The Instigator
briski
Pro (for)
Losing
13 Points
The Contender
CiRrK
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic

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 7 votes the winner is...
CiRrK
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,906 times Debate No: 15653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (7)

 

briski

Pro

First, I would like to make sure that anyone who might accept this debate realizes that an underlying premise of this topic is that global warming exists and will cause human extinction if left unaltered. You have to subscribe to some very close form of this premise if you want to debate. You can define what your version/interpretation of this premise is in the next post.

Therefore use the next post for this task as well as acceptance of the debate, and then immediately begin discussing. I will begin my argument right now as well, however I want to reserve the right to abort the debate without penalty from the voters if I disagree strongly with any of the aforementioned interpretations/definitions you put forth during your acceptance. However, I think it's unlikely to come to this, and I will have a high tolerance for disagreement on this issue and will incorporate any sub-threshold disagreements into the argument.

Not to try to presume where the core of this discussion will prove to be, I want to say that I wrote this topic because I wanted to debate someone who might have a more fatalist philosophy on life/ethics than me………..

Global warming is a contentious issue, especially in America it seems. For example, there is debate as to whether or not it is even happening, what the causes are if it is happening, what the effects will be, whether it is caused by man, and what the solutions are. This debate presumes that it is happening, that it would eventually cause extinction of the human species if left unaltered, that it has a solution, and (for the sake of argument) that it is NOT man-made.

I propose that humans (individually and collectively) should try to alter this process by whatever means they rationally decide are likely to succeed in achieving the goal of survival of "the species" (while simultaneously not making living worse than dieing).

Here are some premises I will build on to defend this proposition:

1.The natural world is all that exists. Humans have been part of the natural world.
2.No one (human) chooses to be born.
3.One may choose to die.
4.One may not choose to never die.
5.We have been born and are alive and we are now self-aware of premises 1 - 5.
6.These beginning and end boundaries of our personal life are the only things that are certain to us. Everything else that happens in between is either a choice or random circumstance. And the choices are open to much debate within ourselves and with others.
7.The details of the beginning and end of the natural world are unknown to us presently.
8.We seem to be able to choose to do something called inquiry or “science,” that tells us about how the natural world works.
9.Science has determined that global warming is happening and will eventually result in the extinction of humans.


I think these premises are self-evident (or in the case of #9, an assumption of the debate). I wanted to put them out there as my own anyway, in case anyone has a very dodgy philosophy. I wouldn’t want to fall victim to some weird supernatural cop-out.
But I also wanted to put them out there in order to lay a foundation of what is known TO ME, before I go venturing into what is either a working-theory (life philosophy) for me or else a mystery to me. By the way, all of the good philosophies have originally come from a guess at a mystery, and then are defended until they fail.

Forgive me if the next bit sounds personal, but ponderings on mysteries tend to get this way. I just want to start at the beginning of the question. It seems to me that everything that happens chronologically after premise 5 (other than death) regarding human affairs and existence is very uncertain and open to either pure inquiry (reasoning) or experimental science. And I’ve tried both and they both make very slow and insufficient progress. With that said, I am in an existential black hole from day to day (as I think most people really are whether they realize it or not; but this is neither here nor there). We are all ignorant of the ultimate knowledge of the true purpose of life (barring a supernatural explanation).

I am a scientist and I try to ignore the ill effects of thinking about this existential black hole by doing experiments that seem to tell me something about how things work – where things have been and where they seem to be going. The process of natural science is therefore both 1.) a good way to be too busy and thus avoid the ill-effects pondering one’s insignificance and 2.) a good way to work toward actually defining the extent of one’s significance.

I think that global warming related policy in America is the most pressing real-world issue that promotes the nihilistic outlook I tend to have. So it is probably confusing as to why I framed the debate with this topic while hoping to talk about fatalism vs. volition; with the intent of arguing AGAINST fatalism. So let me put out my argument now and then I’ll await a response.

::Begin argument::
(given the above premises 1 – 9)

1.Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect.
2.The greenhouse effect is caused by atmospheric gases that we can alter.
3.If we alter these gases, and slow or reverse global warming, humanity will survive AND thrive longer (in every sense, i.e. economically, intellectually, etc).
4.If we survive and thrive longer, we have more time to do science and discover whether or not our efforts were predestined (by a physical/deterministic mechanism) or were somehow free-willed (as they at least appear to have been to us as we were doing them).
5.If they were free-willed, we will be glad that we made lifestyle choices that bettered humanity. If they were not free willed, then we could not have done otherwise anyway (ie. denied global warming and lived it up, or accepted death, or ANY other choices that are different than what I’ve suggested).
::End argument::

As you can see, it’s a sort of Pascal’s wager style argument – except with an issue more interesting than the existence of supernatural justice. It allows us to discuss many things related to points 1 – 5.
CiRrK

Con

Ok, so I will use this round to accept (obviously) and outline my objections:

The resolution states:

One should work against global

warming and avoid extinction from

it, even if it is non-anthropogenic



The bolded section is the portion I will object to.

Observations:

1) "Work" against and "avoid" directly corrolate to action to result in a desire effect

2) "One" refers to an agent who can actually enact the desired change for the desired effect, namely the government as a regulatory agency.

3) The last phrase preempts a NC attempt to prove non-anthrprogenic warming (which seems somewhat counter-intuiitve on face, but I accept the condition)

Debate Round No. 1
briski

Pro

Why didn't you post an argument? I thought I mentioned in the last round that you should just start (I obviously did), but hey it's your turn and you obviously know what you're doing (good job on the record by the way).

As for the observations (or are they objections? For 1 & 2, or all 3?) see below:

1. On the definition of "Work against/avoid" : Yes, I agree with this take exactly and I think most will have to as well (I think this is self-evident). But to clarify, the action also has to have some probability of actually working. It's not enough to just desire something, and then do something else. That's why I already specified the following: "I propose that humans (individually and collectively) should try to alter this process by whatever means they rationally decide are likely to succeed..."


2. On the definition of "One" : I wholly disagree, and I think it's peculiar to define the word "one" when used in this context (of agency rather than number) to mean the government when the government is one of the least singular/cohesive agent you can possibly imagine. Also, reference the above bolded section again to see that I've already specified it as individual humans and the collective of humans.

The latter does not necessarily mean government. People can do a lot individually and collectively (in the sense of the super-additive sum of the individual effects) to affect greenhouse gases without government. With that said, in practice any ultimately impactful measure is unfortunately likely to require the government in some way. But this isn't practice, it's a debate where we entertain the idea of reforming the practice (status quo) at any and every level we choose. So I guess, I don't start making self-limiting assumptions like this at this point.


3. Note: I don't think this is an objection in the first place, but rather an observation as my opponent specified with the color code.
On the observation of ....
I put dots because honestly I don't quite know what the observation is. "NC" is not a word, and one should consider this when voting on spelling and grammar. Abbreviations or deviations from the norms of spelling and grammar could be put in parenthesis on first use in order to define them, and then used freely thereafter.

Moving on, it says "to prove non-anthropogenic global warming (which seems somewhat counter-intuiitve [SIC] on face, but I accept the condition) ." I have to say the grammar of the statement disagrees with me. I didn't try to prove anything, since I offered no evidence, and freely admitted it was a built in assumption as you can see below.

"I think these premises are self-evident (or in the case of #9, an assumption of the debate)."

It doesn't make sense to call it counter intuitive. Climatology is a thriving science because there is no such thing as intuition on these matters. You can't intuit that global warming is man made or that it is not. You could say that this assumption is counter-evident, but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of the debate you accepted.

That covers all three, and I think I'll just leave it at this brief reaction for now.
CiRrK

Con

"But to clarify, the action also has to have some probability of actually working. It's not enough to just desire something, and then do something else"

--> So the burden of the debate is clear. Weighing proability of success is a key component of judging the round. Namely doing X achieves Y.

Onto the NC evidence which will have a clear link to the burden:

1) Best Data Proves Global Warming happens every 1500 years regardless of human activity - INEVITABILITY (no success of active participation, AC has no solvency)

Singer, distinguished research professor at George Mason and Avery, director of the Center for Global Food Issues at the Hudson Institute, 2007

(S. Fred, Dennis T, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years” Pages 1-5)

The Earth is warming but physical evidence from around the world tells us that human-emitted CO2 has played only a minor role in it. Instead, the mild warming seems to be part of a natural I ,500-year climate cycle The cycle has been too long and too moderate for primitive peoples lacking thermometers to recount in their oral histories. But written evidence of climatic change does exist. The Romans had recorded a warming from about 200 B.C. to AD. 600, Histories from both Europe and Asia tell us there was a Medieval Warming. Human histories also record the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850. But people thought each of these climatic shifts was a distinct event and not part of a continuing pattern.

The first ice cores extracted from Greenland.' Provided 250,000 years of the Earth's climate history in one set of "documents." The scientists compared the ratio of "heavy" oxygen-18 isotopes to the "lighter" oxygen-16 isotopes, which indicated the temperature at the time the snow had fallen. They expected to find evidence of the known 90,000-year ice ages and the mild interglacial periods recorded in the ice, and they did. However, they did not expect to find anything in between. To their surprise, they found a clear cycle—
By the mid-1980s, however, the First World had already convinced itself of the Greenhouse Theory and believed that puny human industries had grown powerful enough to change the planet's climate. A wealth of other evidence has emerged since 1984, however, corroborating natural I ,500-year climate cycle: An ice core from the Antarctic's Glacier-at the other end of the world known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Europe, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic. • seabed sediment cores . • Cave stalagmites from Ireland and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere to South Africa and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere . • Fossilized pollen from across North America• In both Europe and South America, archaeologists have evidence that prehistoric humans moved their homes and farms up mountainsides during the warming centuries and retreated back down during the cold ones. The Earth continually warms and cools. The cycle is undeniable, ancient, often abrupt, and global. It is also unstoppable. Isotopes in the ice and sediment cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmites tell us it is linked to small changes in the irradiance of the sun. The cycle shifts have occurred roughly on schedule whether CO2 levels were high or low. Based on this 1,500 year-cycle, the Earth is about 150 years into a moderate Modern Warming that will last for centuries longer.The climate has been most stable during the warming phases,

2) Even if all global emissions stopped today, past emissions = inevitability

Nicholas Stern—Head of the British Government Economic Service—2007 (Former Head Economist for the World Bank, I.G. Patel Chair at the London School of Economics and Political Science,

The full warming effect of past emissions is yet to be realised. The oceans have taken up around 84% of the total heating of the Earth’s If global emissions were stopped today, some of this heat would be exchanged with the atmosphere as the system came back into equilibrium, causing an additional warming. The world is committed to a further warming of 0.5° - 1 °C over several decades due to past emissions

3) CO2 only 2% of warming

Lindzen, 92 – Professor of Meteorology at MIT
(Global Climate Change, pg. 110, Y4.EN2:S.Hrg.102-808, May 6 and 12)

That is the point. We have done calculations where we, for other reasons, increase CO2 20 times and we actually expected a profound effect. We found even then water vapor swamped the whole behavior of the system. It is not an unanswered question. You take CO2 out of the system. You are still left with 98 percent of the greenhouse effect.

==Conclusion==

Remember, the burden in the round is to prove that action results in the desired effect. Insofar as global warming is inevitable,there will BE NO SUCCESS. Moreover, my argument kicks premise 2 and 3 of his warming argument. Plus, all my evidence should sufficiently link in to the science analysis my opponent provided in the 1st round. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
briski

Pro

You're right, that if it were shown that there can be no goal-directed action (toward slowing/revering global warming {GW}) that is likely to succeed, then my syllogism would fail. I think you must have noticed that I didn't propose a single action yet - and that's why you opted instead to try to argue that there can be NO action that would be effective. It might have been better to wait until I did propose something, because to say that there is nothing at all that could possibly work is a very difficult statement for you to defend.

The references are little help in this regard by the way. To the audience: Don't be mislead by the title of Singer and Avery's book that he quoted - they have no evidence that global warming is unstoppable and you'll be able to see that in the quote itself. There is a BIG difference between saying that a moderate GW has happened every 1500 years in years past, and that the severe-to-catastrophic one we are facing present-day is unstoppable. As my opponent stated himself, the only helpful and pertinent quotes would include information on whether or not extinction from global warming is stoppable - not whether or not it is man made or whether natural ones have happened in the past. The design of this debate was meant to avoid this part of issue altogether by assuming that it IS NOT man made, remember? Just because it may be natural, doesn't mean it is not stoppable. There are a lot of natural things that we humans have stopped - like the dodo bird for instance - dead in its tracks.

I think it should be pointed out that the first quote is even counterproductive for my opponent. It says that 1.) GW occurs on a 1,500 year cycle, 2.) that it is moderate (not catastrophic like the debate requires us to assume) and furthermore, 3.) that we are only about 150 years into the latest cycle. The audience will probably notice that, given these facts, that just about a million important things have happened between the current and previous cycle. And these authors somehow want us to believe that this cycle will still be just as mild and unavoidable as the last - that happened before Christopher Columbus' time for goodness sake? I wonder if they realize that we are practically capable of building a floating sunshield around the globe? Watch the video on this page:
http://edition.cnn.com...

By the way, the industrial revolution has also happened between the current and previous cycle. This is the reason why many scientists suspect that the current cycle, which is the first ever true "tester" of the additional greenhouse gases, will be much worse. So you can see that out of the two assumptions built into my title at the outset, the one about eventual extinction is not even the unlikely assumption if nothing is done. And to the fellows in the comments section who suggested that my topic design was too constrictive, I would suggest that actually it was too gratuitous to my opponent: Because the only unlikely assumption is the one that he is himself enamored with, namely, that GW is not man made (is natural).

So what we have is a seemingly difficult situation for me. We have a "natural" global warming that is not at all the GW that Singer is talking about - It's worse. Its harder to address, as I must advocate for, because it is more severe. It is the one most of us heard about that melts icecaps and puts New York city under water in the all too near future.

My solutions (note: I am not a climatologist)

1. So I suggest, (to finally get a positive proposition out there), that we build this solar powered sun shield (see above source) around the entire globe. We could then use the massive amount of electricity generated to climate control and illuminate the globe underneath.

2. All the solutions that we have all heard about that actual climatologists and other scientists/engineers have proposed. Yeah, let's do those.

3. And let me propose another one - only as an example obviously - to show that simply asserting that there are NO possible effective solutions that one can cook up is a silly assertion. We can kill off every animal on the planet besides humans. This would increase the proportion of carbon-fixing vs carbon-liberating biomass (autotrophs vs heterotrophs) and drive down CO2 and methane gas in ways that weren't even possible in the last cycle.

I bring up this last one as a hypothetical obviously - to show also, what it is that I really wanted to talk about in the debate (as I think I said directly, albeit in the comments section). The question is, how far are you willing to go in order to live? How much are you willing to sacrifice, of yourself and/or of others, to live? We haven't even got to that yet, because I feel my opponent is misreading the topic and talking cross purposes.

You'll notice that his next two arguments (or really, sources) are equally beside the point.

The second one, which mentions that we are committed to another 1 degree Celsius, could very well be exactly true. In fact, I think it is. But that is not at all a problem for me. That degree of warming is not the catastrophe we're trying to avoid - and it would not kill many humans at all. The GW we are talking about is much worse, and what would happen in the inaction/indifference you are suggesting. In other words, it doesn't matter if we are committed to another 1deg of warming from previous mistakes - just apply the above solutions PLEASE. And I'll deal with the 1 deg, because it's not the catastrophe we're talking about (because it isn't one).

The third one, which mentions that CO2 is only a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect, could also very well be exactly true. In fact, I think it is, as you could probably tell by my mention of methane earlier. Methane is perhaps the most significant contributor to the greenhouse effect, and the most significant source of it is from cow farts. That is why we should kill all cows as I said before (I hope people understand my style, and don't think I am being fatuous; I am serious about thinking logically here).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

So to quote a reference that wants us to believe that it won't be too intense (in fact, the scientists you quote think GW will be good for humanity; see above source), and will be unstoppable - all just because there may be a natural cycle - is off. The scientists opposing consensus on GW are the minority, but you can see that the largest group of them are those that believe it is a natural cycle. I do not hold this as my belief currently, but part of the reason I worded this debate in this way is because it is the most credible minority view that tempts me. But what do these scientific facts about a phenomenon have to do with human decisions? Lets not try to find reasons to be unthoughtful or inactive on this issue any more! Thank you for your attention.

CiRrK

Con

==Burden==

--> My opponent concedes in his last speech that yes, the burden is to prove success in the desired goal. Because the resolution does state active verbs which imply an outcome.

==On-face Negation==

--> As my opponent makes clear in his last speech and which was first introduced in the 1st round was: "This debate presumes that it is happening, that it would eventually cause extinction of the human species " You can negate right now. As I've pointed out and he has agreed to in the burden, success is a prerequisite standard for affirming the resolution. However, since he himself has stated that extinction from this global warming scenario is inevitable, ten he does not meet the burden he has accepted.

==NC==

1. Singer Evidence

He tries to mitigate this evidence by stating that there is severe glob warming now, not moderate.

--> No warrant to this. As the evidence itself points out, the global warming now is moderate (refer to last sentence of evidence)

He then brings up the Industrial Revolution

--> Evidence already takes the I.R. into account. Singer has measured the temperature increases and has compared them to other global warming scenarios

He say the global warming we are discussing is catastrophic

--> This links into the on-face negation argument. If it is that catastrophic its going to be inevitable anyway

--> Prefer the current moderate scenario, it is more pertinent to today and it links into is science premise in the 1st round.

2. Stern Evidence

He says not catastrophic

--> Evidence links in anyway, IF your scenario were to come true in the future, the evidence points out nothing will solve the heating trend. This evidece presupposes any type of future global warming.

--> XA on-face negation

--> XA analyzing current global warming better

3. Lindzen Evidence

--> He concedes

He offers alternative - kill all cows

--> no evidence or warrant provided that governments would stand or that, especially in the U.S. The meat industry is a huge lobby, e.g. McDonalds. Moreover, India wont kill off their cows, cows are holy to them

==Alternatives==

1.Solar powered shield

--> Just logically this would create international competition, especially between the great powers the U.S., China, Russia and the EU.

--> Source says its possible, but the end stages arent so clear cut

2. All proposals that have been mentioned

--> Specifics would be nice

--> Most viable alternatives involve reducing Co2, but XA all the NC evidence - C02 negligible, and global warming inevitable anyway

3. Kill off everything besides humans

--> Not a viable alternative. Scenario still bound by practical considerations

==Voting Issues==

1. On-face negation. This is the most important point in the round. My opponent by accepting the burden has put himself in a double-bind. Either A) you accept the premise that the scenario is so catastrophic that extinction is going to happen eventually, meaning it is inevitable, therefore not linking to the burden. B) You reject the catastrophic scenario, and go with the evidence in the NC which would still make global warming inevitable and thus my opponent doesnt link to the burden.

2. No way pro has linked to even the BoP. His alternatives were brought up too late, and they are insufficiently warranted for you o accept they are viable alternative to combating global warming. At that point, default neg, ff didnt do a good enough job showing how he will be successful in his fight against global warming.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
No, I wasnt trying to say the position would be more agreeable, I was saying that it would take out positions like Con ran here. That would allow you to debate this topic the way you were intending to.
Posted by briski 6 years ago
briski
Black void, what is the logic behind naming a specific conditional (ie extrapolated) event leading to inevitability? That makes no sense to me at all. I already pointed out that he misrepresented what I said , notice he didn't quote me. Bad style. Would is different than will. Imminence is different than inevitability. All I'm saying is extinction is imminent and then giving a possible causal event that i obviously believe is evitable. You suggest that id be more agreeable to people if i said extinction is imminent, you must assume this, and then gave no reasons?
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
So you should just create a debate with this text: One should work against and try to avoid human extinction. Have a parameter saying that you trying = success. Then you can have the debate you're looking for. Going for a specific extinction theory gives neg ground to argue inevitability, like con did here.
Posted by briski 6 years ago
briski
Ok, I'm getting a lot of criticism on the semantics of the topic. If you have a problem with it, please don't vote at all (or at least certainly not for me).

As I said in my last argument of the debate, I am somewhat undecided on the scientific detail of whether or not the global warming we experience is primarily anthropogenic; so I just 'decided' it in favor of my opponent (in the sense that it's easier to argue indifference to something natural rather than something that's our own damn fault). All the other premises built into the topic are what I believe evidence point to as true. Therefore, the premises in the topic are either very close or are exactly what is actually happening. So to call it silly is silly.

Which reminds me of what is the actual semantical problem (and I realize this part might sound like I'm still arguing against my opponent; so forgive me or else ignore it in your voting if you want). The proposition that something "would" (as it says in my first argument outlining the topic) cause extinction does not mean that it "will." His "face value negation" is actually a misunderstanding of the conditional/indefinite nature of the word "would." You can't argue inaction/indifference due to my own admission of inevitability, because I didn't use the word "will."

And everyone who thinks that the premise is silly because extinction is so extreme and consensus-building obviously doesn't realize that at some time, you WILL die and at sometime (the question is when) the whole human race WILL become extinct. Even if only as late as is possible and by what is also the only known inevitable extinction condition, namely, the heat-death of the universe (universal cooling/equilibrium, not global warming).
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
XA = cross apply
Posted by CiRrK 6 years ago
CiRrK
oh damn, that was completely my fault. I thought Rd 1 was simply outlining the arguments. And then actual evidence would be in Rd 2. Srry about that
Posted by briski 6 years ago
briski
Yes exactly. But I wanted to make it something that we had no "fault" in creating as a problem in the first place (like an asteroid) and yet something that we can feasibly avoid.

I chose to frame it this way because I want to talk about making simple lifestyle choices/sacrifices. Not necessarily about war/peace (nukes). Also, it is a common "defense" among global warming denialists that the warming is not man-made. So I want to show that even if it is not, (which it is not..... not) then we should still pay attention and do something.

I guess I kind of got sick of people pointing out that we exhale CO2. Every time I hear that, I want to make that process cease and desist in their particular case. So yes to those who were commenting in this vein, the topic of the debate jumps past a lot of issues like this in order to get to the main point.
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
So then this debate is about living or dying? In other words, global warming could be replaced with asteroids, nukes, or any threat to humanity?
Posted by briski 6 years ago
briski
@ OreEle - that's not much of a dodge. The question is not whether you can choose death, it's whether you "should" in this case. That's the whole point of the debate. I put premise 3 there because to set up the choice-point that leads to the question in the first place.

@Reformed - Yes, the choice is whether to live or to die (see above). But you're obviously insensitive to the fact that some people ponder this question directly (and maybe daily). Furthermore, EVERYONE faces death and question it, and most feel it comes earlier than would be desirable. So I think it's an important question: to what extent and in what circumstances will you fight to live (as an individual and as a society)?

I think we're probably like-minded in our assessment of the factors of this particular type of case - but weirdly (and surprisingly to you!? why?) there are people who think you shouldn't intervene with the environment (hippies). Or that you shouldn't fight market forces (oil industry, conservatives, Palin and the Palinationals). Yes I think it's silly but lets not judge the debate before it starts - except in private - and see who does come forward to me who isn't as like-minded. Hopefully it isn't a Palinationalist because I want a challenge.
Posted by Gileandos 6 years ago
Gileandos
ROFL,
Completely agree with Reformed.

Also does anyone actually believe that a dramatic global warming shift will actually occur stated like Gore's "The Day after Tomorrow."?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JacobHession 6 years ago
JacobHession
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted for the Pro side because I felt that they did a better job of formulating arguments. Also they upheld those arguments better than the con side upheld their arguments. Overall it was an interesting debate but I feel that the Pro side deserves the win.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: why did con accept this debate?
Vote Placed by RougeFox 6 years ago
RougeFox
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: 1st voting issue of con
Vote Placed by Zealous1 6 years ago
Zealous1
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Burden of proof failed by Pro, pointed out by Con.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "However, since he himself has stated that extinction from this global warming scenario is inevitable, ten he does not meet the burden he has accepted." - true, well put
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Accepting the debate required accepting an utterly ridiculous premise. "If carrots will cause human extinction, then we should work against carrots." Sure. Once the premise is accepted, Pro only had to show that climate engineering was plausible, so it is something that might enable us to "work against" global warming. The mistake was accepting the debate with the silly premise.
Vote Placed by Extremely-Far-Right 6 years ago
Extremely-Far-Right
briskiCiRrKTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had sources and links, but Con had better arguments and a cleaner presentation style with his information. A tough call, but my vote goes to COn.