Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated...
Anthropogenic global climate change.
I will contend that anthropegenic global climate change exists. The contender will contend that anthropegenic global climate change is non-existent. Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am making the affrimative claim and the instiagator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Anthropogenic " Caused by humans" [1] Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person's argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round two argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy as a rebuttal in round three against my opponent round two argument, my opponent would explain in round four as a defense why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Previous debate for reference. [0] Try to stick to the structure please, makes it much easier for voters to follow the debate. Sources. 0. http://www.debate.org... 1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...