On Balance the World is Changing for the Better

My friend's argument relies on two things:1. Euthanasia is wrong in all circumstances.2. Global warming does not exist EuthanasiaMy opponent asserts that: 'enthusiana was the only treatment availible during olden days.' This statement is incorrect. Although my opponent was vague due to not explaining what he means by 'olden days' I'm going to assume he means classical antiquity.There were a number of medical textbooks in classical antiquity, as well as a number of famous physician's such as Paul of Aegina, whom wrote the '[1]Epitomes iatrikes biblio hepta'Surgery was also available as a treatment in antiquity.'If the wounded man or his companions attempted to extract an arrow by pulling on the shaft, there was a good chance that the arrowhead itself would be left within the wound. Celsus and Paul of Aegina offer step-by-step instructions that S. says would have been useful'.Thus euthanasia was not the only treatment available in antiquity, and would also only have been used on somebody who was in a terminal condition and was, therefore, suffering unbearable amounts of pain which would only lead to death anyway. My opponent has not offered a rebuttal for why euthanasia should not be used in cases such as this when, often, modern painkillers won't even take the edge off of pain that occurs when somebody is dying as to do so would mean giving the patient an overdose of one or another drug, which would be euthanising them. The argument sort of loops around like that.Global WarmingMy opponent asserts that: 'even if carbon dioxide is being released (not to mention, at very small rates), the global temperature is not effected by it.'My opponent has decided to argue that global warming does not exist. In doing this he decides to use this graph as evidence: We cannot be sure from exactly where my opponent found this graph, however, we can be sure that there is definitely a positive correlation as, with time, the PPM (Parts per million) of Carbon Dioxide steadily increases. This graph has been scaled all the way back to 1900 in order to make the positive correlation seem weaker, however the positive correlation is still extant. Therefore my opponent has worked to prove my point.My opponent asserts that the absorption of more Carbon Dioxide into the air does not effect the global temperature. To prove this he puts up a picture of the ice caps in September 2013 and September 2012. As we can see here, the global temperature does vary by about 0.2 of a degree quite frequently. However, the average global temperature has definitely increased exponentially since 1980 relative to 1880-1980. This suggests that there is a positive correlation between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the global temperature. But a correlation does not necessarily suggest a causual relationship, so let's have a look at the science.'[3]Most of the light energy from the sun is emitted in wavelengths shorter than 4,000 nanometers (.000004 meters). The heat energy released from the earth, however, is released in wavelengths longer than 4,000 nanometers. Carbon dioxide doesn't absorb the energy from the sun, but it does absorb some of the heat energy released from the earth. When a molecule of carbon dioxide absorbs heat energy, it goes into an excited unstable state. It can become stable again by releasing the energy it absorbed. Some of the released energy will go back to the earth and some will go out into space.'Thus global warming as a result of Carbon Dioxide is a very real thing which we should all be scared of and wouldn't have happened if not for the technological advancement in transport which Pro attempts to paint in a positive light. Back to you, Pro.Sources:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu...[3] http://www.pa.msu.edu...