is intuition, hunch, a gut feeling. If such were true, there is a chance humans would have a sudden flash of insight.

We will never known for 100% sure if humans exists, Earth exists, the Sun exists, if you or I exist, or ManBearPig exists. Yet, via our senses, logic, feelings, and intuition we can known that the above are extremely likely to exist.

Sources.
9. https://www.epa.gov...
10. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Capitalistslave

Con

At the same time, however, it wasn't explicitly said your position would be that "global warming is likely to exist" throughout round 1 you did say "I will contend that ManBearPig exists" and the name of the debate is "ManBearPig is real" as opposed to "Manbearpig is likely real".

It would be impossible for me to argue against that manbearpig is likely to exist, as everything you said in this round is logically sound. However, I suppose it would also be impossible for you to argue that manbearpig is sure to exist. Perhaps I should not have accepted the debate. I don't have any other arguments against what my opponent has said in this past round, but as I said, it wasn't entirely clear that pro would be arguing that manbearpig is likely to exist.
Debate Round No. 3
Stupidape

Pro

Round 4 defense

Considering the burden of proof is equally shared, what it will come down to is ManBearPig more likely to exist that not to exist after reading both sides of the debate? Thank you for the debate.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
I didn't make up any definitions.
"In simpler words, ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming. "

http://southpark.cc.com...
Posted by Masterful 1 year ago
Masterful
So how do you get to make up definitions?
Couldn't I just argue that your definition isn't widely accepted, therefore you can't make that call? ManBearPig isn't the same as Global warming therefore does not exist.
This debate has 0 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.