One should work against global warming and avoid extinction from it, even if it is non-anthropogenic

Why didn't you post an argument? I thought I mentioned in the last round that you should just start (I obviously did), but hey it's your turn and you obviously know what you're doing (good job on the record by the way). As for the observations (or are they objections? For 1 & 2, or all 3?) see below: 1. On the definition of "Work against/avoid" : Yes, I agree with this take exactly and I think most will have to as well (I think this is self-evident). But to clarify, the action also has to have some probability of actually working. It's not enough to just desire something, and then do something else. That's why I already specified the following: "I propose that humans (individually and collectively) should try to alter this process by whatever means they rationally decide are likely to succeed..." 2. On the definition of "One" : I wholly disagree, and I think it's peculiar to define the word "one" when used in this context (of agency rather than number) to mean the government when the government is one of the least singular/cohesive agent you can possibly imagine. Also, reference the above bolded section again to see that I've already specified it as individual humans and the collective of humans. The latter does not necessarily mean government. People can do a lot individually and collectively (in the sense of the super-additive sum of the individual effects) to affect greenhouse gases without government. With that said, in practice any ultimately impactful measure is unfortunately likely to require the government in some way. But this isn't practice, it's a debate where we entertain the idea of reforming the practice (status quo) at any and every level we choose. So I guess, I don't start making self-limiting assumptions like this at this point. 3. Note: I don't think this is an objection in the first place, but rather an observation as my opponent specified with the color code. On the observation of .... I put dots because honestly I don't quite know what the observation is. "NC" is not a word, and one should consider this when voting on spelling and grammar. Abbreviations or deviations from the norms of spelling and grammar could be put in parenthesis on first use in order to define them, and then used freely thereafter. Moving on, it says "to prove non-anthropogenic global warming (which seems somewhat counter-intuiitve [SIC] on face, but I accept the condition) ." I have to say the grammar of the statement disagrees with me. I didn't try to prove anything, since I offered no evidence, and freely admitted it was a built in assumption as you can see below. "I think these premises are self-evident (or in the case of #9, an assumption of the debate)." It doesn't make sense to call it counter intuitive. Climatology is a thriving science because there is no such thing as intuition on these matters. You can't intuit that global warming is man made or that it is not. You could say that this assumption is counter-evident, but that is neither here nor there for the purpose of the debate you accepted. That covers all three, and I think I'll just leave it at this brief reaction for now.