The Instigator
Pro (for)
6 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

global warming is real

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 39339
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This debate challenge is open to the first member that accepts it. Post your opinion and i will refute it next round.


Hello, Gabbs McSwaggin. I cannot stand to your supremem level of immense swag, but I will cower in my swagless corner while saying that global warming is not real, since the ozone layer has been reported to be reparing by scientists by 2050.
Debate Round No. 1


Id like to start out my case by clarifying the topic is about humans causing global warming.

glob"al warm"ing
a gradual increase in the overall temperature of the earth's atmosphere generally attributed to the greenhouse effect caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants.

Contention 1:
75% of the 20th century increase in the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO2 is directly caused by human actions like burning fossil fuels. CO2 levels were 389ppm (parts per million) as of Apr. 2010 - the highest they have been in the past 650,000 years. [2] [1][4]

Contention 2:
Human-produced CO2 is warming the earth, not natural CO2 released from the ocean and other "carbon sinks." CO2 from fossil fuel combustion has a specific isotopic ratio [5] that is different from CO2 released by natural "carbon sinks." 20th century measurements of CO2 isotope ratios in the atmosphere confirm that the rise results from human activities, not natural processes. [3]

The vast majority of scientist believe it.

Here's a graph of global temperatures that proves we have a problem.

My opponent only made one point and failed to cite his evidence, therefore his point is invalid. I on the other hand cited all my points, and have presented significant evidence for man made global warming. This is why I believe you should vote pro.

1. National Research Council of the National Academies, "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years"
(3.6 KB) ,, 2006
2.National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), "Global Climate Change: Evidence - How Do We Know," (accessed Apr. 26, 2010)
3.Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis" (19 MB), 2007
4.National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), "Global Climate Change Indicators" (249 KB) ,, Apr. 13, 2010
5.Robert Andres, PhD, and Gregg Marland, PhD, et al., "Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Fossil Fuel Consumption and Cement Manufacture, 1751-1991" (6.5 MB) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, May 23, 1994


J-Dawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


So far in the debate my opponets only argument has been "global warming is not real, since the ozone layer has been reported to be reparing by scientists by 2050.", he failed to provide a source for this informaation so his argument is invalid. At this point there is really no reason not to vote pro.


J-Dawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nathan-D 3 years ago
Anthropogenic CO2-emissions has nothing to do with the ozone layer. Nothing at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 2 years ago
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro wins conduct for Con forfeiting all rounds. While the number of papers that agree with something is not indicative of how accurate it is (appeal to popularity), Pro did provide evidence that the temperature has been going up. Con never came back to address any of this.