If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor...
Climate Shift
A suprisingly short response. Framework My opponent has totally ignored the framework thus far, using round 1 for construction instead of acceptance, and round 2 for rebuttals instead of construction. Conduct should be awarded to pro for this reason. Pro's Defence Only the scientists who report opinions have opinions that matter. This is called Voluntary Response Bias. If a scientist takes no stance, they neither support nor deny the existence of climate shift. This point my opponent makes does not meet the burden of proof, and does not fully discredit the scientific consensus. The source my opponent posted does not even fully discredit my argument. Many of my points are left totally unrebbutted, and I forward those points. "The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now." This statement is vague and unsourced and isn't a compelling argument. My opponent seeks to rebut my entire argument by a failed discrediting of one source and point. He does not present a compelling case, and his argument does not meet the burden of proof.