The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
retroz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Manmade global climate change is real and a threat.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/15/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 294 times Debate No: 94739
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

I have noticed that a surprising number of people still think global climate change is a hoax. I hope to destroy some of that myth. Pope Francis recognizes climate change and calls for swift action. [0]

Impact: I think the Pope knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat.

The scientific angle, inconvenient truth [1]. Impact, scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth. [1]


Sources
0. http://www.nytimes.com...
1. http://www.imdb.com...
retroz

Con

Thank you for posting this debate, I hope to be a worthy opponent!!!!

Your argument is based on the pope's opinion as well as a scientific documentary

My argument will be based on historical evidence as well as current scientific evidence that contradicts the theory of Global Climate Change

First I'd like to clarify that Global Warming and Global Climate Change are the same theory with a different name and I will treat them as such. First, I'd like to define Global Climate Change (or Warming)

Thus the theory of Global Climate Change (warming) is - a change in global climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onward and attributed to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.

I'd like to give a more simplified version of the above statement by giving this general statement released by the IPCC on what Climate Change is "Increasing fossil fuel causes increasing carbon dioxide in the air; and increasing carbon dioxide in the air causes climate change."

Next, I'd like to refute my opponent's arguments

Argument 1) Pope Francis recognizes climate change and he "Knows what he is doing and thus man-made global climate change is real and a threat"

My Response: Pope Francis has no college degree in science (he does have a "titulo" as a chemical technician, which is not a college degree) and either way he is not a climatologist and his opinion does not count as an expert's opinion and his opinion is on par with the opinion of world leaders and celebrities... Essentially, his opinion on climate change is just as important as the opinion of Vladimir Putin's, neither count as an expert, but their opinion's count as a World Leader's opinion.

Argument 2) An Inconvenient Truth

My Response: I will watch the entirety of this movie so I can refute the movie in my next argument



Now I will give my basic arguments

1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid

During World War II, U.S. oil production increased by 3 billion barrels annually during the war. Both the Allies and the Axis used incredible amounts of oil and the best scientific data available, which is from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shows that carbon dioxide levels literally "flat-lined" during the decade between 1940 and 1950 staying at 311.3 PPM and actually going down between 1941 and 1945, (the period that the US was in the war) [1] So, how did burning another 12+ billion barrels of oil not increase CO2???? Because, there is no direct link between oil usage and CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. Of course CO2 is a byproduct of the burning of oil, but that CO2 has had little to no affect on atmospheric CO2 as seen in my example above.

2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record...

According to the UAH and RSS climate research satellites there had been no warming between the late 90's and 2015 in fact 2014, was only .01 degrees hotter than 2005, and 2013 was only .02 degrees warmer than 2005. The conclusion from the analysis of the data is that while there has been a .05 degree warming trend since 2002, according to researchers that is "statistically insignificant" [2] The small upward trend from 1978 to 2015 is .2 degrees Celsius and is once again classifiable as statistically insignificant and is not proof of any man made global warming, in fact the lack of a significant upward trend shows not only that global warming predictions on climate and temperatures have been well off, but that there may not be any man made global warming at all. (excuse the site on the chart, woodfortrees.org is not where I got the chart, the source I used for the chart is the one listed as source 2)


3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory

NASA satillites discovered that the antarctic sea ice had reached a new record high in 2012 and then again in 2014, in 2014 it set a record for the largest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history [3]. Global Warming theory dictates that the Ice caps would begin to melt at an alarming rate, but if that's the case then how come this has occurred. In fact Al Gore and many Global Warming theorists stated that the ice caps would be completley gone by 2013, when the exact opposite has occurred.
Image of antarctic sea ice

The red line in the photo is the largest that the ice had ever been recorded at.

4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases
look at both of the below charts, the first chart is CO2 and temperature data for the last 750 million years, each blue dot represents the temperature and CO2 levels. What you can see is that the dots are everywhere and seemingly when CO2 is raised the dots tend to be higher, but there are several dots (call them outliers if you wish) that even nearing 5000 PPM CO2 are still cooler than the average Earth Temperature. On top of this, why are there dots near the 1000 PPM range that are higher up on the anomaly range than the dots at 7000 PPM.
The Second chart shows CO2 and Temperature from 1999 to 2014, what can be seen is a very, very small trend line which is again considered Statistically Insignificant, showing no proof of a global climate change. (specifically the trend is .00668, which is essentially 0 to statisticians) [4]
s://s17.postimg.io...; alt="" />

s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" />


Both Charts show a lack of evidence with CO2 and Temperature, In fact, it could be said that there is no correlation between CO2 and Temperature Change. However IPCC's definition of Global Climate Change requires such a correlation and if such a correlation is not apparent than Climate Change theory is flawed and thus Global Climate Change would not exist. So, based on all 4 of my points I am in firm negation of the topic in which we are debating.


Thank you for reading this argument and looking at my charts!!! I hope you understood it, and I can't to see your next round.
I'd like to remind my opponent of his BoP, which because of him being the pro he must prove specifically that Man Made Climate change is real and a threat he must prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt, my BoP is not to disprove Climate Change but rather to cast a shadow of a doubt, similar to a court case the judges must not have ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT that he has won or they must give me the victory.

Sources:
[1]http://data.giss.nasa.gov...
[2]http://dailycaller.com...
[3]http://www.nasa.gov...
[4]https://wattsupwiththat.com...

In case the charts/pics dont show up... Here are each of the chars on an external link:
1: http://dailycaller.com...
2: http://www.nasa.gov...
3:https://s17.postimg.io...
4: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

Rebuttals


First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist.


Opponent's arguments.

1. Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid


This is overtly false, since science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases. This is also stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]


"The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation" [2]

From the above statement you can clearly see that burning oil causes green house gases. Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain. Yet, from your own graph, you can see that CO2 levels are increasing dramatically.


Argument 2 Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record


Argument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy. [3][4]

s://grist.files.wordpress.com...; alt="https://grist.files.wordpress.com...; />


Argument 3 Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory


Antarctica ice is 1b stage of climate change denial. [3]


"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence."

"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."


As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. [5]


4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases

This is stage 3c of climate change denial. [3]

""When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.

Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "

show picture of graph if possible." [6][7]


Antartica ice provides supporting evidence due to increase snow fall in sub freezing tempatures.

Phew, made me work for the victory. Was fun defeating all your points. You put up the best fight thus far. Thanks for having the courage to speak out against the majority.



Sources
2. https://www.epa.gov...
3. http://grist.org...
4. http://grist.org...
5. http://grist.org...
6. http://grist.org...
7. http://www.grida.no...
retroz

Con

In this round I will be refuting my opponent's arguments and I will be resupporting my own arguments

My opponent stated
"First my arguments still stand. I think everyone already knows the Pope is not a climate change scientist."

But what my opponent fails to realize is that quoting the pope is not an argument, an argument needs evidence, the quote from the Pope is not evidence of climate change, rather it is only a claim followed by my opponent's warrant. You can't just quote the pope and call it an argument, thus you have no first argument. The Pope's statement does not further your case (unless he was a climate scientist, then it would)

So, because the pope is not a climate researcher I really don't even need to refute his statement but I have done so by showing that the Pope is not a climate scientist.

In his first rebuttal my opponent stated that
"science has shown repeatably that CO2 emissions increase green house gases", but he shows no specific evidence of this occurring. Then my opponent quotes the EPA "The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels" However, if this were true then how come the decade long decrease in CO2 was seen, even as fossil fuel combustion increased (In the US alone 3 billion more barrels were used per year). In fact, my opponent conceded that point when he said "Why CO2 levels happen to drop that year is uncertain", so my opponent has conceded my first point.

My opponent stated in rebuttal 2
"Argument two is cherry picking."
But he shows no evidence of how it is cherry picking... Thus, this statement ought not to be considered, however I will prove how my second argument was not cherry picking...

The definition of cherry picking is "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld." [1]
However, I have not cherry picked evidence because of the fact that I offered the statistical analysis of two major climate research satellites which have had their results peer reviewed by the scientific community and been found to be accurate. In fact, if I had cherry picked this evidence it would not show the .2 degree warming trend that it did...

What is even more ironic is that my opponent goes on to say "El Nino was responsible for the height of the graph." But even I conceded that the warming trend was there, in fact my opponent just contradicted his entire case by calling the warming trend that was apparent on the graph; El Nino, a regional, natural phenomena, that has nothing to do with Global Climate Change. So, if El Nino caused the warming trend on the graph, then Global Warming is a hoax because all warming trends over the period of the graph can be explained by El Nino (He said it, I didn't).

My opponent in rebuttal 3 stated
"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence."

By definition if the phenomena is not experienced GLOBALLY, then GLOBAL Climate Change is not occurring [1] (simple definition 1)

"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."

If this is true then how come one of the biggest proponents of Global Warming said that the poles would be ice free by 2013 [2], Leon Penetta once said [while talking about Global Climate Change] "The melting of the Polar Ice Caps" [3]. There seems to be a consensus among scientists and Global Warming Theorists that the Ice caps will melt when Global Warming occurs. Then How did my opponent find contradictory evidence? He found such evidence because he quoted a man with 0 climate science experience. His sources 4,5, and 6 are written by Coby Beck "Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer." [4] So, any quote by him ought to be ignored because it offers no expert value or value of any sort. In fact, my opponent is not even quoting the credible science in some of Beck's blogs, my opponent is quoting Beck's opinions which hold no value.

My opponent in his 4th rebuttal quotes the same man again... and his statement ought to be ignored but in another one of my opponent's contradictory statements, he says "temperature moved first [in relation to CO2]", but if this is true, then how come the IPCC said that CO2 caused temperature to move? Which one is it? Either way my opponent has contradicted Global Warming theory as we are debating it and has negated his own refutation.

My opponent's graph is quite interesting. The graph appears to show a correlation between CO2 and Temperature, however there are several occasions of temperature and CO2 acting independently, one major example is 400k years before present when the temperature increased dramatically for a (relatively) short period while CO2 decreased, and then again around 380k years ago where temperature decreased dramatically while CO2 increased. So, my opponent's chart, however intriguing, shows once again, that temperature and CO2 act independently from one another.

Now I will Strengthen my original cases

1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid

My opponent has conceded this point (see above for more details)


2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record

I have shown my opponent's rebuttal of this claim to be false, and his claim of a logical fallacy to be false, however I'd like to strengthen this point more.
USCRN the largest and most advanced climate research network in the US has shown a decade long cooling trend. While the trend is statistically 0, it still shows no evidence of global warming. If the entire world is warming, (definition of Global Warming, see above) then how come the United States isn't? [5]
s://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...; alt="" width="1005" height="551" />

Furthering my point, A large integrated network of Argo ocean buoys operated by the British Oceanographic Data Center in combination with satellite-enhanced data reveal no statistical warming. Again I posit the question, If the world is warming, then how come the US AND Britain (and the surrounding ocean) are not. [6]

3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory

Seeing as my opponent's refutation of this point was insufficient, I do not feel the need to strengthen this point.

4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases

As I have refuted my opponent's statements about this point I'd like to point out that my opponent has neglected to mention both of my charts for this point, both of which show an obvious independence between CO2 and Temperature, even over the time span of millions of years of data.

Judges, seeing as my opponent has not fulfilled his BoP at this point in the debate you would be required to vote in favor of the Con.

I look forward to reading my opponent's next argument, and I'd like to say that I'm enjoying this debate.


Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.cnsnews.com...
[3] http://www.brainyquote.com...

[4] http://grist.org...
[5] https://wattsupwiththat.com...
[6] http://www.newsmax.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Defending my arguments.

First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary. I made this argument in r1 and thus far has been uncontested. I have fulfilled my burden of proof with this documentary in round one. As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority.


Argument one, burning of fossil fuels increase Co2.

I've shown that the EPA states that burning of fossil fuels increase the greenhouse gas of CO2. I was unable to figure out why CO2 levels dropped during the time interval of 1940-1950. Yet, I did show that by my opponent's same graph CO2 levels have risen dramatically. In 1850 with Co2 at 285.2 ppm and in the year 2011 391.15 ppm. This is a cherry picking fallacy, my opponent has chosen a time frame that best suits him/her despite the obvious overall trend of higher concentrations of CO2.

"The two main byproducts of natural gas combustion are carbon dioxide and water vapor" [8]

As you can see the combustion of natural gas causes carbon dioxide, Co2 emissions.

2. Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record...


My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph.


3. Ice in Antarctica


The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false.


4. CO2 and temperature are strongly correlated.

The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory.

Conclusions


My opponent relies almost exclusively on cherry picking as a strategy. The overall trend is warmer and Co2 levels are increasing. Thanks for debating.


Sources
8. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
retroz

Con

My opponent stated that
"First and foremost, my opponent has dropped the issue of the Inconvenient truth documentary"

However, my entire case has been in contradiction to the inconvenient truth documentary, as seen when my opponent states "scientific evidence clearly backs up this claim in the documentary an inconvenient truth", I have offered scientific in direct contradiction to the scientific evidence in the movie, thus I have negated my opponent's ENTIRE argument.

" As for the Pope's contribution, this shows just how much climate change deniers are within the minority."

Seeing as my opponent likes to spew out the term "fallacy", I will spew out the term band wagon fallacy which this argument is, because

The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true. My opponent has admitted to doing this by sating that "climate change deniers are within the minority"

In my opponent's (rather short) rebuttal he said that I was cherry picking again (in my first argument) He did show that I chose a time fame that best suits me, but that time frame that best suits me shows a DIRECT INDEPENDENCE between oil consumption and CO2 in the atmosphere. This isn't cherry picking because I didn't just show a single year or two of independence I showed an entire decade of data. Not only this, but in my 3rd graph (on my first argument) I showed how CO2 levels has been extremely higher than we've ever seen in humanity's history (in some cases over 8000 PPM well before the industrial revolution). Once again I showed independence between ATMOSPHERIC CO2 and Fossil Fuel Consumption.

My opponent doesn't seem to understand my argument that ATMOSPHERIC CO2 has no direct relationship to fossil fuel consumption, he lists the obvious fact that CO2 is released by the burning of fossil fuels, but shows no explanation to why an entire decade (and more) of data shows no relation between fossil fuel consumption and atmospheric CO2, in fact he drops the point in his second argument when he says he cannot explain why this statistic occurred.

My opponent's second rebuttal states
"My opponent seems to miss the original claim he/she made. I have shown that the overall trend is upwards. El nino was particularly potent in the spike of the graph."

I haven't forgotten any claims that I have made, however my opponent has not shown anything contrary to my original claim, his only counter argument negates his entire argument when my opponent blames the spike in temperature on El Nino, a climate feature unrelated to Global Warming. But again even I admitted there was a slight warming trend since 1978, but if the El Nino spike is removed from the data the trend disappears, so my opponent admits that Global Warming is not the cause of the temperature since 1978.


My opponent's third rebuttal states
"The overall tend is hotter. Climate can be difficult to predict, just because not everything predicted came true at the correct time, doesn't destroy the overall premise is false."

However I have shown 3 different examples of a lack of an overall warming trend. My first example being my 1st chart on my first argument, which shows that GLOBALLY the overall warming trend (that there is) is "statistically insignificant" (since 1978). My second example shows that in the US temperatures are cooling over the last decade. My third example shows that in the North and East Atlantic Ocean, as well as, the British Isles have not experienced any warming.

My opponent's fourth rebuttal states
"The graph clearly indicates that Co2 and temperature show a strong positive relationship. Yes, there are a few anomalies but that doesn't discredit the theory."

My opponent has offered one singular graph showing a relationship between CO2 and temperature. However, I have pointed out that there are events on his graph that shows an independence between the two variables, on top of this, I have offered TWICE as much evidence in the contrary, which my opponent has neglected to mention, showing independence between the two variables even over millions of years.

Again I'd like to crystalize my arguments

1: Fossil Fuels do not cause an increase in CO2 emissions, which makes the first part of the IPCC's basic version of global warming invalid

My opponent has not other a sufficient refutation for this argument, because this point refutes the definition of Global Warming, it proves that, as we are debating it, Global Warming is not real and thus not a threat.

2: Despite common belief the last few years have not been the warmest on record...
My opponent calls this point "cherry picking" however as I have proven, this is not true, and because my opponent has not offered contrary evidence and because of that this point still stands

3: Antarctic Ice was larger than ever in 2012 and 2014, thus the Antarctic Ice caps have not been melting which is thought to be a sideffect of the Global Warming theory
My opponent's first reputation was to say that the ice caps would not melt if Global Warming occurred, however I have shown that this is false, then my opponent made a refutation that is not in contradiction to anything that I stated, so this point still stands.

4: There is no direct link between CO2 Emissions and Temperature Increases
My opponent has neglected to mention either of my graphs and my opponent's evidence has been refuted making this point still relevant in this debate.

Now I'd like to show why I have won this debate
My opponent's arguments have been proven false or a fallacy. My opponent's first "point" is the pope's quote which I've shown to be worth no value to this debate, and I have proven it to be a bandwagon fallacy. My opponent's second point is the Inconvenient Truth Movie which posits scientific evidence for the theory of Global Warming, However, my entire case is in direct contradiction to this movie and acts as counter evidence and a rebuttal to the movie.

So, because both of my opponent's arguments have been proven wrong, and my opponent's refutations have been untrue and unfounded, and I have proven them to be so, Thus, I have won this debate... Judges must vote in favor of the Con because of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented and the lack of evidence for my opponent.
I'd like to thank my opponent for this fun and enlightening debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by ILikePie5 3 months ago
ILikePie5
Just proves that climate regulations by Democrats aren't going to help.....they just destroy our economy.
Posted by epidexipteryx 3 months ago
epidexipteryx
Great work Retroz. You utterly destroyed Stupidape. I would vote but I need to finish 3 debates first so since I cant I am saying in the comments that you had the overall better argument and more scientific data.
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
Wow, you responded quick.
Posted by retroz 3 months ago
retroz
My chart for my second argument

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com...
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
Argument two is cherry picking. El nino was responsible for the height of the graph. This is 1b stage of climate change denial and a logical fallacy.

http://grist.org...
http://grist.org...
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
4. Your argument that Co2 is not responsible.

"When viewed coarsely, historical CO2 levels and temperature show a tight correlation. However, a closer examination of the CH4, CO2, and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records reveals that, yes, temperature moved first.

Nevertheless, it is misleading to say that temperature rose and then, hundreds of years later, CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5,000 to 10,000 years (the cooling periods lasted more like 100,000 years!), so for the majority of that time (90% and more), temperature and CO2 rose together. "

show picture of graph if possible.
http://www.grida.no...
Posted by Stupidape 3 months ago
Stupidape
I'm going to post my arguments in pieces in the comments and then compile them into an argument for r2.

Antarctica ice

"First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence."

"Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees " say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C " would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn"t melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass."

As you can see your Antarctica ice argument provides supporting evidence global climate change is happening. Thank you for that argument.

http://grist.org...
Posted by retroz 3 months ago
retroz
So the 3rd and 4th chart did not show up, I attached their links underneath my sources, they are links 3 and 4
No votes have been placed for this debate.