The Instigator
tejretics
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
lannan13
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Official May Tournament Final: 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
tejretics
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 9/17/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,226 times Debate No: 79825
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

tejretics

Pro

Preface

This is the Final debate of the Official May Regular Tournament [http://www.debate.org...] on solely highly controversial topics, hosted by Unitomic. On account of RoyalFlush100 and KingKD being inactive, Lannan and I are the only ones to pass Round 1 and Round 2, to go onto the Final. In Round 1, I defeated Mister_Man, while Varrack dropped out, to give Lannan a bye. In Round 2, both of us gained byes due to inactivity. Therefore, we are the last standing in the tournament.

There is a minimum required Elo of 2500 to vote on this debate, with a 72 hour time period, 10,000 characters, and five rounds. I wish Lannan the best of luck, and thank Unitomic for the tournament!

Full Topic

On balance, mankind is probably the main cause of global warming.

Terms

All terms and definitions influenced by the Oxford Dictionary, the American Heritage Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Wikipedia.

On Balance - 'when all factors are taken into consideration'
Mankind - 'the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind'
Probably - 'is likely to take place or be true'
Main - 'chief in size, extent or importance'
Cause - 'the producer of an effect' or 'a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition'
Global Warming - 'the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation,' and 'the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects'

Rules

1. No forfeits
2. All arguments must be within this debate, but sources can be in an external link directed to within this debate
3. No new arguments in the final round
4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere
5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics
6. No "kritiks" of the topic (or any other "kritiks")
7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions
8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understanding of them that fit within the logical context of the debate
9. The burden of proof is shared
10. The first round is for acceptance only
11. Violation of any of these rules or any of the R1 set-up is a conduct violation, and any violating arguments (e.g. "kritiks," rebuttals in R4) should be discredited by judges

Structure

R1. Acceptance Only
R2. Pro's Case, Con's Case
R3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case
R4. Pro defends Pro's Case, Con defends Con's Case
R5. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's Case, both Crystallize

Thanks...

...again to Lannan13, and to Unitomic for organizing the tournament; I look forward to a truly stellar discourse!
lannan13

Con

I accept this challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
tejretics

Pro

C1) Positive feedbacks dominate climate


Carbon dioxide has a significant influence on global land-sea mean temperature. All scientists agree that CO2 has some direct effect, increasing temperature by 1.1 degrees Celsius per doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. David Evans argues, “Most serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct effect of CO2. The argument is entirely about the feedbacks.” [1]


Climate sensitivity is the key point in all of climate science. The term ‘climate sensitivity’ refers to -- in this context -- the rise in equilibrium global land-sea mean temperature per doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere [2]. A 2005 study by Nir Joseph Shaviv confirms that the climate sensitivity, without any amplification, is 1.1 degrees Celsius [3]. Most serious scientists agree. The argument, as Evans argues, is about the feedbacks.


What is a feedback? A feedback is a climate process that amplifies or dampens the effect of a climate forcing. A climate forcing is any factor that influences temperature increase, in this case referring to CO2. So, a feedback is anything that amplifies or dampens the effect of CO2 on climate. Feedbacks that amplify it are called positive feedbacks, while those that dampen it are negative ones [4]. I argue that positive feedbacks dominate climate, and therefore, increase the overall effect of CO2 on temperature.



Various studies report positive feedbacks as more likely. Soden and Held report a 2 degree celsius climate sensitivity due to positive feedbacks. The study reports very few negative feedbacks. “Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response.” [5] A 2003 study by Colman reports a feedback of nearly 3 degrees celsius, and the paper is cited by Soden and Held. In the study, “[a] comparison is performed for water vapour, cloud, albedo and lapse rate feedbacks taken from published results of ‘offline’ feedback calculations for general circulation models (GCMs) with mixed layer oceans performing 2 x CO2 and solar perturbation experiments.” [6]


There is much evidence outside climate models as well. Wigley, et al. report a possible sensitivity of greater than 4.5 degrees celsius due to volcanic forcings, and supports an average sensitivity of 3.5 degrees. The study says, “After the maximum cooling for low-latitude eruptions, the temperature relaxes back toward the initial state with an e-folding time of 29–43 months for sensitivities of 1–4 degrees C equilibrium warming for CO2 doubling.” [7] A 2005 study by Forster and Gregory also uses volcanic forcings and feedbacks, and finds a climate sensitivity range of 1 - 4.1 degrees Celsius [8].


Even in a hypothetical scenario where negative feedbacks cancel out positive feedbacks to a climate sensitivity of 1 degree C, research by Ziskin and Shaviv (2011) has predicted that “the largest contribution to the 20th century warming comes from anthropogenic sources.” [9] They find that of the ~0.7 degree C temperature rise in the 20th century (some estimates slightly higher), about 0.4 degrees of that are due to anthropogenic forgings, or about 57% of the warming.


Nonetheless, climate sensitivity is likely much higher than that. Research by Patrick Michaels, a CATO scholar, found that the amplifier was 1.6 degrees C [10]. This means that human activity causing global warming is much greater than 57%, even under these low estimates. I still maintain that sensitivity is somewhere around 2 - 3 degrees C. A study by leading climatologist JD Annan -- using the Bayesian statistical approach -- found a mean sensitivity of 3 degrees Celsius [11]. The following graph describes the consensus in the literature on climate sensitivity [12].



The following picture portrays the evidence regarding climate sensitivity.



As such, I conclude that the effect of the rise in CO2 on climate is huge.


C2) Evidence from paleoclimatology


The paleoclimatological record is clear that CO2 has become the chief climate forcing in the Cenozoic Era (which began after the Cretaceous mass-extinction event 65.5 million years ago). Overall, solar activity has increased by 40% in this period. James E. Hansen and Makiko Sato argue, “The sun’s brightness increased steadily through the Cenozoic, by about 0.4 percent according to solar physics models (Sackmann et al., 1993). Because Earth absorbs about 240 W/m^2 of solar energy, that brightness increase is a forcing of about 1 W/m^2 . This small linear increase of forcing, by itself, would have caused a modest global warming through the Cenozoic Era.” [13] It’s clear that “CO2 was the dominant forcing in the Cenozoic.” [13]


The temperature changes correspond to the changes in CO2 levels. Take the example of the Vostok ice cores. A study by French and Russian institutes says, “There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr.” [14]


This graph shows the correlations between CO2 and temperature over the past 200,000 years.



There is proof that it is warmer now than since the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, it is warmer now than any year since 1400 [15]. Another study that replicated previous ‘hockey stick’ studies shows the following data [16].



Thus, paleoclimatology confirms that CO2 influences climate at huge levels.


C3) Human activity


I have now established that CO2 is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%. Now, I must establish that humans are responsible for much of CO2 generation. First, a simple correlation -- CO2 levels rose with the beginning of industrial activity [17]. The following graph shows CO2 concentrations over the last 10,000 years.



If the ratio between C-14 and C-12 decline, the observation would virtually confirm that human activity is responsible for increase in CO2 concentration. This is because the CO2 emissions humans make come from fossil fuels [18]. This has been observed [19].


Thus, human activity has influenced CO2 decline and CO2 is a driving force of climate. Therefore, I affirm.


1. https://mises.org...

2. http://www.pik-potsdam.de...

3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

4. http://www.ipcc.ch...

5. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...

6. http://link.springer.com...

7. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

8. http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk...

9. http://www.phys.huji.ac.il...

10. http://www.int-res.com...

11. http://www.jamstec.go.jp...

12. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

13. http://www.columbia.edu...

14. http://cdiac.ornl.gov...

15. http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca...

16. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

17. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

18. http://www.skepticalscience.com...

lannan13

Con

Contention 1: CO2 and Temperatures.

First, let's bring up just how much these accused compounds exactly warm the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 for example has the global warming potential of 1. Here are the other numbers.

Carbon Dioxide -- 1
Methane -- 21
Nitrous Oxide -- 298-310
CFC's -- Various
Water Vapor -- 0.25 [1]
Now, I just want you to keep this in mind for this next part here. We may observe that humans release approximately 35 gigatons of CO2 a year. [2] This is only 4.3% of the total amount of all Global Warming Gasses, however it is incrediably small when it comes to comparing the rest of the Global Warming gasses. If we observe the chart bellow we can see that Water Vapor is a large Contributor to Global Warming at 95% and CO2 comes in second. But here's the kicker. If we look at the Human contributed part that I'm about to post in the graph bellow we can see that it's very miniscule of 0.117% of all total Warming gasses. Now let's do some quick math here. CO2's increase was from what my opponent is claiming is from 295 ppm to 400ppm, a total of only 105 ppm. 1 Gigaton of CO2 is the equilivent of 2.13 ppm. [3] This means that increase of 105 ppm means a total of 49.29 gigatons. Since 1 gigaton of CO2 is the equivilance of .004% of the Greenhouse effect that means that 49.29 gigatons means an aditional .21% increase to Global Warming. This would account for a grand total of a 0.15 F increase in global temperature. This is a very measly amount and we can see that with my opponent's claims a simple 0.15 F increase isn't enough to melt glacers and have the effeccts that he is speaking of and it proves that this is NAUTRAL not man-made to fulfil his effects if they were real.
Fig. 2. C13 fraction variations contained in seasonal versus, interannual versus decadal variability, compared to known geophysical sources.
The above graph shows that comparisions of C13 (Carbon isotope) and this shows that there is little to no trend pertrade in many of these as the average is zero while the trend for all of these are zero. [4] This is important as the Carbon isotope is important in measuring this so called "Global Warming."
Let us observe the above graph. Here I would like to point out the that the increase from Pre-Inustrial to Industrial era and the doubling of the CO2 leveling lead to a decrease in it's temperature. Also we can see that the 10 mile "hot-spot" above the tropics is actually absent. "The computer models show that greenhouse warming will cause a hot-spot at an altitude between 8 and 12 km over the tropics between 30 N and 30 S. The temperature at this hot-spot is projected to increase at a rate of two to three times faster than at the surface. However, the Hadley Centre's real-world plot of radiosonde temperature observations shown below does not show the projected CO2 induced global warming hot-spot at all. The predicted hot-spot is entirely absent from the observational record. This shows that atmosphere warming theory programmed into climate models are wrong." [5]





Now if we observe the above graph of the past 400,000 yeasrs we can see that the CO2 rates in our atmosphere has flutated the exact same way in this cycle both before and during the existance of human beings. We can see that the temperatures and CO2 levels have been going up and down randomly for the past 100 thousands years and it is observed that this occured before the industrial revolution. We can also see that right now we are in a warming period so that arguing that humans are because of this is post hoc. Not to mention that we are in the coldest of the warming periods in Earth's history!



We can see that once again despite contrary to belief we can see that though there may be warming the fact is simply that there is no human warming.


Contention 2: Earth is cooling.
If we observe the above graph we can see that Earth has been a whole lot hotter than where we currently are to the point where the Earth's average temperature has been 7.5 degrees Celcuis hotter than it currently it is. You can also see that in the span of the past 10,000 years the temperature has leveld off, but you may ask yourself where does that place us in the lights of modern day?
I am going to site Dr. Done Easterbrook, who is a climate scientist. Back in 2000 he predicted that Earth was entering a cooling phase. He predicts that for the next 20 years Earth will cool by 3/10 degree each year and that we are going to enter another little Ice Age like we did from 1650 and 1790. (6) The funny thing is that many of my opponent's charts are actually from the incorrect IPPC.

How about the "Hockey Stick" graph that many Global Warming supporters , including my opponent, argue about? Well if we observe the fallowing chart taken from Northern Scandenavia we can see that the Global trend over the past 1,000 years that the Global Cooling trend slope is that of -0.31 Degrees Celcuis, give or take 0.03 degrees (for the error room). Professor Dr. Jan Esper has found that the Earth's temperature of Earth actually decreases 0.3 per millenia due to the Earth moving away from the sun. (7)
graph-Feb209_06_063302307128.gif
Here is another graph from 1920 to 2005 and we can see that the graph has a negative temperature slope, thus meaning that the Earth is under a period of cooling. (8)

You can see in terms of more Warming in the evidence in which Scientists use Ice Cores Earth has actually been Cooling the past Mellenium.


You can see that in terms of Gasses contribution to the Green House Effect the major contributer is Water Vapor and it's at 95% to CO2's 3.6% and this is the overall contribution including man made and natural. When we look to the chart on the left we can see that Man-Made CO2 does have a higher contribution to the atmosphere than Water Vapor, but that's because we do not create much water vapor as humans. Even with this evidence we can see that CO2 does not have any effect what-so-ever compared to Water Vapor. (9) Where might those CFCs be on this graph you may ask. Why it's under the Misc. gases section.



Once again, we can see that the IPCC and Al Gore are inccorect as the hocky stick graph is a bust. As I've shown in earlier rounds and they have been dropped in showing that the Earth's temperature has indeed been way hotter then current and on an average basis at that. My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory.



Here we can see that even though CO2 levels are increaseing that the temperature in recent years has actually decreased on the linear scale.

Also, the US Senate Committe on Envirnment and public works also took a stab at this issue. They found that the Hocky Stick graph was also bogus in 2006.

Today’s NAS report reaffirms what I have been saying all along, that Mann's ‘hockey stick’ is broken,”Senator Inhofe said.“Today’s report refutes Mann's prior assertions that there was no Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

This report shows that the planet warmed for about 200 years prior to the industrial age, when we were coming out of the depths of the Little Ice Age where harsh winters froze the Thames and caused untold deaths.

Trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.” [10]

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter had shown through his research at University of East Angila in the United Kingdom that the Climate Change increase had actually froze from 1998-2006 showing that this so called Global Warming had actually stopped. [11]




Sources
1. (http://cdiac.ornl.gov...)
2. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov...)
3. (http://www.geocraft.com...)
4. (http://www.drroyspencer.com...)
5. (http://joannenova.com.au...)
6. (http://www.cnsnews.com...)
7. (http://newsbusters.org...)
8. (http://newsbusters.org...)
9. (http://www.geocraft.com...)
10. (http://www.epw.senate.gov...)
11. ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)
Debate Round No. 2
tejretics

Pro

HOUSEKEEPING

1. In my Round 2 argument, I mistakenly wrote, "I have now established that [human activity] is responsible for much more that 57% of global warming, somewhere around 75%." I meant to write 65%, which is the actual number. That is an approximate estimate, and my estimate is closer to 62.5% of the warming (which means human activity has caused 85% of global warming since 1975, indicating a climate sensitivity of around 2 degrees C).

2. Con writes, "My opponent has also dropped my opening graph in C1 r2 That also showed that CO2 levels are at an all time low! Thus once again disproving my opponent's theory." Note that I couldn't have dropped anything, since this *is* Con's C1, R2.

CON's CASE

Overviews

1. Con's first contention is a defense. It doesn't give any offense, i.e. does not provide a reason for judges to vote for his side. Con argues that CO2 does not have an effect, which merely preempts an argument that asserts that CO2 does have an effect. I ask judges to take this into consideration. I will refute that argument anyway.


2. The second contention Con presents is a "kritik" of the topic. A "kritik" is defined as an argument that challenges an assumption in the resolution. The second contention says global warming doesn't even exist, therefore is not man-made. Therefore, its topicality is indirect, making it a "kritik." Rule 6 prohibits "kritiks." Please note this violation.

C1. Carbon Dioxide and Temperatures

Carbon dioxide does not exactly correlate with temperature. However, the radiative forcing of CO2 and the sun allows for a direct correlation. The sun drives much of modern climate change. The most recent spurt of global warming was caused by the sun, thus carbon dioxide drives climate change and is a major forcing. [1] The below graph illustrates a correlation between the forcings of the sun and CO2, and the rise in temperature. [2]


The effects of carbon dioxide increase due to positive feedback amplification. Feedbacks such as volcanic activity and clouds can significantly expand the impact of carbon dioxide on temperature. [3] The below graph depicts the correlation between carbon dioxide and temperatures over the last 700,000 years.



A comparison of the warming between the troposphere and the stratosphere can demonstrate this. Majority of atmospheric carbon dioxide is found in the upper troposphere, entailing that carbon dioxide would cause higher temperatures in the troposphere than in the stratosphere. [4, 5] The following graph depicts the temperature effect of CO2 in the troposphere and stratosphere. [6]



Robert Berner and Zavareth Kothavala argue, "

The exact values of CO2...should not be taken literally...[O]ver the long term, there is indeed a correlation between CO2 and paleotemperature." [7] The following graph shows the uncertainty of values of CO2. [8]



Furthermore, I can turn the entire argument against Con. This is primarily because many of the greenhouse gases mentioned - with high global warming potentials - act as positive feedbacks. Water vapor, the greenhouse gas that has the highest effect on climate, as conceded by Con, also acts as the largest positive feedback. Brian J. Soden and Isaac M. Held write, "Water vapor is found to provide the largest positive feedback in all models and its strength is consistent with that expected from constant relative humidity changes in the water vapor mixing ratio. The feedbacks from clouds and surface albedo are also found to be positive in all models, while the only stabilizing (negative) feedback comes from the temperature response." [9] This means the effects of water vapor help my case.

A positive feedback loop would also allow CO2 level increase to cause an increase in the water vapor concentration in the atmosphere. "When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air more to a higher (more or less) stabilized level. So CO2 warming has an amplified effect, beyond a purely CO2 effect...Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1 degree C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3 degrees Celsius." [10] This is affirmed by the research of Soden and Held, who find that water vapor is the primary atmospheric feedback on Earth. [11]

C2. The Temperature of the Earth

All my opponents studies are faulty and unreliable. These are the reasons.

Firstly, my opponent's first graph shows the temperature of the Earth in relation to the temperature of the Earth millions of years ago. This can be discredited, because "global warming" only began in the 19th century, after the Earth was relatively normal. The definition of global warming given in the debate concerns the 19th century. Discredit the first graph.

Secondly, the idea of the "global warming hiatus," which my opponent brings up, is flawed. My opponent's data is largely based on TSS data. UAH and HADCRUT4 data both show that the Earth has been continuing to warm throughout the last 15 years. [12, 13] Further, the long-term trend of increasing temperatures is due to CO2. Short-term variability happens all the time; it does not mean that the long-term increase is going to stabilize forever. Oscillation phenomena, or "La Nena" phenomena, will result in the trend changing, but will revert to a positive trend eventually. [14]

Thirdly, the heat content of Earth is actually increasing. "This new research combines measurements of oceanheat, land and atmosphere warming and ice melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heatthrough to 2008...Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 10^21 Joules per year." [15] The below graph represents this. [16]



Also, "Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2), and found that the underlying global surface and lower atmospherewarming trends have remained very steady in recent years." [15] The below graph portrays the data. [17]

Fig 5

Con then reiterates the argument from water vapor, which is addressed above. He then straw-mans my position, since I did not present the hockey stick graph.

SOURCES

1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://www.jamstec.go.jp...
4 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...
9 - http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov...
10 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...

12 - http://nsstc.uah.edu...
13 - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
14 - http://tinyurl.com...
15 - http://www.skepticalscience.com...
16 - http://www.ess.uci.edu...
17 - http://tinyurl.com...

Thus, I affirm. Over to Con!

lannan13

Con

Forfeiture
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Con

Forfeiture
Debate Round No. 4
tejretics

Pro

I extend my arguments. I hope my opponent is completely alright and happy, and is doing well. I request Con to confirm if he is alright, and I sincerely hope he is.
lannan13

Con

Forfeiture.

Thank you and please vote Pro!
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by selena16 1 year ago
selena16
lol, okay I didnt pay attention
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@selena16

Of course not completely. Hence the usage of the word "main" in the resolution.
Posted by selena16 1 year ago
selena16
Not completely because other wise global warming would have started when mankind had started, Animals and humans both breath the vary air that everything thrives off of to live. People and animals breath it in and let out carbon dioxide. Homo sapiens (humans) may be the cause, but they might also not be.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
@DK

CO2 data is fine. But GW is defined as being only since the 19th century - so who cares if temperatures have been greater? The warming began only in the 19th century. My Cenozoic data merely showed that CO2 is the main climate forcing, and the major rise in CO2 *was* in the 19th century and later.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
"The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century..." is a terrible definition. Global Warming has existed for billions of years. Telling Con he can't use data from that far back (when you did when bringing up the Cenozoic Period) is the equivalent of telling him he can't use the Doctor's first 11 incarnations when arguing about the series. You force him to leave out all the data and context that he requires (and should be able to use).

If you leave out the data from back then, it's creates an unfair debate where only you could have ever won. Disproving AGW requires historical context. There is no reason to use such a definition, as it holds no purpose in the Global Warming debate.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
"The rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century..." is a terrible definition. Global Warming has existed for billions of years. Telling Con he can't use data from that far back (when you did when bringing up the Cenozoic Period) is the equivalent of telling him he can't use the Doctor's first 11 incarnations when arguing about the series. You force him to leave out all the data and context that he requires (and should be able to use).

If you leave out the data from back then, it's creates an unfair debate where only you could have ever won. Disproving AGW requires historical context. There is no reason to use such a definition, as it holds no purpose in the Global Warming debate.
Posted by donald.keller 1 year ago
donald.keller
I wanted to read this, but I see Lannan ff'd.... Why?
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
tejretics
"Crystallization" is a Lincoln-Douglas debate term. It basically summarizes your arguments and provides an underview/impact calc.
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
What do you mean by Crystallize?
Posted by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
I thought I cut that out.

It was C&P'd from my previous debate as I said before ,but I thought I got it all so I apologize for that one.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
tejreticslannan13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
tejreticslannan13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded and dropped Pro's entire case. This is enough to warrant a Pro win.
Vote Placed by ColeTrain 1 year ago
ColeTrain
tejreticslannan13
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Per the rules in R1 and Con's concession, Pro wins. As for arguments (in case this is necessary)... Pro's case was entirely dropped, so that alone is of merit to award Pro with the win.