args

Anthropogenic climate change.

Round four defense "The first most obvious mistake my opponent made in their argument was a cherry-picking fallacy. A cherry-picking fallacy is defined as "When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument." [8] As you can see, my opponent, in round 2, only offered evidence which suggests anthropogenic climate change is real, and did not offer any evidence that suggests climate change is due to some other reason. " Capitalistslave First, there would have to be counter evidence to withhold. I do not perceive that I withheld any evidence, any my opponent has not shown any counter evidence. My opponent has failed to meet his/her burden of proof by showing that there is evidence to withhold. Second, if any evidence is withheld it is weak, thus the fallacious of the argument is small. Third, there is the fallacy fallacy. "Form: Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious. Therefore, C is false. Exposition: Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is, among other things, to claim that there is not a sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth or falsity of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that it's false simply because some argument for it is fallacious. " [15] Even if I did withhold strong evidence, it doesn't mean Anthropogenic climate change is false, all it means is my argument is fallacious. "A scientific consensus exists on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. -Stupidape This argument is fallacious because it doesn't take into account direct evidence, and only is about the opinions of climate scientists, who are not infallible. I already pointed this out in my main arguments, but that wasn't meant to be a direct response to my opponent, but a rebuttal on the general claim. In addition, there is room for doubt as long as there is not 100% of climate scientists who agree on this matter, which is not the case." Capitalistslave True, climate change scientists are not infallible, but considering the scientific scholarly peer reviewed sources, the percentage of climate change scientist who support versus opposing man-made climate change, and the burden of proof is to be shared equally, I have more than met my burden of proof for showing the existence of man-made climate change. An alternative explanation is the USA court system. We do not require 100% proof to convict someone, instead we require a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, and preponderance of the evidence in civil. I have shown in my round two argument that we can believe beyond a reasonable doubt that man-made climate change exists. Finally, considering the scope of the entire world and global climate change, any direct evidence can be considered non-sequitur because it would add too little to support the claim. I would literally have to type 30,000 some characters to provide enough direct evidence to prove anthropgenic climate change. ""Man-made climate change has already claimed human lives and continues to do so..." -Stupidape This appears to be a Non Sequitur fallacy. This is "when the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion." [9] The amount of deaths happened from a heat wave in France. Sudden hot weather in one country doesn't prove that there is global climate change, let alone that it is anthropogenic." Capitalistslave The evidence may add very little and could qualify as non-sequitur. Yet, remember the fallacy fallacy. [15] More importantly, the scope of the entire planet is very large, so practically any argument I make giving specific examples could qualify as the last part of the non-sequitur fallacy. "adds very little to support to the conclusion." For example, the glaciers melting are just one small part of the entire world's ecosystem. Therefore, this could be considered a non-sequitur fallacy. Yet, evidence is cumulative. Individually the glaciers melting and the heatwaves might be non-sequitur, but together with a several more events and these would be significant enough to no longer qualify as non-sequitur and instead be a fully functional argument. Think of a bunch of straws in a haystack. Each straw could be considered non-sequitur taken individually, yet enough straws form a haystack. A person wouldn't dismiss the entire haystack as non-sequitur just because each individual straw adds little evidence for the conclusion, the existence of a haystack. Just as a person shouldn't dismiss small evidence that supports the conclusion, as long as there enough other straws to make a full argument. Now if my entire argument was just the heat waves, yes this would be non-sequitur, but considering the other evidence available that accumulates with the heat-waves, the heat waves cannot be dismissed. "In addition, the heat-related deaths in the United States since 2000 has been going down[10], which is odd if supposedly there is significant amounts of warming. But yes, if you look at the graph provided by the EPA there, each of the three spikes in deaths, one in 2000, one soon after 2005, and one soon after 2010, are each going down over time. If you were to draw a straight line representing the average, it would also be going down. " Captalistslave There is many alternative explanations for this. One is that awareness of global climate change has increased, and thus governments and their people are more prepared to deal with such events. Another, is that technology has increased and therefore weather stations are better able to warn residents of the danger. "This is still a non sequitur for the same reasons I said before for the other one. Claiming deaths are a result from anthropogenic climate change doesn't prove anthropogenic climate change is occuring. " Captalistslave If I wanted to prove that an invisible gas like carbon monoxide existed, showing the amount of people that died from carbon monoxide annually would be an effective method. As humans we do not take lightly the deaths of our fellow human beings. People want explanations. I contend that showing that 150,000 people die annually from man-made global climate change is an excellent indicator of whether or not anthropogenic climate change exists or not. My opponent seems to have divided my argument into two charactories. Indirect evidence and direct small non-sequitor evidence. Dismissing the indirect evidence for not being direct, the 97% consensus, and the direct evidence for being too insignificant to prove man-made climate change. The direct and indirect evidence for anthropgenic climate change is massive. Just because, I did not directly show this massive evidence, does not mean I was incorrect. I decided it was best to give a brief argument from high quality sources. Knowing that the information is avaliable and nobody wants to read an extremely long debate. Thank you for your time and energy reading. Sources. 15. http://fallacyfiles.org...