man made causes of warming are probably significant, refering to global warming

Alright, so my opponent had said that he never said CO2 is negligible, but it can be at times. Although it is contradictory, I will leave that statement alone. What my he had said in his second speech, was that if my evidence is the case at hand, then CO2 is negligible, and thus mankind has little effect on global warming. What you must see here is that he hasn't proven any of my arguments wrong, thus my evidence is correct and mankind has little effect. As far as my opponent's argument on the "magical switch" that regenerates itself, I hope that anyone voting sees that my opponent is just getting confused with my argument or somehow doesn't understand it. Let me paint a picture for you. You take an ice pack out of the freezer and set it in a room temperature place. It melts, right? Therefore, you must put it back in the freezer to once again freeze it. The Earth works in a very similar way. When natural causes, as this phenomena has happened before, bring the Earth to a high enough temperature, Mother Nature puts us back into the freezer. It's fairly unknown the reason why this happens, but it's just something that we have to accept. It's happened before and it will happen again. How can this even be argued? Furthermore, the two questions that I posed to my opponent have still gone unanswered because he cannot answer them. Many scientists say that we are well overdue for an Ice Age, but if mankind is so harmful/speeds up global warming, than how come it hasn't happened yet? These questions are impossible to answer if one is to advocate global warming cause by mankind. Only natural causes can explain this. That is why my opponent failed to answer these and called abuse. On to the abuse, my opponent says that it would be a cheap blow if I were to provide more evidence in the round and is trying to make me out to be the bad guy so that no one will vote for me. I haven't given anymore information, just elaborated on prior arguments, which is allowed. He has also said that I have only given speculation and thus I've lost the debate. What the viewers of this debate must see is that I've given by far more evidence than my opponent, which obviously isn't speculation. On the contrary, my opponent hasn't really even given evidence to prove his side. I would gladly admit losing the battle if anyone, besides my opponent of course, can prove that he has proven mankind is "significant" in causing global warming. All he's given you is that the temperature is rising and that solar flares account for one third of it. Nothing dealing with mankind's effect. As the first speaker in this debate, my opponent has the burden of proof since he has set the grounds for debate. I have a few things to say on this. 1. No where can you find any information on mankind's effect on global warming. 2. Even though I have little ground to debate on from my opponent, I have given a playing field for any and all arguments. 3. My opponent has only really given the "I'm right, you're wrong" technique, as I mentioned in my last speech. Since my opponent has given no information to prove his case, he has essentially lost the debate. Especially since, with the "probably" argument, he is doubting his own opinion, not even based on facts, it's because even he truly doesn't believe in his own arguments. Also, the only information that my opponent has given you in regards to mankind's effect on warming is wrong. I try to steer away from this, but since my opponent is calling my information out and saying that it's false, I have to do this. In my opponent's first speech, he mentions that 1.5 degrees are mankind's fault; however, in his last two speeches, he has mentioned that it is acceptable to say that only .5 degrees have occurred in the last 100 years or so, or mankind's effect. You must see that his contradiction is only because he making up arguments to better suit his side of the debate. Once again, I hope that anyone voting on this debate votes on who they believe to be the superior debater, and not because of biased opinions.