The Instigator
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
MitchPaglia
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Plethora V6 engine, only $2000 (Bad joke, sorry)

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 4 votes the winner is...
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/9/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,546 times Debate No: 5330
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

I will provide a list of topics, choose one, you're CON, I'm PRO. Then in R2 I go and post. Note, I am playing Devil's advocate in some places.

1. Most nonhuman Animal's do not deserve rights.
2. Utilitarianism is superior to Kantianism.
3. Sarah Palin is not as incompetent as she is made out to be.
4. Cannibalism of dead people should be socially acceptable, if not encouraged.
5. Agriculture was a mistake.
6. Anarchy could feasibly work.
7. Functionalism is a flawed theory of mind.
8. The Turing test is fundamentally inaccurate.
9. John McCain will win the 2008 Presidential Election.
10. In all likelihood, we live in a virtual world.
11. In Soviet Russia, car drives YOU! (This is a joke, just in case you're an idiot).
12. Moral Luck is fundamentally flawed.
13. Resolved: That it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. (LD Debate).
14. Man is not the main cause of global warming today.
MitchPaglia

Con

I will choose the Global Warming debate. I could use some refreshing on the topic.
Debate Round No. 1
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

The basic support for global warming is that temperatures are rising, and at the same time, greenhouse gases are too. This is a flawed support. My first point is that the form of this support is a common logical fallacy. According to the Encyclopedia of Errors in Reasoning, this fits a cum hoc, ergo propter hoc format. That is, it is saying that because two things occur together, they are causally related. This does not follow. As an example, a graph from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster shows that global temperatures have increased as the amount of pirates has decreased. They use this to prove that the decrease of piracy has caused global warming. Obviously this is not the case. This is the same format used to "prove" global warming. As CO2 and other gases have increased in the atmosphere, global temperatures have risen. It is a logical fallacy to say that they are in a causal relationship. So right off the bat, global warming is not supported by logic. Obviously, something is a little off here.

My next point is that temperature increase is not as dramatic as environmental groups would like you to think. For example, according to the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, global temperatures have only risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit since the end of the Little Ice Age, in 1880. That means we are only one degree warmer than a little Ice Age. Unfortunately, GISS data outside the US is not as accurate as GISS data in the States, and the GISS data from the US alone shows only a third of a degree increase. If the most accurate temperature collection system shows only a third of a degree increase from an ice age, is that really a cause for alarm?

Moving on, if we look at Vostok ice core samples from Antarctica, we see that the temperature cycles, and that the current temperature rise started about 25000 years ago, before any industrial pollution occurred. Also, today's temperatures are significantly lower than those that we have seen in other warm periods. Today's temperatures fit perfectly with temperature trends, and are not anomalous or unusual in any way.

My third point is that CO2 does not cause global temperatures to rise. The Vostok ice core samples which I mentioned earlier also allow scientists to measure CO2 changes in the atmosphere. What we often see, is that CO2 will not correspond with temperature changes, sometimes it goes up while the temperature goes down, and vice versa. Other times, temperature goes up, but CO2 doesn't rise for another thousand years or so. More recently, the GISS data shows a thirty year decrease in temperature in between 1940 and 1970, yet CO2 is rising at the same rate as today.

Fourth, according the SYR Appendix Glossary, the greenhouse effect works when the greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation emitted by the earth's surface, the atmosphere, and clouds, which they then send out from all sides, including towards the earth's surface. According to NASA climatologists, this means that the upper atmosphere should warm first. NASA has had satellites measuring the upper atmosphere since 1979. NASA satellites however, have shown that the upper atmosphere has maintained a fairly constant temperature since 1979, with a change of about .03 degrees Celsius.

My final point is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is nowhere near enough to significantly change the earth's temperature. The Mauna Loa Observatory has measured the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to be about 380 ppm. To put this in perspective, if the atmosphere was a football field, nitrogen would take up 76 yards. Another 20 yards or so would be filled by oxygen. 3.9 of the remaining yards would be filled by various other gases, mostly water vapor, not including CO2 or methane, methane would take up all of the remaining space, except for a pencil line thick space reserved for CO2. This analogy was from Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear. A pencil thick line in a football field is virtually nothing. In fact, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall published an article in Nature showing that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could change earth's cooling processes by less than 1%. So, pretty much, the basic premise of global warming, that CO2 causes global temperatures to increase is completely unsupported by scientific fact.

I hope that was sufficient.
MitchPaglia

Con

I unfortunatly am going to have to forfeit this round.
Debate Round No. 2
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

Unfortunately my opponent forfeited this round, I sincerely hope he will be able to do the next round.
MitchPaglia

Con

Blah blah, vote for my opponent, I thought I would have more time for this debate, I don't
Debate Round No. 3
LR4N6FTW4EVA

Pro

That's unfortunate.
MitchPaglia

Con

Indeed, forfeiting, I have to vote for you myself.
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MitchPaglia 8 years ago
MitchPaglia
Sorry about having to forfeit the last round, I will be posting in this next one.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Yeah, it was originally for my OO speech before I decided I would piss off too many judges with it. I needed some filler. If I reuse this, I'll drop that point.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Or really both work, whatever.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Cum hoc*.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Yeah especially the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc one. The way it reads makes it seem like you deny the greenhouse effect.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
I've actually only used two different arguments for the six or so GW debates I've done. I am just too lazy to rewrite them. This one I may have to redo some, but last time I did it, my opponent dropped all my arguments.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
But he's still wrong.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 8 years ago
Sweatingjojo
I love LR4N6's GW debates because unlike most folks who aren't totally convinced, he actually uses something that resembles real facts and actual statistics.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
So did The Matrix.
Posted by beem0r 8 years ago
beem0r
Madonna already made a pretty conclusive argument against #10.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by MitchPaglia 8 years ago
MitchPaglia
LR4N6FTW4EVAMitchPagliaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
LR4N6FTW4EVAMitchPagliaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
LR4N6FTW4EVAMitchPagliaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Phil 8 years ago
Phil
LR4N6FTW4EVAMitchPagliaTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70