BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Warming is man-made

Well, first debate I've been in where my opponent didn't just want to debate the same points the whole time! I thank my opponent for mixing it up with his own points.First, I will start with the rebuttal to the rebuttal, then to the rebuttal to your points, then to my new points1) Hockey stick graphI don't understand how my opponent states that the graph does not involve temperature. The graph has 2 lines, the red line corresponding to CO2 levels and the white line, which corresponds to temperature. That is the reason I chose the graph. To make it a bit more clear, I made proper edits to the picture: http://img850.imageshack.us... . This one has easier to read labels, some of them may not be exactly what they were in the original chart, but they mean the same thing. Now, direct the attention to the 2 yellow nubs. They correlate to the most recent temperature increase at the time of the graphs release. According to An Inconvenient Truth, the film I take this graph from. the temperature line and the CO2 line are supposed to directly correlate(1). But, hte white line seems to be topping out at a certain point. Look at the approximate 1900 mark, where the temparature begins it's dip. It has since come back up to the same point, but not much farther beyond that point. There could be many explanations for this, but I will get into those later on.2) Phil JonesPhil Jones does state that the globe is warming at a level that isn't significant in that same interview3) General conensusAlthough I could not predict my opponents opinion on this, this is a statement used by many global warming advocates, And polls on global warming, such as the one cited cited by my opponent, have been wildly different(2), which implies that he CNN poll is likely not completely accurate.Now I will start on the rebuttal to your main points. They both intertwine, so I think I can get them both together. THis also ties in my new pointsMy opponent states that glaciers melting is proof that global warming exists. But, have glaciers not melted in the past? The melting of glaciers has been present throughout history, due to the natural heating and cooling of the Earth. And, also on that graph, you can see that (excluding the area between about 300,000 and 150,000 years ago, where the tempature stayed fairly similar) the Earth's heating seems to get more intense every time. And, it is likely that we are experiencing a similar pattern.I found an article during my research on this subject last month, but I can't seem to find it this time. It was about the unusually cold year Britian had last year. Global warming would explain a cold winter, but not a cool summer. I really wish I could find it, but the file I put it in has evaded meI await your reply eagerly
Global Warming is man-made

I never done a debate on this and hope it's fun and informative. I shall start by refuting my opponent's claims then moving onto my own. 1) Hockey Stick Graph My opponent contends that at the very end the temperature stops going up. The problem is this graph does not have anything to do with temperature. The horizontal represents years before present and the vertical represents CO2 in parts per million. My opponent took this graph out of context. Note as the year 1950 approaches, the graph starts going up a steep hill in CO2 parts per million. This graph is easier to see and explains my point better . http://climate.nasa.gov... My opponent's argument fails miserably. In addition, he admits the CO2 is rising so we don't need to spend time arguing that. 2) Phil Jones From same interview Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity. . http://www.skepticalscience.com... 3) General Consensus I never said that all scientist agree. In fact, CNN reports about 90 per cent . http://articles.cnn.com... My opponent has not shown compelling reasons against global warming, EVIDENCE 1: SEA LEVEL RISE I contend that global warming is real because sea levels are rising. Sea level rose 6.7 inches last century. The last decade is DOUBLE! How is this possible? Well, it is obvious that the ice caps are retreating. Also from NASA. Same page as the chart. This is half the battle to show global warming exists. I also need to give a compelling reason as to why man is responsible. Global warming is caused by greenhouse gasses. They act as vapors and as the sunlight enters, it cannot escape—Thus the term "Greenhouse gas" Everyday, humans drive cars and emit CO2 into the atmosphere causing unnecessary CO2 emission. In addition, there are many MANY causes such as factories and pollutans that we deliberately put in the atmosphere. EVIDENCE 2: GLACIER RETREAT I contend that a compelling reason to show glibal warming exists is that the glaciers are retreating almost everywhere, this includes the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa. What does this show? It shows that it isn't limited to one area. . http://nsidc.org... Back to you!
Global Warming is man-made

Global warming is a major topic. It seems to be a topic thrown around as firepower to hurt incumbents (In America anyways, cannot be sure about Canada). Many people have pitched into the topic such as Al Gore, Roger Revelle, and Phil Jones. The response usually leans towards global warming existing. But I, for one, am skeptical. Much of the information has very little backing. In fact, I noticed that the popular movie about the subject, An Inconvenient Truth uses quite a bit of sketchy information, including the famous-Hockey Stick Graph:The hockey stick graph is one of the major tools of global warming advocates. It shows that CO2 levels correspond to heat. And I will not deny that it does... mostly. Take a look here: http://statesmansentinel.com... . If you look at the end, the temperature stops going up. From the looks of it, it is an logistic graph (I know, this term is used more when describing population, but it is fitting for this, too). The CO2 may be rising, but the temperature has slowed greatly. And the hockey stick graph leads me into my second point-Phil Jones:Phil Jones was once a major advocate for global warming. He supplied the data for the hockey stick graph(1). That data recently went missing(1). Much of the data that advocates of global warming used came from Phil Jones(2). Also, in that same interview with BBC, Phil Jones announced "the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now" (1) and that there has been no significant global warming (1). Even before this admission, a leak of his e-mails lead him to be accused of scientific fraud(1). This removes much of the backing for global warming.The General Consensus:Many advocates for global warming say that all scientists agree that global warming exists. That is simply not true. A petition has made it's rounds recently(3). 31,487 scientists agree that global warming exists, 9029 of which have PhDs And that is from a single country, only making up a small percentage of the world population. If this was a worldwide poll, it would go much higher.I await your responseSources:______________________________________(1)http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(climatologist)(3)http://www.petitionproject.org...
Global Warming is man-made

I am excited to go against a seemingly great debater like you (I saw seemingly due to your small track record). I was a bit suprised to see you as a global warming person1st round- Acceptance2nd round- Opening statement (If you wan to start rebuttal here, go ahead)3rd - 4th rounds- Rebuttal5th round- Final rebuttal and closing statements.Pro must prove that global warming exists and is largely caused by man
Global Warming is man-made

I greatly enjoyed myself. My opponent not only took interviews out of context, but admitted to it as well as admitting to dropping contentions (A big no-no) My opponent accuses me of being deceptive with stating stuff like double. I will contend that NASA would also agree and if you want to check out my source on the NASA page, I encourage you to do so. As for sources, I had a lot more reliable sources such as from NASA and NOAA. My opponent has stated "I urge you to vote pro. .. " and I urge you to do the same. I am requesting a part two to this debate to just look at how man is contributing to it Do as my opponent said and VOTE PRO. That's all for mt closing argments. Thanks for reading.
Global Warming is man-made

I am glad to see my opponent has gone with original points here. I plan to use little rebuttal and focus mostly on my closing statement. I will begin on saying that CO2 increases tend to lag increases of heat(1), which may mean that, while same of the CO2 is ma made, much of it is natural.I would also like to say that I told my opponent that the graph he prefers (the one on Skeptical Science) uses similar information from the original hockey stick graph(2), and says very similar things. The reason the hockey stick graph you are using isn't in the most recent report is because it has suffered much controversy. They have also admitted that the graph preferred by my opponent may be inaccurate(3)Now, onto my closing statement. First, I would like to say that my opponent has yet to make ample claim that the globe is warming due to man. While he has stated we have been putting carbon in the air, he has yet to dispute the claim that the globe is warming due to a natural cycle. Furthermore, I feel that he has used wording that can confuse the viewers of this debate. While I am not calling my opponent a liar, I do believe he is deceptive. For example, "the sea level DOUBLED in height from last century", or "They act as vapors and as the sunlight enters, it cannot escape." Corrected, that would be "The rise per decade has doubled since last century" and "They act as vapors, and as the sunlight entries, much of the sunlight cannot escape." This deceptive practice can cause much confusion. I suggest to my opponent that he attempt to avoid this n later debates. I am not the greatest at conclusions, so I will leave it here.I am sorry about the short final ending, I am running out of time. I wish my opponent the best of luck in the future, and thank him for his time to participate in this debate. I enjoyed myself, and I hope he did to. I hope that you vote based on the debating, not on sides.I urge you to vote pro. Thank you to everyone for taking your time to read thisSources_____________________________________(1)http://mind.ofdan.ca...(2)http://en.wikipedia.org...(3)http://www.ipcc.ch... Page 9 right column, bullet 1
Global Warming is man-made

Hello there, thank you for your response. Dropped contentions 2 and 3 along with admitting to taking the Phil Jones out of context. I thank my opponent for backing up his claim with sources. There is nothing worse than giving an argument without sources.Therefore, I can now properly respond to this challenge.CO2 emissions are increasing. In 1870 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 290 ppm. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen to 390 ppm. As explained below, very carefully calibrated measurements have confirmed that human activities are the primary cause of this increase. There are 3 main carbon isotopes: 14C, 13C and 12C. CO2 produced from burring fossil fuels and clearing/burning forests has a unique isotopic composition. This is because plants prefer lighter isotopes, that is they prefer 12C vs. 13C. Thus, plants have low 13C/12C ratios. Fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants; therefore, they also have a lower 13C/12C ratio. When fossil fuels are burned, CO2 from these ancient plants is released into the air, thereby lowering the average 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Evidence indicates that the current 13C/12C ratio is lower than it used to be. http://mgg.rsmas.miami.edu...;http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu...;Increased CO2 will, in theory, lead to an increase in the greenhouse effect. Measurements from satellites and ground stations both indicate that the greenhouse effect has intensified recently.http://ams.confex.com...;Hockey Stick GraphAs I stated before, my opponent is WRONG in stating that the hockey graph is a major tool. It is not.back to you.
Global Warming is man-made

I am sorry for the late response. I had some other things I needed to do. I also wish my opponent the best of luck as we advance into round four. I am also sorry that I forgot to add my sources for my previous round, I have lost them at this point.I will go in the same order as my opponent My opponent contends that it does not prove anything and it just has been a “cycle.” I challenge my opponent to this. Why? He has provided no evidence whatsoever and thus his points are invalid. Even IF that were the case, I shall point out that there is no reason that, in the last decade, the sea level DOUBLED in height from last century. Furthermore, I shall point out that the rate that glaciers are retreating is astounding. The “cycle” theory does not explain why glaciers seem to be retreating everywhere—not just one place. I see my opponent has challenged the cycle idea. Here's a list of sites that back my claim http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.museum.state.il.us... http://ossfoundation.us... http://www.nolanchart.com... These sites and many more show the cycle. And that cycle is on a global scale. It's why we have ice ages. Almost any scientist will agree that cycle exists. And between each ice age the heat has been getting harsher. And that cycle is on a global scale. Not any one continent or area experiences an ice age, it's the hole world. The same is true for the heat in between. And my opponent said himself that the oceans are rising due to glaciers melting. My opponent has taken his interview out of context. I challenge my opponent to see what he really did say. Phil Jones recently examined the up-to-date data, and has now stated "If you add the value of 0.52 in for 2010 and look at 1995 to 2010 then the warming is statistically significant at the 95% level." My opponent also contends that it was Phil Jones that supplied the data. That is wrong. The hockey stick graph was published by Michael Mann. I will agree that the Daily Mail took it out of context, and I used that source without checking other sources alongside it. My opponent also states that the hockey stick graph was published by Michael Mann, it was supplied by the UEA's Climate Research Unit(2). This was suspected to have been modified by Phil Jones, due to leaked emails(1). Phil Jones and Michael Mann did publish a report together, that's how I got confusedI agree to dropping consensusHockey Stick GraphFirst of all, the graph my opponent is using is also called a hockey stick graph(3). It uses information from Mann and Jones. The Mann graph I am using says very similar things, but has a longer time frame than the IPCC.I am sorry I can not provide the sources, I use SeaMonkey, which sorts history terribly. I am sorry about it. I eagerly await your responseSources_______________________________________________(1)http://www.climateaudit.org...(2)http://www.chacha.com...(3)http://en.wikipedia.org...
There are 360 degrees in a circle

We have accepted there are 360 degrees in a circle purely because the Babylonians thought there are 360 degrees in a circle despite them making no calculations whatsoever, and there being no genuine reason to think this today. The only way it can make sense for a circle to have 360 degrees is if:a) circles do not have an internal angle, orb) the internal angle of a circle is 360 degrees.So here is why some people think there are 360 degrees in a circle:a) A circle is not a polygon, therefore it has no anglesb) The number of degrees in a circle (or central angle) could have been anything but 360 was chosen The number of degrees a shape has is equal to the sum of its interior angles. If I look at a regular polygon with 3 million sides, each interior angle equals 179.99988, meaning the sum of it's interior angles = (179.99988 x 3 million) = 539999640 degrees. Increasing the number of sides will increase the sum of interior angles. By increasing the number of sides I can establish the 4th decimal point of an infinite sided polygon, and the one after that and so on, each decimal point is found to be a 9 followed by another 9. When there is a flat angle 179.9...(or 180) and an infinite number of angles of 180 degrees, there are no other sides! This is why the sum of interior angles would be 179.9... or 180 degrees, and why a circle has 179.9... degrees, rather than 360 degrees. So an infinite sided polygon is a circle. A circle is defined as being a 360th part of a circle. This definition has been used ever since Babylonians imagined the central angle to be a circle most probably due to being unable to calculate the internal angle of a circle. Imagination doesn't make something a fact. If they imagined the central angle to be an octagon and chose to define an octagon as being a 360th part of an octagon it wouldn't mean an octagon has 360 degrees when they have defined a straight angle as having 180 degrees.Below is proof that a triangle has 180 degrees, and since polygons are made up of triangles the sum of their interior angles can easily be calculated. http://www.mathsisfun.com... I'd like to finish by saying that the central angle is not actaully a shape, you could put a line through any polygon and say it has 360 degrees but you would only be correct in saying this if you put a line through a square. People are taught from a young age to draw a small arc around angles so when they put them together they imagine a circle has 360 degrees. Perhaps you may think it is useful however there is no good reason to make up the number of degrees in a circle. We don't even use a circle to make angle measurements!Many thanks for reading
There are 360 degrees in a circle

I must say I do like your diagrams. It seems you are having some trouble picturing infinity, so I will try my best to help you out. Below is a diagram I quickly made, you will notice there are 4 black straight lines and 4 straight red lines. The centres of both lines are an equal distance away from the centre of the circle, and are shown by a big red dot. Green arrows show the distance from the centre of the circle. These green distances are smaller than the ones shown by a blue arrow and this is because the blue arrows show the distance from the ends of the black lines to the centre of whatever sided shape I draw. I believe you are struggling to fathom infinity due to picturing only the red lines which form a polygon. In diagram 2 I have added 4 more lines/sides creating an octagon. At this point you may still be thinking that if I continue adding more sides the infinite sided polygon will not ever be a circle i.e. have one curved line, lets see. An infinite sided polygon has infinite sides, this means I can place lines EVERYWHERE provided the centre of the line is an equal distance away from the centre of my polygon, and the distance from the ends of the black lines maintain the distance shown by the blue arrows in diagram 1. If I add any more black lines of the same length keeping the blue arrow and green arrow lengths the same as in diagram 1, the ends of the black lines must touch the outer black circle. Adding an infinite number of sides/lines will cause a circular area to become filled. The polygon with infinite sides will just be a circle, which I have shown in blue. It is made up of the centres (big red dots) of the black lines which there are an infinite number of. Why does a circle have 180 degrees, and not 360 degrees?I could just say that a curved and straight line both have one side, but I'm sure that is not going to be clear enough. I think people mistake a circle as having 360 degrees because a semi circle and a triangle both have 180 degrees just like the straight angle does so they must think that if you add them both together like adding two triangles you get 360 degrees. However if you look below at the diagram I've quickly drawn, a circle has the same number of degrees as a semi circle i.e. 180 (2x 90 degrees). If you are wondering why there are two angles in a semi-circle it is because the number of interior angles = the number of sides. Adding two triangles toegther creates an additional side which means it gains an additional 180 degrees.The equation for this is 180 x (4 -2) = 360. But, when you add two semi circles toegther it does not create additional sides, therefore a circle can't have 360 degrees.
There are 360 degrees in a circle

Your logic seems very sound, but there is definately a problem with changing a "curve" into an "infinite series of lines". I can't put my finger on the exact reason though, you'll have to figure that out yourself.Anyway, I have drawn a picture for you: This is what I understand your logic to lead to. Please correct me if I'm wrong.A short description in case the photo decides that it hates me and won't upload:1: You say that any circleis an infinite series of connected lines. Let's presume this is truth.2. If all the lines are connected, there must be an equal amount of angles as lines. So, an infinite amount of angles as well.3. IF a curve is an infinite series of lines, then each angle in between has to have exactly 180 degrees. If it has any less, then there cannot be an infinte series of lines.4. However, if each angle is 180 degrees, it cannot meet up with the other end (unless you bend space or it repeats), making a line. Even if space is a sphere and the two ends of line line meet up, normal sized circles would be impossible.