BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

I couldn't get your 2nd source to load, also many of your sources are less credible. I use a scholarly peer reviewed source [4], therefore I should win on more credible sources. As for Co2, yes its only a small amount, but its throwing off the balance. [10] Nature balances out, we are upsetting that balance. To top it off there is a positive feedback cycle which leads to amplification.Co2 increases temperatures, higher temperatures means more Co2 being released from the ocean is one example. " It\'s also important to remember that clouds are just one feedback among many, and there is a large amount of evidence that the net feedback is significantly positive, and climate sensitivity is not low." [11]Even though the amount of Co2 is small the amplification via feedback cycles is makes the effect more potent. Thanks for the debate. Sources10. http://www.skepticalscience.com...11. http://www.skepticalscience.com...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

CO2 accounts for 400 ppm of our atmosphere, or 0.04% of the total gas in the atmosphere, and only 5% of CO2 emissions are man made {2}, this means that mankind has altered the atmosphere by approximately 0.002%, with CO2, a greenhouse gas that is actually very weak. {3} My opponent also claims that money is worth more than humans, even though this is a nonsensical argument. My opponent is arguing for the senseless obstruction of infrastructure in the name of a false threat which will unemploy millions. The real reason for all of this global warming propaganda is to cripple the economies of developing nations to prevent them from getting a better quality of living. My opponent wants to destroy millions of lives, as well as prevent others from getting better ones, then he talks about how humans are more important than money. Humans are more important than false threats. {1}. https://www.theguardian.com... {2}. http://www.ncpa.org... {3}. http://notrickszone.com...
The best method to determine whether or not man made climate change is true is reduction of Co2.

OutlineI. IntroII. Man made Co2 Causes warming III. Humans > moneyIV. ConclusionV. SourcesI. IntroHarrytruman thank you for accepting the debate. It takes courage to challenge the status quo. First, lets examine why you most likely think climate change is fake. You have probably been fooled by professional deceivers. [0] People who can convince you that cigarettes are safe. Greenpeace has shown that the Koch brothers are secretly funding these deceivers. [1]The corporate funding effect is potent. [2][3] Corporations have been known to fund research which ends up producing results in favor of the corporation. II. Man made Co2 Causes warming Now, I will prove that Anthropic climate change is real. First the science is settled, anthropic climate change is real. [4] The main argument that deniers use is reverse causality between Co2 and temperature. First, let's look at the ridiculousness of this claim, that scientists some how overlooked the possibility of reverse causality. Second, I will prove that Co2 causes temperature to rise. [5] We know this due to Milankovitch cycles. The Earth tilts raising temperatures, which causes the oceans to release Co2. The Co2 then warms the Earth further. Also, we know this due to the ocean's acidity. The acidity of the ocean is increasing, showing more Co2 is going into the ocean than out. [6]III. Humans > moneyI have proven that man made climate change is real. Now to your claim that we would suffer economic loss. First, you never estimated how much we would lose nor linked to any outside sources. Second, how does economic loss compare to losing the possibility of losing the entire human race? Human race > money.Bill Nye shows that terrorists groups are using water shorages caused by climate change to recruit. The pentagon views climate change as a threat. We are in the middle of a mass extinction. [7][8][9]IV. ConclusionWe need more information, to get this information we need to conduct an experiment. The best way to conduct this experiment is to dramatically lower Co2 levels. Thanks for debating.V. Sources0. https://thinkprogress.org...1. http://www.greenpeace.org...2. http://nutritionfacts.org...3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...4. http://iopscience.iop.org...5. http://www.skepticalscience.com...6. http://www.skepticalscience.com...7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...8. http://www.nytimes.com...9. http://www.usatoday.com...
problem with the cosmological argument

I'm shocked by my opponents lack of response. He basically F.F."i [sic] have nothing more to add..." What is that supposed to mean?In the previous round, I brought up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem which shows that the universe must have an absolute beginning.No rebuttal. Not even an attempt.I addressed all of con's arguments (those that were comprehensible) against the philosophical imperative for the universe having begun.I asked con to clarify some of his incomprehensible points he made.& he has "nothing more to add"?Did he even read my response, & requests for clarification.This is a forfeit. I addressed his "mother earth/bubble theory", which turns out to be the multiverse theory.I gave 3 responses to it.& he has "Nothing more to add".(I would have liked to get deeper into the multiverse theory, but that was far from necessary.Con didn't even explain how the multi universe theory would help, i.e. Impact the matter at hand, i.e. He didn't explain that different bubbles could have different laws of nature etc.)I rest my case, con has forfeited.
problem with the cosmological argument

"the big bang theory but it doesn't say that the universe began to exist..."I'll quote from the very 1st paragraph of cons link:According to the theory, the Big Bang occurred approximately 13.77 billion years ago,[2] which is thus considered the age of the universe.[3][4][5][6]"here you are saying that anything without a beginning is impossible to exist..."Strawman. I did not say that. What I said was that by saying that the universe always existed, leads to the infinity paradox."there may be other other explanation that also by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning" Like what?There are only two kinds of things that are both timeless and immaterial: minds and abstract objects (like the number 2). Since abstract numbers cannot stand in causal relations to the universe, by process of elimination, we can rightly conclude that the first cause is a mind. Moreover, the first cause is a free agent. An impersonal mechanically operating cause is not a possibility since such a cause cannot exist without its effect. If such a machine contains within it the sufficient condition for a temporal effect then it must also have temporal effects built into it as well, which defeats the aforementioned timelessness.Only an immaterial mind that freely chooses to create time can do so without defeating the necessary precondition of timelessness and changelessness, since such a thing does not require any antecedent determining conditions in order to produce a temporal effect. (1)"i beg the differ not all the uncased causes is god because there other possible scenarios like a mother universe (bubble theory ) or causes you cant imagine that are not a god or simply nothing" [sic]I'm not sure what the "mother universe (bubble theory)" is.As far as I know, the bubble theory is a theory in economics.(2)& Mother universe is something I've never heard of. (I googled it & I found this, http://en.wikipedia.org..., but I don't think that's what con is referring to.).Whatever it is, I think what I wrote before, suffices to show that the creator (i.e. cause of creation), must be a personal being.(1) http://www.debate.org...(2) http://www.investopedia.com...
problem with the cosmological argument

first i would like to welcome my debater 1) science: i assume you refer to the big bang theory but it doesn't say that the universe began to exist it only say the universe began to form or expand from a hot and dense state to what we see today since what happen before the event we call the big bang is unknown you cant know if there was something or nothing http://en.wikipedia.org... http://ssscott.tripod.com... http://www.skwirk.com.au... 2) philosophy: here you are saying that anything without a beginning is impossible to exist because that requires infinite past event so the time is required to go from one event to the other would be infinite and therefore never happen but remember ((ANYTHING)) that have no beginning is impossible to exist i think you misunderstood the question why does the cosmological argument end with a god while there may be other other explanation that also by definition is outside of space time and have no beginning i beg the differ not all the uncased causes is god because there other possible scenarios like a mother universe (bubble theory ) or causes you cant imagine that are not a god or simply nothing my question is what evidence is there to say that it's god not something else from the other possible scenarios
problem with the cosmological argument

I'm not sure where con got his format, but I'm pretty sure that's not TAC.As far as the cosmological argument goes, god is defined as some being that is outside of time, can exist without being created, & has the power to create.The cosmological argument seeks to show that such a being must exist.The universe began to exist at some point:1) Science:According to modern science the universe is somewhere between 12 & 15 Billion years old.2) Philosophy:While infinity is used in mathematics all the time, it has it's limits (pardon the pun), when it comes to certain things like time. The most famous infinity paradox is known as Hilbert's hotel. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_paradox_of_the_Grand_Hotel If the universe is infinitely old, there are the same number of "days" as there are "years" in the existence of the universe. "god have no beginning"God by definition is an abstract being, that is outside of time, thus he has no beginning.The cosmological argument seeks to prove that such a being exists. " there's no uncased cause other than god"This is a little backward, whatever the uncased cause is, is what we are calling god.The cosmological argument does not seek to prove some previously conceived god, with specific attributes. The argument creates god so to speak. it shows that there must be some creative being, that need not be created, & is outside of time. This being is what we call god for purposes of the cosmological argument.It proves a general god, not a specific god. The only aspects of god that the argument proves are those 3.Some also use the cosmological argument to show that god must be personal, but I don't think I need to get into that.
problem with the cosmological argument

i am going to lay out the cosmological argument with some of Thomas Aquinas premise: 1)everything that began to exist have a cause 2)the universe began to exist 3)the universe have a cause 4)there could never be an infinite chain of causes 5) there must be a first cause itself uncased 6)god is without a beginning therefore uncased 7)god is the uncased cause 8) therefore god exist here premise number 2,6,7 are assumed i ask pro to prove 1)the universe began to exist at some point 2)god have no beginning 3) there's no uncased cause other than god
obama

Regardless, I'll present an argument in order to hold up my end of the deal. All of the presidents combined before Barack Obama added $7 trillion to the national debt. In one term, Obama added $8 Trillion. On top of this, Pesident Obama has put little to no focus on many issues, concentrating nearly all of his energy on the economy. This is shown when asking your average joe out there, "Besides Obamacare, what has Barack Obama done? "I agree that Barack Obama is a powerful orator, and he is wonderful at boosting the morale of the American people, but from an objective historical standpoint, the "bad presidents" are the ones who either get caught up in scandals, or don't do anything. Barack Obama fits in the center of that Venn Diagram. Is Barack Obama the worst president we've ever had? No, but he's still inattentive, uninterested, and has made enough significant imporvements to this country to be called a "good president.
Epic Rap Battles of Debate.Org

He called this the most epic rap ever known But when i asked for him to step up, he neva shown You ain't Abraham Lincoln, stop lyin, you gettin' to fryi A threat from all sides will leave you dyin', tryin' to soul-tyin', soul bindin' Alright listen, i don't need a presidential candidate to mutilate this prey like cake You meet your fate like someone gettin' raped in prison, i state what's at stake Cuz i'm the gatekeeper, Truth_seeker, the seether of your dreams of being Bieber You only posted this to seek attention, but i'll put an end to the tension fever Don't humiliate yourself in front of DDO, your not a rap battler Your a chatter, i'm the man with the mad hatter, it's you i shatter You say censor half the word, insults are also allowed Isn't that the point of a rap battle? To turn you into chow I stopped debating on DDO, now i'm rap-battlin' leavin' you fragile You make Abraham look bad cuz u claim to be white, but try to wear a durag You disgrace your own race by tryna set blacks who would do raps free Tryna bring back what's in the past, but now we're livin in the 21st century You just forfeited a round with no words, we know you ain't got a bachelor's degree But that's perfectly ok, cuz after this round's down, i'm rewritin your history You barely can spit 1 verse let alone 1 bar Hip hopin, stoppin from text-droppin you Jar-Jar I'll leave you prayin' to God in that southern field with a corn on the cob I'lll make you a wanderer like Cain in the land of Nod, cuz my head i nod You can't know what to do with your lines, so i just rob n' call you a fraud Knowin' that you won't do anything to defend yourself Thought u were republican, clearly you need self-help This was just a sample of a ramble that i posed together to prove i can ruin you to shambles Like Rambo, i beat you from NC to Bamble, no sandals, you look like an ape, so i leave you to dwell with mammals
Epic Rap Battles of Debate.Org

This dude is already tappin out, i got his fate mapped out I take anotha route to make you pout, kill you like a trout In my mind, i open up a dimension, release all the tension no pretension Give you detention so that you could reflect on all the apprehension You too stressed to battle the best n' finish the rest I'ma clean your slate clean like crest n' put you to rest Cuz it's way past your bed time, you need a snooze You already lost faith dawg, what more is there to lose?
Epic Rap Battles of Debate.Org

What was that? ok... I don't need to make a prophetic prediction to predict that you'll be put into submission to the higher powers causing you to regret your own words and focus on remission Terrorize you that you buy nuclear fission n' i'm on a mission to make thousands of incisions Your raps are too short, like David i put a hole in you like a sniper I'ma middle eastern viper, you still a baby in diapers, i'ma fast typer You couldn't rap even if you had keys to typewriter, i'm an indicator A mutilator like the gator that ate a laker, you get smoked like water vapor Like a shape-shifter, don't call me mister, i'm like Pandora's evil sister A sinister minister, an alien visitor, a resistor that blows up your blister My flow is so sick like a dyin' lamb, like a divinely caused disease Get the doctors in here now, you prayin to God "please, leave, i'm weak in the knees" Your style needs more substance like sheesh, can you not pay any more fees? You writin' baby lines like an infant tryna walk Wonderin' when you'd say your 1st lines n' talk
China's economy is bound to collapse.

He has some fantastic information and definitely knows what he is talking about. You say that China has had many successes, which is true through its vast culture and scientific discoveries in ancient times. This has carried China well throughout history, they have had few, but they were disastrous failures that luckily for them did not result in their autonomy ending. The quote my opponent mentions from Dr. Durant should be noted to have been stated in the late 1930's. This was a time that the nationalist party had control of China, not the communist party. . http://www.chinaknowledge.de... This shows Dr. Durant most likely believed this if China were under the Nationalist party. 1. While it is true that the Chinese real estate market and almost all markets in China are far from that of western markets, overproduction is still a huge problem in any market. The reason people do not move to ghost cities is because they do not need to as the real estate market had simply overproduced, wasting money. My opponent also mentions about a change in law that could fill these cities in a fortnight. The question, however, is whether the farmers from rural areas would want to move and whether it could cause protest in a form similar to past protests in China. . http://mashable.com... I do recognize the real estate slow down in China, but I must stress that damages to the market have already occurred.2. The one child policy is an interesting debate in itself as it is argued whether it did as much to the population at all or whether it was a natural decrease seen in many similar countries like it. Some believe it had a MASSIVE effect . http://apps.washingtonpost.com... while others believe do believe in its minor effect . http://io9.com... This shows that the relaxing of the one-child policy might mean nothing. My opponent has not attempted to refute what I said about China's massively growing elderly population, so I must assume he concedes to my point there. The shrinking population combined with the aging factor of the population would provide for a much smaller workforce greatly hindering the Chinese economy. The west does not always do economics the right way nor does anybody because there is simply no right way. There are wrong ways but no so to speak "right way". My opponent brings up the rest of the failing world, and these failing economies in the world greatly affect China as well, being extremely entangled in this "world economy". I do not believe the rest of the world will succeed, but do believe that China is destined to fail with their major issues.
China's economy is bound to collapse.

Reasons for my belief in a Chinese economic collapse1. I believe that China's economy is going to eventually collapse for multiple reasons, one of those being their overproduction. China's economy has grown tremendously in the past few years and this appears to make it seem it will continue its prosperous progress, but they are growing too fast to regulate. This issue is most apparent with China's real-estate market, which makes up 15% of China's gross domestic product. There are many ghost towns in China as shown here http://www.zerohedge.com... and yet the real-estate market continues to build houses that use up money and have almost no buyers, causing this money to go to waste.2. Another reason I have for the eventual collapse of the Chinese economy is their demographics. Statistics and estimates show that China's population will decrease as their growth is projected to decrease as well. http://www.economist.com... . This problem is only magnified by the rapid aging of China's population as well. As of 2012 being about 194 million elderly people in the country; this is projected to grow to over 300 million by just 2025. This would cause for much higher need of spending towards social security and would make it very difficult for the Chinese government to maintain the population. http://www.stratfor.com...
logic is cause and effect

I'm quite intrigued by my opponent's lack of structure and inability to write words of substantial meaning. Due to my opponent's garbled language I shall continue in explaining in MY way why logic is not cause and effect. Common sense vs. logic as from (http://logicsite.net...) Logical Thinking means = a way to analyse a problem to come up with an answer sometimes using a formal system similar to mathematics (a process / disciplined method of thinking). Logical thinking, or incorporating logic into your thinking will ultimately help you to reach a conclusion which is as accurate as possible. Common Sense means = Is a way of taking social understandings and rules, and applying them to a situation, by using common sense, doesn"t necessarily lead us to the truth. Is my opponent actually trying to argue that a newborn baby has logic? It cries and gets milk as a response. Does this baby think, "Oh man, I'm so bored...hmmm what to do... I know! cause and effect!" the baby then proceeds to cry. If what your saying is true, is my opponent trying to say that creative writing is not creating. When one writes they do not think of CAUSE and EFFECT but rather follow the common saying, 'Don't think just write" I can see my opponents rebuttals that he or she is firmly following this mantra.
logic is cause and effect

People often misinterpret the words cause and effect. Now, that's illogical As stated in the Nikor Project, Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form: 1.A and B regularly occur together. 2.Therefore A is the cause of B. This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B. Now onto your actual question, I strongly believe that not all logic is related to cause and effect. There is a strong difference between logic and common sense, people often think that every day actions require logic. However, when I'm crossing the road I am not think of why I'm crossing the road (cause) or what is going to happen to me when I cross the road... (effect). All, I think is that I need to get to the other side. This shows common sense is not logic. You have not properly defined your terms...
logic is cause and effect

I'm quite intrigued by my opponent's lack of structure and inability to write words of substantial meaning. Due to my opponent's garbled language I shall continue in explaining in MY way why logic is not cause and effect. Common sense vs. logic as from (http://logicsite.net......) Logical Thinking means = a way to analyse a problem to come up with an answer sometimes using a formal system similar to mathematics (a process / disciplined method of thinking). Logical thinking, or incorporating logic into your thinking will ultimately help you to reach a conclusion which is as accurate as possible. Common Sense means = Is a way of taking social understandings and rules, and applying them to a situation, by using common sense, doesn"t necessarily lead us to the truth. Is my opponent actually trying to argue that a chick and egg cycle is cause and effect as well as a person being punched? Yes, the person who is puching the other individual is thinking, "Yahoo, I'm going to punch this due (cause) and make him fly to Venus (effect)" no, he/she simply punching out of strong emotion. When one writes they do not think of CAUSE and EFFECT but rather follow the common saying, 'Don't think just write" I can see my opponents rebuttals that he or she is firmly following this mantra.
logic is cause and effect

im saying, there is no chicken without an egg, so the chicken is the egg egg=chicken+lay chicken=egg+hatch reason is the opposite of logic.. a blind man cant reason about whats on a picture im holding up to his face understanding is logical.. reason is logical or illogical.. reason is the concept of mental simulation of logic logic is true, truth can only be in the past a baby can grab your finger.. commen sense is non sense.. there is hardly need to raise my shield when i get attacked with a plastic spoon