args

Anthropogenic climate change.

Round 4 defense. My opponent has deviated from the r1 structure again. "Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws." Stupidape My opponent responded to my round three rebuttal in lieu of my round two argument as RonPaulConservative was supposed to. Proof: "There are so many things wrong with this theory of global warming that my opponent is pushing, I will go over them and in effect respond to all of the claims that my opponent made in the last round. " RonPaulConservative "My opponent cannot simply dissmiss newsmax because he think's they have a quote 'right bias,' is just an ad-hominid attack, my opponent has used primarily liberal sites but seems to think that these are not bias. " RonPaulConservative I am supposed to defend my r2 argument against a non-existent r3 rebuttal. "Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect." stupidape Therefore, I can't respond to my opponent's round three defense, without breaking the structure myself. I must pass the round then. Thanks for debating.