args

CON

• CON

  SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst...

  Show full argument

  Climate change is both real and a serious issue

  I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause "great floods" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-change-is-both-real-and-a-serious-issue/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.14

    climate: 9.22

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 1.19 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.00)

    change: 7.32

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.37 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.02)

    real: 6.59

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.65)
• CON

  And they nver will be. ... The interrelationship between...

  Show full argument

  Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

  Here is a link to a litany of links that talk about Co2 and the parts per million and the sensitivity of the earths climate to it. All of them put it in to context which your links do not do. And also state that people who use these figures to create a sense of urgency that catastrophic doom is eminent are completely wrong. These are all peer reviewed sources. "All of the articles I have posted you can find any where else on the Internet. You just need to look." The burden of proof is on you my responsibility is to prove what you say is flawed or incorrect based on the sources you provide to make your case. "Plus the Internet is a bad place to look for good scientific journals. I am now going to list several books and journals that maybe you should read." The Internet is a global warming alarmist worst nightmare. No where in the entire world are these peer reviewed reports that dispute your claims reported in any news media outlet. And they nver will be. There is obviously a concerted effort to silence these reports because it would make the environmental agenda look like a complete fraud. It is a fraud. Next your litany of books to read. Ummmmm As no one will know what they are about let alone where the research to write these books came from and the context they are written in. This is not an argument nor a source it is a list of books that no one who reads this debate can use as information to make an educated vote. None the less I took the time to look for reviews of each book because I can't possible locate and read each book in 3 days and the fact that you would insinuate that I read all of these books and respond to each one of them in this debate is beyond preposterous. Tim Flannery, Weather Maker http://www.jennifermarohasy.com... G. Tyler Miller Jr., Sustaining the Earth Both of those reviewers, however, expressed some reservations. Luke said that the book's author, G. Tyler Miller, Jr., continually promoted his own environmental philosophy, even though Environmental Science was supposed to be a textbook rather than a manifesto. Fritjof Capra-Systems Theories This is a critical evaluation of Fritjof Capra's systems theory in his book The Web of Life (Anchor Books, 1996). His theory states that properties of the whole cannot be found on the level of its components or parts. The interrelationship between parts creates new properties, so called emergent properties, that are only intrinsic to the system as a whole and not to any of its parts. Uhhh what the F##k? Fritjof Capra-Gaia Again, what the f##k? Curtis Moore, Green Revolution in the making This is a personal view of this man, it is not a source for climate research. Jeremy Rifkin, The hydrogen economy Hydrogen will never be an alternative energy source. This man is a complete fraud. The link below proves this and it is irrefutable. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Splitting hydrogen atoms from other elements uses as much energy or more than hydrogen generates. Not to mention the additional energy required to compress it into a liquid and last but not least the catastrophic dangers that go with commpressed gasses at 4000 psi. let alone highly flammable gasses http://mb-soft.com... "Many of those points that I made are happening. We are experiencing warming and rapid change to our various ecosystems" I guess because you say it it's the truth. No sources as you can see to back up this statement " Clear cutting eliminates wind breaks , destroys soil quality, and enables erosion." I completely agree with this statement, But what it has to do with the climate is unclear because again you provide no source to make the correlation. "I don't see how just nitpicking my evidence helps your cause" There is no evidence to nit pick, you have proved nothing and I have backed up every single thing that I have said with peer reviewed sources. The one thing the debaters should note is that my oppenet has not provided a single peer reviewed source and didn't even respond with sources to many of his prior claims in round 2.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Climate-Change-is-a-problem-and-needs-to-be-addressed./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 23.00

    climate: 14.23

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 5.02 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.05)

    sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.98)

    change: 8.56

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 1.32 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 0.51)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.59)
• CON

  The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. ... The fact...

  Show full argument

  Climate denial is unusual in the scientific community

  "You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong." I have assumed no such thing. But Mr. Merrill's admission that his argument is poorly made is interesting. I would like to point out 2 things wrong with Climate Alarmists' arguments: 1) There are a very large number of Climate and Climate related scientists that do not believe in, or are skeptical of Climate Alarmists assertions. One flaw in this particular branch of science is how the "community" is dealing with "discenters". Most of those who "deny" AGW are treated with Ridicule and Scorn, have their jobs threatened, and have simply opted to leave because of the treatment they receive. http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... 2) To understand abnormal, we must first have the baseline for which the discussion can be built. In the Climate Alarmist v. Climate Denier argument, there are 3 critical pieces of information that have not been fully addressed: What is "Normal" or "Optimal" when it comes to Temperature, Carbon Dioxide, and Climate. How can we know what is "out of the ordinary" if what is "normal" is never exposed? Do we simply assume that the climate of the past 50, 100, 1000, years is "normal" and any deviation from that "normalcy" is "abnormal"? At what point do we say we have a good idea of what "normal" is? And what is "normal"? How about the period in our recent history where the Earth hit a point called "the Holocene Climate Optimum". It was between 4c and 6c warmer than our current temperatures today. Is this "normal"? Is it "optimal"? Or the Little Ice Age? Is that "normal" or "optimal"? Please define both NORMAL and OPTIMAL ... Mr. Merrill continues: "Pointing out the logical fallacies of an argument is not Ad Hominem, Blind Loyalty, or 'ignoring every argument.'" When the BULK of an argument concentrates on perceived fallacies, without benefit of using verifiable sources to argue the points made, it is. For instance, Mr. Merrill perceived an "appeal to nature" fallacy but ignore that a great many things ARE natural. Like the fluctuations of climate, for which we are having this discussion. How is an appeal to a scientific fact a logical fallacy? Mr. Merrill does the same here, in this reply. He has stopped arguing the points of contention to spend his time dealing with perceived fallacies, as explained below. Mr. Merrill: "I took three paragraphs to explain the science of the Greenhouse Effect and its associated concerns, and that they had been ignored by Con and misrepresented with concerns about wildfires and hurricanes." Ignored? Misrepresented? To your first paragraph (Atmospheric CO2), I responded with 6 of my own. I discuss everything from the positive effects of increased CO2 and Biomassing to the evidence that shows CO2 increases FOLLOW, not PRECEDE the Temperature Increases. I also discuss the lack of definition of "OPTIMAL" and question why events such as "warming", "wetting", "cooling" and "drying" are witnessed before the "industrial age" before MAN can be blamed for the anomalies. Instead of dealing with these issues, Mr. Merrill wants to "drop" this subject, "Could we perhaps call this a 'dropped point'?" Sorry, Mr. Merrill, I will not let you ignore the scientific facts that the climate is in flux, has been for millions (billions) of years, and will continue to be. Mr. Merrill continues: "Please observe the image from [4], "NASA: How Do We Know?" Showing the PPM chart." The earth is about 4.54 billion years old. 650,000 years is only approximately .0143% of the geologic timescale available. See: http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill then misrepresents the facts in his statement, "The image from [32] 'NASA: Global Climate Change Consensus' shows the spike in 'temperature anomaly' in the last seventeen years". The chart shows a change in temperature over the past 132 years. The last 17 years are shown in the far right side of that graph, which does, clearly, show a slowing in temperatures. See: http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... Mr. Merrill continues: "... greenhouse gases." Logical Fallacy: Red Herring -- I have not taken issue with "greenhouse effect" or "greenhouse gases", I have taken issue with what the Climate Alarmists are calling "unprecedented global warming due to man's activity". Mr. Merrill: "we should also recognize that air content has very real potential to change air temperature." Which may be true AND ignores the proofs given in my previous argument that Temperature has been shown to PRECEDE increases in CO2. The fact that CO2 increases AFTER the Temperature increases is interesting and should merit further study. The science is most definitely not settled. Further, Mr. Merrill, here and in [35] below, demonstrates an inability to draw parallels, "I appreciate that Con has dropped his Appeal to Nature, but drawing parallels between religious extremism (apocolypse predictions and geocentrism) and empirical climate change is not an ideal upgrade." Finally, we note, Mr. Merrill, that you fail to deal with the other portions of my response to your arguments; the second paragraph, "Atmospheric Ozone", and the third paragraph, "Oceanic". Instead, he continues his fallacious denial, which I will now deal with: 35. "This is about the non-existent link between MMR and autism, and Con is hoping that it disproves the link between greenhouse gases and climate temperatures." Alarmism does not good science make. 36. See [35] 37. "In addition to neglecting complexity, this has nothing to do with whether climate change is anthropogenic." Mr. Merrill is ignoring the science which shows that higher concentrations of CO2 are not "bad" but "good" for the Biosphere. This goes to the NATURAL nature of Climate Change and the Earth's response to those changes. Ignoring the science to make a point is, well, a fallacy. 38, 39, 40. See [37] 41. "Con posted this to support his claim that scientists are still arguing whether CO2 levels cause high temperatures, or whether high temperatures cause high CO2 levels." Correct. Because it is hard to claim, as Climate Alarmists do, "man made CO2 is causing warming" if in fact the warming comes BEFORE the increase in CO2 levels. Thank you for conceding that point. 42, 43, 44. Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. "but is by Joannenova, a 'scientist' who never lists her accredidation and whose whose living is based off this blog." Logical Fallacy. If the information presented is correct, credentials or other factors are irrelevant. 45. "Con hopes this will disprove the idea that modern changes in air content could ever affect global temperatures." Assumption. If changes have happened, are happening and will happen, there is little we can do to change or alter those changes. Especially in the LONG TERM, as is shown, previously, by taking ALL the information, not less than 1% of the information available. 46. "Con hasn't really specified what he hopes this will prove." Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. I have said exactly what I hope to prove. The science is there to back it up. Ignoring it doesn't help your argument, dealing with it might. 47. "Con points to despite increasing CO2 levels. This is more evidence that he did not properly read my round 2: CO2 levels have nothing to do with ozone." Your attempt here is to ignore your own argument. In Round 2 you posted un-cited information that Ozone is one of the Anthropogenic causes for Global Warming. The science says this may be correct, and the science says the Ozone is on the mend, which removes this factor from the argument. 48. "but it's listed as a myth. " The only myth here is that CO2 causes warming, Mr. Merrill already conceded this point in [41]. 49. "Con meant to use this to demonstrate that arctic ice is normal" Maybe Mr. Merrill can explain what "standard deviation" means? 50. "Con is once again insisting on using polar bear populations as our primary whether forecast." Mr. Merrill is using yet another Logical Fallacy: Straw Man. Mr. Merrill is ignoring the fact that Climate Alarmists have been using things like "melting ice caps" and "disappearing polar bears" for years to make their point (also a Logical Fallacy, as pointed out, "Appeal to Emotion"). Yet, this is proven incorrect, polar bear populations are well on the increase. I will take Mr. Merrill's response here to mean he agrees with this point, and move on. 51. See [50] 52. "It's another blogger's un-peer-reviewed attempt at science, see [44]." Here Mr. Merrill ignores the actual evidence on the page cited. He uses a Logical Fallacy: Poisoned Well, because its a blog. On that page we find a reference to peer-reviewed science that states, "This suggests that this warming episode is mainly due to internal dynamics of the ocean rather than external radiative forcing.", http://goo.gl... Using Logical Fallacies in this way only hurts Mr. Merrill's arguments, not helps them. 53, 54, 55. See [37] 56. "This shows only slight ocean warming over the course of eight years - not even a decade." Mr. Merrill either didn't read the whole article, or is hoping it will "go away" as there are charts that show data from the 1950s. That is far more than 8 years. The data of the last 8 years simply shows the trend, as with the last 15-18 years of Global Temperatures, to have slowed its warming trend. This is valid information, because as above, Mr. Merrill has denied that any such thing happened, when it has been shown that it has happened. See the posted charts above. 57. Mr. Merrill is again misrepresenting the facts of the article presented. The fact is, as the opening statement suggests, "The fact is that we can"t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can"t." -- Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-denial-is-unusual-in-the-scientific-community/1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.83

    climate: 18.45

    conclusion: 9.20 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.01)

    premises: 7.99 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.67)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 3.34

    premises: 2.96 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.15)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.07)

    real: 1.04

    premises: 0.77 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.30)

    sourceText: 0.27 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.47)
• CON

  The changes take place over a long period of time, yes....

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is Real.

  Thank you to my opponent for allowing me to participate in this debate! I look forward to an intellectually challenging discussion. Now to my opening arguments. The key to determining whether or not "Global Warming" as defined by my opponent is a myth or not, is the definition he provided: "Global warming is the term used to describe a gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and its oceans, a change that is believed to be permanently changing the Earth’s climate." Firstly, the belief that a warming period observed by our scientists and thought to be caused by man is permanent is misguided. The simple reality is, these changes are in no way permanent. We know that the climate millions of years ago was different, more humid and warm, and we also know that we have had ice ages in the past. We know that the climate during the first millenias of earth's existence were exceedingly moist and warm as well. We can, therefore, rightly acknowledge that it is not simply global warming that we see, but climate change. But is it permanent? The answer, of course, is no. For support, I point to the Great Oxygen Event, which took place nearly 2.4 billion years ago. Cyanobacteria, living organisms on earth, produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The Great Oxygen Event occurred when the cyanobacteria began to produce so much oxygen that the natural consumers of their oxygen could not keep up, and the earth's atmosphere became saturated with free and pure oxygen. Pure oxygen was not seen extensively in that time, and as such, the result of the increase in oxygen's concentration in the atmosphere was a mass extinction event of all organisms who did not require oxygen to live. Furthermore, the oxygen reacted with the methane in the atmosphere to produce the Huronian Glaciation, a 300 million year long period of cold temperatures and formations of glaciers.[1] And yet, here today we see that life as moved on. The earth has grown, experienced many more changes in climate, from more ice ages to warm humid climates yet again. The changes take place over a long period of time, yes. But the changes that lead to the Great Oxygen Event were extremely rapid in the reckoning of geology. Modern estimates believe that photosynthesis taking place at the rate we see today could have generated the Great Oxygen Event in roughly 2,000 years. [2] The driving point behind this argument is that Rapid climate change is not new, nor should it be unexpected. It has happened before, and it very well may happen again. Now, I will move to a key argument against the fears propagated by Climate Change enthusiasts. Humans exist naturally on earth, we evolved to this point of intelligence and biological stability as a species through nature. Our very existence is a natural thing. How then, can anything we do be considered unnatural? We were not plopped down on earth suddenly. It is not as if we use magic to convert these natural materials into fuel and gases. We operate under the confines of nature's laws, being of nature herself. Our use of fossil fuels, then, is not unnatural at all. We are simply utilizing the tools nature gave us to promote our livelihood, much like the Cyanobacteria were doing. And arguably, the cyanobacteria operated at a much faster rate than we do. The warming of oceans by mere fractions of degrees per decade will not spell the end of Earth, nor will it wipe out all life. Just as after the Great Oxygen Event and Huronian Glaciation nature survived and thrived, so too will life on earth survive and thrive even after we are gone, whatever the cause of our disappearance may be. If, then, the use of fossil fuels is natural, having occurred by a natural process and set in motion by a natural life form, and rapid climate change originates not just from man, but from the rest of nature as well, what is all the fuss about? The threat posed by climate change is not directed towards the Earth, or even towards Nature itself. It is directed towards us. Humans are the ones who will be in danger if we continue to burn fossil fuels. Not nature. Nature survives, nature has survived more devastating occurrences than man could ever hope to throw at it. Whole continents have crashed together, been torn apart, mountain ranges have been battered down and raised up, violent volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, monstrous meteors and asteroids, and massive extinction events have all occurred during the span of Earth's life. Is it not prideful, arrogant even, to think that Man can possibly compete with such devastating forces? To think that man might be able to destroy nature, when we have barely left a mark with our most powerful weapons of destruction? To sum up my arguments: 1) It is not Global Warming specifically that we observe, but Climate Change, both warming and cooling. The effects of Global Climate change in one direction or another are not permanent. Nature adapts and moves on after every great event. 2) Global Climate Change, whether rapid or slow, is a natural occurrence, and the example of the Great Oxygen Event shows that organisms on Earth have been altering the climate for hundreds of millions of years. We cannot, therefore, expect to leave the climate completely untouched. Nor is it wrong for us to utilize the intelligence nature gave us to promote our livelihood. 3) Because Global Climate Change is a natural occurrence, whether or not it originates from Man, it is nothing for nature or the Earth to fear, and nor is it our duty to fear for Nature or the Earth. Rather, we are the ones who will be adversely affected. I now hand the debate back to Pro. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-Real./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.81

    climate: 9.90

    premises: 8.65 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.80)

    sourceText: 1.25 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.09)

    change: 4.64

    premises: 4.26 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.65)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)

    real: 8.28

    conclusion: 7.94 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.12)

    sourceText: 0.33 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.81)
• CON

  This would not be the best way to determine if climate...

  Show full argument

  The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

  This would not be the best way to determine if climate change is man made because we alread know that it isn't, and if we reduced our CO2 emmissions this would cripple our economies severely.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/The-best-method-to-determine-whether-or-not-man-made-climate-change-is-true-is-reduction-of-Co2./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.75

    climate: 13.67

    conclusion: 5.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 7.38 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.54)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 8.71

    conclusion: 4.35 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.55)

    premises: 3.97 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.54)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.12)
• CON

  IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from...

  Show full argument

  "Fixing the Climate" should be a Low Priority for the USA

  As a reminder to the judges and my opponent, The debate is on whether or not the US should make the terraforming of our earth a LOW priority or a med-high priority. I'm going to rephrase some of my opponent's arguments to be yes/no questions. See how many you agree with. 1. Scientists are sure there will be a catastrophe, But since they can't us exactly how many trillions of dollars it will cost it should be a low priority. 2. Since I as a non-scientist deem the scientist's proposed solutions unappealing, We should not fund their research fully until they have already developed solutions that appeal to me 100%. 3. If there isn't ONE solution to climate change we should not take the proposed solutions seriously. I don't think 20 different solutions that get us small portions of the way there is a viable way to deal with climate change. IE I think ALL power needs to come specifically from solar, Wind, Geothermal, Or nuclear. We can't use all of them. 4. I think when climate research is funded that money disappears off the face of the planet instead of being circulated back through the economy. All $2T of research (if that is true) is completely gone off the face of the Earth. (This is not how economies work) 5. I said funding for climate change should be the equivalent of the space race which was high priority but that doesn't mean I conceded that climate change should be high priority. 6. It shouldn't be governments that have to answer to the people that should deal with the terraforming of our planet, It should be private companies who aren't answerable to the people. 7. Other problems exist. We can't solve those other problems at the same time as we solve climate change, Because the scientists who study those problems definitely stop studying those problems and working on solutions to those problems and focus instead on areas of research outside of their field of study. Definitely. This is the problem with my opponent's line of reasoning. There need not be ONE solution to climate change. If something gets us 5% of the way there, That's great. If research is funded for solutions, We will find better and more practical solutions as well, Which may allow us more control over the climate in case the climate scientists are wrong and the climate starts cooling. Solar power CAN give us more than 100% of current power requirements easily. I'm not sure why he is pretending it cannot. I gave sources for this. The sun is a literal fusion reactor many times the size of our planet. I couldn't even get him to concede this point. We can work on multiple problems simultaneously. I can list hundreds of different problems. The sad fact is most of them don't lead to catastrophes. Diseases, Malnutrition, Poverty, And malaria in particular would all be significantly increased with a warmer climate. No economist agrees with tariffs and those can be gone whenever Trump wants. The negative terraforming of our planet is the most serious problem we face today.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Fixing-the-Climate-should-be-a-Low-Priority-for-the-USA/4/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.64

    climate: 17.96

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 8.67 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.81)

    sourceText: 1.26 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.12)

    change: 4.42

    premises: 4.06 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.57)

    sourceText: 0.36 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.96)
• CON

  I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's...

  Show full argument

  CMV: There is no legal way to bring real change in the USA.

  Legal for who? Because there are absolutely legal ways for people in government to bring real change in the USA. Just because they don't make certain needed changes doesn't mean they aren't possible. I know this sounds like a semantic distinction but it's not. You have to keep in mind that there is no universal law saying, for instance, that politicians have to listen to lobbyists. They choose to do so, and they can choose not to. Just because it isn't simple, because it might harm their future prospects, because in reality it would take a while to untangle the repercussions, doesn't mean they can't choose not to. Saying otherwise is defeatism and downplays their responsibility. Following from that, one legal way to bring real change in the USA for someone currently not in government is to run for office. Which by no means is easy or guaranteed or something everyone wants, and when they're in office they can always, again, just not make the change, but it's been very effective for the Tea Partiers/Trump supporters and the changes they wanted.

  • https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l77o8v/cmv_there_is_no_legal_way_to_bring_real_change_in/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.63

    climate: 0.68

    sourceText: 0.68 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.14)

    sum: 6.91 (product 2.32, product 4.20, product 0.39)

    sum: 6.21 (product 2.09, product 3.77, product 0.35)

    change: 11.54

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 4.20 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)

    sourceText: 0.39 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.11)

    real: 10.40

    conclusion: 6.28 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 3.77 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 1.44)

    sourceText: 0.35 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.88)
• CON

  http://m.washingtonpost.com... ... The true debate is...

  Show full argument

  Climate Shift

  I understand why you're confused about my argument. You seem to be equally confused about the scientific consensus which was claimed by the following article. http://m.washingtonpost.com... If you read the article again and pay special notice to the update the author added at a later time. 97% of scientists "who took a position" support global warming. However the reality is that 67% of published papers on the subject took no position at all. So 33% of scientist are the only ones being considered. That is not a very overwhelming consensus. As a matter of fact that is filtering the results to support a preconceived conclusion. The true debate is about the cause of climate change, as we already know it has changed many times before now.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Climate-Shift/2/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.50

    climate: 18.64

    conclusion: 11.57 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 1.27)

    premises: 5.79 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 1.28 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.15)

    change: 3.49

    premises: 3.12 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.21)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.03)
• CON

  Tigers are in the woods - tigers hate noise - I make lots...

  Show full argument

  Global Climate Change is a problem and needs to be addressed.

  I am going to take manbars advice and just turn this into a he said she said debate. I believe my opponent is irrational. I say this because I have proven that Hydrogen will never be a fuel source for the world to lower Co2 levels. He continues to cling to and defend the writings of a book called the "Hydrogen Economy" I will tell you what the GNP of a hydrogen economy will be "0" And then my opponent goes on to believe the rest of what this man says even though the entire premise of the book is based on a complete fraud. Hydrogen is a novelty and will never be an alternative fuel source, I have proven this categorically and irrefutably but my oppenet still defends it. This is an irrational act, a complete inability to accept the truth and the laws of physics. With that said there is no other research or science that will be acceptable other than what supports his agenda, no matter how flawed or misleading or taken out of context. His source are the words of a god and mine are all just big piles of crap that aren't even worth considering because of some political reason and the content is obviously bought and paid for by some big oil company or someone with an agenda. But of course his sources are all absolute fact. Tigers are in the woods - tigers hate noise - I make lots of noise -there are no tigers in the woods. Co2 exists - the planet is warming - Co2 levels increase - Co2 causes warming. I have credible peer review research that says Co2 levels lag or only increase if the planet warms and then decrease when it cools. There is no credible evidence to prove that Co2 causes the planet to warm, only speculation. We have addressed cleaning up the environment and have spent billions of dollars doing it. Catalytic converters for cars, scrubbers for coal burning power plants, Lighter cars with better fuel economy, I could go on and on and on. You need to bitch at the rest of the world as we are the only country in the world that requires catalytic converters on their cars. You say we need cars that run on alternative fuel sources. Got news for ya they have all been built Hydrogen, Electric, methane you name it its been done. Only problem is no fuel to put in them. I will leave that responsibility on your shoulders and all of the rest of the environmentalists because you want to cut oil production before you have even found an alternative. And since you are going to make the rest of the world suffer by artificially inflating gas prices and making everything else cost more and there by liming everything and destroying the economy. I think the least you could do as an environmentalist is suspend your billion dollar ruse tax increases disguised as carbon credits and pay for all the research out of your own pockets. What is more likely using "Occam's Razor" All of the glaciers are going to melt if man does not cut Co2 emissions. There have been 100,s if not 1,000's of Ice ages and warming periods this is just another cycle and there is nothing we can do about it. Water vapor represents 97% of all greenhouse gasses Co2 represents at the most 2% Co2 is the primary factor for the planets warming trend, Not likely Melting glaciers lag behind warming trends by 100 years there is no correlation between Co2, glaciers and the planets current warming trend Climate researchers predicted in the 1970's that the planet would plunge into another ice age if something wasn't done. I guess we are saving the planet from another ice age by burning fossil fuels. Climate researchers record for accurately predicting future climates "O" Now all of the sudden 100% perfect accuracy and irrefutable. The answer to the title of your debate is simple: impose your environmental agenda on the world at any cost which is the current course of the environmental agenda and be damned the people and the suffering it will cause in the name of saving the world. My view on the title: Increase oil production to keep people and world economies going and do what we can if anything to look for alternatives and offer Gov't funded prizes to people and corporations who can come up with viable Ideas that will work instead of demonizing everyone and wasting money on pie in the sky P.R stunts like Hydrogen powered cars. There is no looming threat and the world is not going to suffer from these ridiculous predictions made by environmentalists and everyone else in the global warming dooms day agenda. I predict in 5 years that in third world countries that people who admit to being an environmentalist will have to ware a bullet proof vest. The environmentalist agenda is already hurting my ability to provide for my family by not allowing us to to drill for more oil on our soil causing oil prices to be artificially high. I can assure you of one thing, Nobody will care about the environment if they are forced to live in the conditions that dooms day environmental predict for the future if they have to live that way today, which is the path that is being taken by environmentalists today. Their agenda is going to back fire when people start dying in third world countries and they will have nobody to blame but them selves and god help you all if your dooms day predictions don't come true while Co2 emissions increase over the next 20 years. They will increase because the population will increase and more Co2 will be produced. Unless of course the real agenda of environmentalists is wholesale genocide by starvation. I would ask my opponent not to list any sources in his rebuttal as they are just as worthless as mine. Climate research is not science it is a political view point, No more time or money should be spent studying the climate it is a colossal waste of taxpayers money.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Climate-Change-is-a-problem-and-needs-to-be-addressed./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.31

    climate: 13.90

    conclusion: 8.03 (boost 1.50, idf 6.06, tfNorm 0.88)

    premises: 4.70 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 0.98)

    sourceText: 1.18 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 1.98)

    change: 7.24

    conclusion: 6.95 (boost 1.50, idf 5.24, tfNorm 0.88)

    sourceText: 0.30 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 1.59)

    real: 1.16

    premises: 0.96 (idf 2.61, tfNorm 0.37)

    sourceText: 0.20 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.09)
• CON

  You know what 1850 was? ... "Well i'm sure most people...

  Show full argument

  Global Warming is real, get over it.

  "Guess when 11 of the warmest 12 years since 1850 were? I understand that the earths climate changes periodically, (the UK used to be desert, and it feels like a long way from that today!). However, anyone clever enough to understand that the climate does change, should be wise to notice that it is right now." You know what 1850 was? The end of the Little Ice Age. Its only natural that it is occurring. "Well i'm sure most people reading will appreciate that yes it probably is quite a lot to get worried about. Another point I should add is that 'average' climate change values are doubled near the poles. 1/3 of a degree in the sahara may not make much of a difference, but 2/3 of a degree near the poles, in such a short time??" The poles are well below freezing, think -20 Celcius. 2/3 of a degree, not that significant. Also, Antartica has gotten on average colder. (GISS) "In conclusion, there is not much we as a race can do to add to/detract from the rate at which the climate is changing. One thing we can do however, is accept that it is." Climate change implies a significant shift in the way our climate works. There is no shift, as I have proven.

  • https://www.debate.org/debates/Global-Warming-is-real-get-over-it./1/
  • score

    BM25 score: 22.28

    climate: 10.20

    premises: 8.98 (idf 4.80, tfNorm 1.87)

    sourceText: 1.22 (boost 0.20, idf 2.98, tfNorm 2.04)

    change: 4.58

    premises: 4.20 (idf 2.58, tfNorm 1.63)

    sourceText: 0.38 (boost 0.20, idf 0.93, tfNorm 2.04)

    real: 7.50

    conclusion: 7.20 (boost 1.50, idf 4.74, tfNorm 1.01)

    sourceText: 0.31 (boost 0.20, idf 0.92, tfNorm 1.66)