azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

This means that we are measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period?That's a somewhat troubling summary. The little ice age, first and foremost, was not a globally "abnormally cold period". The most cooling was essentially isolated to the northern hemisphere and the "little ice age" had patterns of temperature change caused by Atlantic oscillation and el nino phenomena. What is being measured in current climate science is both mean global surface temperatures and forcing agents, and impact on the planet's environment, flora and fauna.Towards the middle 20th century, it is well studied that natural forcing agents - i.e. volcanic and solar activity - contributed most of the warming measured towards the mid-1900s (see, for example: "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate" (Meehl et al. 2003)). However, after 1940, anthropogenic forcing has increasingly imbalanced the earth's natural energy sensitivity (to radiative forces): which is what essentially "naturally" accounts for variability in climate. And because of this imbalance, there has been a precipitously increasing temperature trend that is being caused largely by human industrial activity.I refute the notion of Global Warming because of the paucity and inconsistency of evidence and because of the suspect motives for governments to push it forward.There is, unfortunately for you, plenty of consistent evidence. I would suggest that you visit academic journals and institution websites to view this evidence: PNAS, EBSCOhost or JSTOR all present great metasearches for relevant articles on the issue.However, you use the word scientist as though it were some kind of argumentative atom bomb.I use "scientist" in the same way I use "lawyer": someone who has been educated in a specific field and is still practicing in that field. What I would like to see from disbelievers or denialists (or whatever term you or anyone else wishes to be called) is for you guys to take an article (for example: Nicola Scaffeta's "Empirical analysis of the solar contribution to global mean air surface temperature change"), show where it's wrong and move the fuck on. I'm tired of hearing about the errors or motives of a Politician's presentation made into a movie, or conspiratorial jargon about government involvement. What I want is for the debate to be about what is present in the scientific literature and the debates occurring in scientific circles. Until you can do that or present someone's work who has done that, you have nothing to offer insofar as constructive debate is concerned... except Gore bashing and conspiracy theory. And I don't want to hear that anymore. It's tired. Old. Doesn't in any way, shape or form show that the science itself is wrong.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

That is irrelevantYou made it relevant when you inserted that we are "...measuring the mean global temperature in the 21st century against those of an abnormally cold period?" We're not. One is not a global temperature measurement and the other is. For example, we had abnormally cold weather in New York earlier this year, and many people used that fact to somehow suggest that global warming wasn't/isn't happening. What is happening in local areas, does effect the overall measurement, but it only indicates variability in a trend, especially among statistical outliers.I searched your sites and found only papers detailing the ramifications of G.W, not proving it.I was not originally under the impression that you were skeptical of global warming altogether. Go to the NASA:GISS website for relevant collated data sets. There are 1880-Present global mean temperature data, hemispheric temperature data (1)(2)(3) and (4), among other data. The globe is warming. That much has been observed and measured.It boils down to whether or not you believe those who advocate the theory.Debating the theory and debating the fact are two different things. You've claimed (perhaps inappropriately) that you question whether it (climate change/global warming) is happening to begin with. It is. That has been observed: global mean surface temperatures are increasing precipitously. The theory only aims to accurately explain what forces are at work to cause (1) the climate to change and (2) the current trend being observed. So, are you skeptical about the theory or the fact?The melting of the the Ice caps is the root of the major catastrophes that people see coming.Not really....sea levels would decrease.You're thinking about it in the wrong way. It's thermal expansion that's causing sea surface levels to rise. Because water is more dense than ice, it has more thermal expansivity; that is, it's volume is increasing as temperatures increase.The only evidence I can offer will be in fifty years time when nothing has happened.The problems of global warming are already occurring across the planet. You don't have to wait 50 years. Off the coast of India, small islands are visibly disappearing (and have disappeared)because of sea levels rising, causing depopulation and unexpected emigration. There was a recent heatwave in Pakistan (over 51 degrees celsius or 124 degrees Fahrenheit) that emerged within the Asian warming trend. It killed hundreds of. Just two very recent and immediate consequences of the increase in mean surface temperatures in one general region.Also, below is a link to a graph representing temperature and co2 levels over the last 400'000 years or so...To me, this says that humans make a negligible contribution to atmospheric co2 levels, but I leave you to make a conclusion.Don't leave it to me. Instead, read the accompanying article, and then the following articles: (1)(2)(3) from the very same website. The website you cited through the graph is almsot singularly geared towards debunking the claims skeptics "like you" make.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

You do not have much of a point.Hence my most recent point.Define normal for a planet which periodically experiences temperature fluctuations.Energy BudgetLink below.The information suggests that analysis and measurement of ice caps is important, and their disappearing has consequences. But, the article does not suggest that the ice caps are the root of coming catastrophe. Glacial loss is the symptom of the cancer, not the cancer itself. Larger volumes require a greater amount of heat energy, not a higher temperature.The point is that sea levels are rising because of thermal expansion, not glacial loss.Neither does abnormally hot weather in Pakistan of Asia support it.While both are outliers, one was at the apex of an already present Asian warming trend and the others (NY and Europe) punctuated a global trend, which continued. I don't view them as analogous. That the trend continued suggests that the latter cannot be inferred as evidence against that trend and the former directly corresponded with a trend and can be used to affirm that trend. As what evidence suggests is always disputed, it is easier to understand the concepts and then view the evidence personally, rather than just accept somebody's word for it.Which is why I'm pointing you to the articles, with the explicit caveat that the data is linked in them. Go to the articles, click on the respected citations and then you can compare the articles with the sources of their interpretations and see if they coincide. Then here we will have to disagree.same as above
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

I agree with you apart from there being no wholes in the ozone layer, there are. The government, and these new "environmentalist" industries that teach how to lower carbon emmissions etc are definately making money from this scheme. I love your simplistic solution to reducing carbon emmissions, Are rainforests are being cut down massively and this needs to stop.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

The issue should be ignored.Global warming is either caused by the sun (or some other natural cause) or by humans. If it is cause by the sun (or some other natural cause) there is nothing we can do about it except wait it out.If it is caused by humans, we either reduce the human population significantly (since humans are the cause) or we establish crippling economic solutions. No one wants to do either one of those things. If we do nothing, eventually the natural cycle will reverse itself, or enough humans will die out to reverse human meddling, or both.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

If you bothered to read any legitimate source about the causes of global warming, you would know that both humans and natural forces are contributing, but humans are responsible for the greater portion.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html We can stop global warming by investing in clean energy. And economic solutions will be less painful if we act sooner rather than later.Lastly, death is bad you silly goose.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Please no swearing in this Debate, this is for a school project :D
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

oops, sorry, I'll edit :).................................
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Well, if death is bad, then why not make abortion illegal?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

With early abortions, it's just a clump of cells, so it doesn't matter.With late abortions, the evil of murder has to be weighed against the evil of bringing unwanted children into the world. That judgment is... above my pay grade. I think the laws we currently have are reasonable.I can't believe you're seriously arguing that death is not bad. Next you'll be arguing that forward is backward.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

A clump of cells to you. There are plenty of other people that would disagree.If death is so bad, then why is it that we can't live without it? Could you imagine what the world would be like if no one and nothing died? And on top of that, do you really want to keep death row inmates on death row for decades instead of expediting the process?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

"There are plenty of other people that would disagree."But their disagreement would be based on illogical religious faith and therefore irrelevant."If death is so bad..."Yes death is necessary. That doesn't change the fact that it's bad. If something is bad it should be avoided unless it will prevent something worse. It's best for people to die of old age (in most cases).Do you want to die Joe? I assume the answer is no. Why not apply that answer from another's point of view?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Oh I see. So your "a fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells" view is the only logical one. I see. Pretty arrogant point of view if you ask me.If something is necessary, then I don't see the value of labeling it bad. I would just label it as "it is what it is and that's the way it is."I wouldn't mind dying but I have certain responsibilities i need to take care of first.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

It's not a fetus until 11 weeks. I'm talking about a fertilized egg, two cells, four, eight. Once you get beyond a clump of cells things get trickier. What reason could there be for objecting to the destruction of a clump of cells other than religion?And I'm not "labeling" death as bad. First, death itself is not the problem, it's the suffering that tends to accompany it. Second, nobody gets to choose what's bad and what's good, those things are fundamental to the human condition."it is what it is and that's the way it is."We can change things. We can stop global warming if we cooperate. We can stop people from dying before their time.You didn't answer my second question: Why not apply that point of view from another's perspective?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

The problem is that no matter what course of action you take, there will always be a group of people who will be affected by it negatively. There isn't a "one solution fits all" type of solution. Right now people are not so concerned about global warming, especially because of the hacked e-mails and the new data coming out that seems to contradict global warming. You have to let things get bad enough to mobilize people, otherwise you're just beating your head against the wall.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

"there will always be a group of people who will be affected by it negatively"Yes, but there are some actions that will result in much less harm overall. Ignoring the problem isn't one of them."Right now people are not so concerned about global warming"I don't know about that. 53% say it's least a somewhat serious problem. (link)The hacked e-mails revealed no conspiracy. There's no data that contradicts global warming. The fact that people believe these things just shows how effective the right-wing spin machine is at deceiving people."You have to let things get bad enough to mobilize people"That may be true, but this debate is about what should be done, not what will be done.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Yes, but there are some actions that will result in much less harm overall. Ignoring the problem isn't one of them.The problem is who decides which of the 2 options constitutes less harm. I say, ignoring the GW proponents constitutes less harm ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

I say we should listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

I agree with you. We should listen to the people who actually know what they're talking about and stop listening to Al Gore. ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

For your information, the majority of people are pro-abortion. I do not want to talk about this here.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

If not here..., then where? ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

To joecalvary:So basically you'd rather that many people die than have a slow economy. Who says capitalism isn't a virus?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

If people are out of work and can't afford food or housing, they are either going to die anyway or have a crappier quality of life than if we just let things be.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

""If people are out of work and can't afford food or housing, they are either going to die anyway or have a crappier quality of life than if we just let things be.""I hate explaining the obvious, but here is how it looks.We do nothing:Major ecosystems collapse from keystone species vanishing. Flooding occurs because ocean levels rise. We survive but there is anarchy at best, crippling food shortages and lack of power at worst from backlash.We let the market drive how we respond:Response is slow, but mitigates the effects somewhat. Major pollution is allowed but it is simply costly due to carbon credits. Most policies taken are those that feel good, not the entirety of what we can do to fix things. The damage we cause is irreversible to our environment but not as bad as if we do nothing, or at least, the damage comes more slowly.We enact policy changes:We save many important species and ecosystems, but the cost of living increases greatly and drives many into a struggle to live, or just poverty. This causes increases in violence, crime, and so on, but the damage it mostly mitigated until we have ways to decrease cost of living and live cleanly too.We enact policy changes and use the market to drive development of cleaner living:The way we live changes into a more efficient model, costs may start higher, and many companies go bankrupt or adapt to this type of model. Damage is already done to our environment but is being reversed or made less severe.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

So let things deteriorate! The faster the better. The faster it deteriorates the more people that die at a quicker rate and the whole system stabilizes a lot quicker. The faster it deteriorates the sooner we can get back on track. If you try to do something, you'll just prolong the inevitable. If the Polar Bears die, no big deal, that just means that there wont be any more excuses for not drilling in Alaska ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Capitalism is not a virus, it is a Godsend.--------------------
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

"Capitalism is not a virus, it is a Godsend.--------------------"You say that, yet some of the greatest capitalists in the world are campaigning against policies that would hurt their income and business, threatening our continued survival in spite of a consensus warning by our best experts in the subject.Hence my statement.Capitalism and lobbying may wind up killing us, or plunging us into a major collapse.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

So you are a socialist or communist.---------------------------
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

"So you are a socialist or communist.---------------------------"You're invoking a false dilemma. I merely stated what appears to be happening presently.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

Well Global Warming has been going on for thousands of years. Humans are the reason why its sped up so quickly. Killing people wont do anything, That would be just an easy way for genocide of a race or country ect. Like on a previous comment I have posted, why not spend the money to create Green Jobs. Its a win-win situation, more jobs for the American people (or whoever is capable of the technology needed) and a cleaner, healthier Earth. If the Earth reverses itself, and we go into another Ice Age, that can reverse the Human development to at least a few hundred years, our farms would die, and the world would loose allot of money. What you said is only a prediction, but based on my experiences, Reality is far more worse. The best thing we humans can do, is to create Green Jobs, and cut down on the things that damage the earth, once we get that done, only Mother Nature can decide our fate.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Spend money to create jobs? This means that there's no money in green technologies. If there was money to be made from green technologies, then we wouldn't have to spend money to create those jobs. Do you think we spent money to create jobs based on fossil fuels? No. There was a need and fossil fuels met those needs and market forces created those jobs.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

So if we can't create/do - green jobs that will help our economy and the Earth then what can we do to help the Global Warming issue?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

If you honestly believe (deep down in your heart) that people are the cause of global warming, then the solution is simple. Get rid of some of the people.If you think the problem is the number of cars, good luck in trying to get rid of them.And if you think factories are the problem, I wouldn't want to be you when people start losing their jobs and they realize it's all because of you. ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

I never said humans were THE problem. Global Warming is a natural state. Human lifestyle such as factories ect are speeding up the process much faster than how it is supposed to be be. The Global Warming issue to me is a loose-loose situation now. We do nothing and continue our daily lives doing the things we do normally, we make it worse for the Earth. We do something we put our self's at risk, mainly job wise. Getting rid of cars isn't a solution, there's too many of them :0 - The first step we humans need to get done is to address the issue, once we get that then we may think of solutions - but until then we mind as well watch paint dry..
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

And that's exaclty what I'm saying, let just watch the paint dry ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Well watching paint dry is bad idea, its best to take precautions before its too late. Our life/ planet is not a drawing, we can't edit it if you didn't like your day ect.. because soon enough its going to bite us in the ass and we will all be doomed, if we cant come to a solution then at least we have a chance to try..
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

I 100% believe what you say, sucks too because its the best we can do, to please all people. I'm just afraid that by the time everyone is on the same page it will be too late. Until then, if it happens - which I doubt - We are all screwed.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Not all of us will be screwed. The strong will survive. They will learn from it and move on.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

I think it would be kinda hard to survive if most of humanity is gone and more than half the world is underwater..
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

No, not at all. You'd be surprised what humans can survive ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

Your right, I would be surprised. People now a' days are too stupid to rely on themselves to survive. People freak out when their phone dies or internet service is gone. Yup..I would be surprised.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: There should be action taken.

I once saw this guy survive a fall from a plane after his chute failed to open.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Well can he breathe underwater? If he can then he'll survive an effect to Global Warming.
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

Ah that's just hyperbole. The entire world isn't going under water. BTW, my doctor said that he's going to have to replace my eye balls because I'm wearing them out every time I come to this site and roll my eyes ;)
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

so what you are saying is that the big oil companies started with gas products or gas and other fossil fuels just come from the earth "ready to use" wow.there was research done to make and how to extract the fossils we use everyday. this came at a price=green energy will start to have the same effect, does this train of thought make sense to you?
Debate: Global Warming, Voice Your Honest Opinion
Side: The issue should be ignored.

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that the private sector developed that technology (fossile fuels). I'm saying that the government should not spend money to develop green technology (it should be done by the private sector).