args

Climate Shift

What a rude and poorly thought response. Please, do not insult me when I am seeking only an intellectual debate. Framework If con did not like the framework of the debate (which is a fairly standard format) then they should not have accepted the debate. Con does not understand what, in debate, a resolution is. If I may offer some info to con, a resolution is a statement that the Pro side must argue in agreement with, and the Con side must argue in disagreement with. The resolution contends three cases. Climate shift is real; Climate shift is influenced by man; Climate shift ought to be a legitimate concern of those who care about the future of humanity. As it is apparent that my opponent has put no real thought forward as to what this means, I'll attempt to shed light into the dark deep abyssal grotto of ignorance that is the argument of my opponent. For the pro to win this debate, Pro must tender a compelling argument that every case presented by the resolution is agreeable with. The first point regards the reality of climate shift or global warming (which is a common point of debate). The second point regards the cause of climate shift, if it is indeed real. The final point regards the impact of climate shift (again, if it is indeed real). If my opponent is confused as to what climate shift is, then I shall provide a definition. This debate regards climate shift or what is more colloquially referred to as Global warming. "the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation."(1) The framework is the structure of the debate. The rules. It is always relevent. Pro's Case My entire argument is almost totally unrebutted. Con only makes a weak attempt to discredit a single point. Overall, a weak argument made by the Con that consists primarly of aggressive rantlike points that all lack proper substantiation. Cons argument also fails to meet the BOP. Conduct ought to be awarded to pro for cons flagrant disregard for the rules of the debate. As con failed to cite any sources but one, sources ought to be awarded to pro as well. Arguments are up to the judges, but I would remind that judges that almost my entire argument is unrebutted, and, according to the framework of the debate, any new arguments or rebuttals that the con may try to make in the final round are to be disregarded completely. VOTE PRO! 1.http://en.wikipedia.org...