azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Wow, that's surprising that a reputed scientific journal would post something about an ice age...wait, Time isn't a reputed scientific journal?The truth is, even during this brief time of cooling there were still more scientists concerned about global warming than global cooling. Climate deniers jumped on this article despite the fact that it was poorly researched, and didn't reflect the view of the scientific community.In addition, we have much better ways of measuring the effects we have on climate then we did in the 70's.So the answer is yes the earth does go through processes of hot and cold naturally...but the current warming is not natural at all.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

They did say that global cooling was the result of pollution back then. If there was so much evidence mounting for global warming were we tricked into thinking it didn't matter? If I may ask Soc, why do you think global warming is not as natural as global cooling, or the present warming anyway?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

I never said global cooling was natural, I said that very few scientists supported the idea that it was happening.Reading over my argument I can see quite a few mistakes in typing so allow me to try to explain myself again.There was a period of time, during this century (from 1940-1970) that the temperature began to show a slightly downward trend. A few scientists interpreted saw this and believed that there was global cooling occurring. During this same time however many more scientists were concerned about a global warming despite the fact that there was a general cooling trend. This means that global cooling was never really accepted as a valid theory by the scientific community.You then ask why global warming is taken more seriously. Well my answer to that is that in the 1970's, climate science was still in it's infancy. Since that time however our ability to predict the climate, and calculate our effects on the environment has increased dramatically. In addition, we have started to see a warming trend that is very much unlike the modest cooling trend in the middle of this century. Please refer to this graph to see what I'm talking about. As you can see, the average temperature has increased dramatically this century. If you want a bigger picture, see this so called hockey-stick graph which shows average temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. Clearly, the evidence shows a warming, and not a cooling.Finally, you ask why this can't be natural. Well, we know that greenhouse gasses keep our planet warm, and in fact we need a certain amount of greenhouse gasses in order to have a livable climate. However, when you compare the amount of greenhouse gasses that are created naturally (by organisms and other sources such as volcanoes) to the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted by humans, and then look at the global temperatures which I showed you, then it becomes obvious that what is happening is the direct result of human activity.I hope this cleared up any confusion you had.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Thanks Soc, good job!'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

All the points you made are based on correlation and causal reduction, which are both argumental fallacies. Global Warming is the modern day definition of Pious Fraud, and how you can convince a crowd by persistent repetition and fear mongering, despite the lack of proper evidence.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Your logic goes a bit like this:The earth is warmer due to more CO2 in the atmosphere. Humans have produced more CO2 recently. Therefore humans are responsible for the extra heat.I'm sorry but if you can't see that this is a fallacy based on correlation and causal reduction (I said causal, not "casual") then there is not point me continuing.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I just love your visual aids ;)but I still think that everything is going according to plan ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Haha Joe, denial is not just a river in egypt..................
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Im not a convenient idiot

How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world? Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

How many tons of Co2 do think we should produce to control the temperature of the Earth’s climate?Well ideally we shouldn't really be producing any because the earth was doing pretty well on its own before humans began pumping billions of tons of CO2 (not Co2, that would be cobalt) into the atmosphere. However it's obvious that this is impossible. A more reasonable cut, like 40% of emissions in the next decade would be difficult but necessary if we want to combat the effects of global warming. This is also unlikely to happen, however, so we're going to have to settle with something like a 50% cut in emissions by 2050.Are you prepared to be held accountable when we are too hot or too cold?First, there is no way that the planet is going to get too cold. As I said before the planet was fine before us, so cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses will only put us closer to what the earth naturally should be (by naturally I mean a world without humans). As far as too hot, that's only going to happen if we don't act.So to answer your question, yes, I and those who are in favor of acting are readily prepared to be held accountable. The real question is, are those who do nothing ready to be held accountable when the negative impacts of climate change become more obvious?Are you bold enough to enforce your will upon all Co2 producers of the world?Force? That's a pretty vague term. If you mean threaten to go to war with, then obviously no. If you mean impose economic sanctions and diplomatically persuade them, then yes.Are you prepared to regulate human breathing and farting?This is a good example of one of the most ignorant arguments about climate change. Human breathing (and farting) causes such a small impact on the global environment that it is negligible. No one is proposing regulating our breathing, because to do so would be foolish. The real source of greenhouse gasses is the burning of fossil fuels.Let explain this to you: A certain amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, and in fact plants convert CO2 into O2, so in nature there is already a system in place to deal with CO2. However, because of tremendous deforestation of important oxygen producing rain forests coupled with the dramatic increase in emissions caused by human industrial activity in the last hundred years, we have experienced a warming that is unnatural and we must do something about.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Here are a few interesting comments in the article that are the same exact ones made today except in reverse... "As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years..." "when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades." "The trend shows no indication of reversing." what? it can't be reversed?  "Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland..." ahh those damn telltale signs that get us to pay more taxes to save the world. "Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round." lol...maybe now that it's melting..we have saved the human race from the next ice age only to find we are going to enter the next 'desert age'. Going forward, we need to pay closer attention to those "Telltale signs" more closely. "Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought." then what's the cause of Africa's drought now? oh yea...global warming..oops..I mean 'Climate change'. "The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example." uh? Again..I thought all of the recent violent storms and tornadoes were caused by... "Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun." hmmm..i'm starting to see a partern here. "Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend." well at least back then, man was only 'partly' responsible. Now man is 'completely' responsible, so we are evolving. "...climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning.." fuel burning? but isn't that...? never mind "But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate." thank god in todays world we don't need all that confusing information. We can all agree that Al Gore has all the information he needs to tax us. "Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic." in politics, as long as you use the word 'Catastrophic', you can pretty much get anything you want. "If we let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt, it will be 'catastrophic' on our economy. Therefore, give me 50 billion please" "Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row." wow...wasn't that episode on mtv's 'scare tactics'? Scared the hell out of me. I think Time magazine forgot to delete all those archives concerning the coming 'Ice Age'.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Times is not a scientific journal. They are not peer reviewed, and in fact do not represent the view of the scientific community.At the time this article was written, more scientists were concerned about global warming despite then global cooling. Watch the video someone posted on the other side of the debate...it is very informative.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Man, you GW guys have a comeback for everything :)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

It's easy when you base your views on reality.You just have to find the truth and then state it.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

"Popularity: it's over rated. Sometimes the crowd is just plain wrong."
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I guess I can sum it up as:1. I don't think that the world will change its ways2. I refuse to live in fear3. I will deal with it as it comes4. Maybe I'll end up with beach front property ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

What if I told you we had solved global problems like this before?By banning ChloroFloroCarbons (CFCs) we actually made the hole in the ozone (that we originally caused) smaller. We helped to save the planet once, why can't we do it again?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

1. Overly cynical2. Prefers to ignore reality3. Short-sighted4. Asshole ;)Yep, typical conservative.Btw, fixing things before they break is not "living in fear", it's called not being stupid.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Well, you know, you may not agree with my views but they have gotten me this far ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

My own research has discovered that the demise of the dinosaurs was nothing to do with asteroids, but was Dino-induced global warming.The vast majority of dinosaurs were herbivores, essentially with the same digestive processes as, say an elephant or a cow. A cow produces around 100kg of methane-- a most notorious greenhouse gas, per year--an elephant 1000kg through animal flatulence.. Dinosaurs were basically enormous cows--on a pro-rata basis they would have blown off around six tons of methane per year each.Kenya supports about 30,000 Elephants today--as recently as the 1930s it supported a million. Fredrick Selous estimated that there were 10 million Elephant South of the Zambezi before 1870--without human or other competition we could guess a Brontosaurus density of 1 per ten hectares, say 13 billion world-wide,,, that's 78 billion tons of fart gas per year. Humans today produce only 30 billion tons from industrial and mechanical sources, clearly we can afford a few more beans before the end.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

There is no scientific evidence of Global Warming. It could happen, yes, but it is not happening now.New research shows that it is not because of greenhouse gases, but because of the Sun. The Sun is burning brighter than it has in 60,000 years. The least percentage of the melting of ice is human activity.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I guess the thing is that I'm old and I don't give a damn. I'm gonna die soon any way so I just have to maintain the status quo until then. ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

What about your kids?....................................
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Yeah, they pissed me off so..... ;)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I add my argument to the "Nope, never did" side but the truth is that I did believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming up until about one year ago. That was the first time that I actually researched the opposition. When I looked at all the evidence from both sides and filtered out as much noise as possible I came to the conclusion that AGW isn't all it's made out to be.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/un-climate-chief-says-theres-more-errors-in-global-warming-report-.html
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/wow-nasa-admits-zero-evidence-of-global- warming-in-us-temp-data-not-expecting-any-increase-over-next.html
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

After 322 days and countless arguments (which I haven't read) to the contrary, I still chose this side ;)
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Though Stalin's rule cost many human lives, it is unarguable that huge economic progress was made during this era. His five-year plans had drastically improved Russia's economy, especially in terms of production in substances such as oil, coal, iron and steel. The production in agriculture such as grain increased significantly due to Stalin's plans of collectivisation, despite much resistance from the peasants and Kulaks.The millions of lives cost by Stalin could not only be attributed to his plans. Russia was facing a crisis since Lenin had died, and it would also be likely that Russians would have died without Stalin's rule anyway as grain production just as Stalin came into power was extremely low.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Economy: Even though the 5-Year Plans Stalin had constructed were stressful on the people, this allowed Russia to stand up against Hitler in terms of military, which was a great feat.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Wouldn't stressful be an understatement considering the millions of people who had died?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Stalin's dictatorship was a success, as he had brought about industrial improvement of Russia, whereby Russia used to be an agricultural country during the Tsar's period of ruling, whereas during Stalin's dictatorship, he has brought about education in working and improved farming practices, allowing the increase in food and resource production, thereby improving the quality of life in Russia. An example of increased production would be the 367% increase in Coal, 392% increase in Oil and 450% increase in Steel during the 10 year period between 1927 and 1937
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

You stated that during the Tsar's rule, Russia was an agricultural country. And while during Stalin's rule, he has brought about increased production. These 2 topics have no link whatsoever. In your argument, you only stated that Stalin's policies improved farming practices, allowing the increase in food and resource production, or in short, collectivization. This means that Russia made no progress whatsoever in terms of technological advancements. Also, the quality of life did not improve as even though there was an increase in production, there were insufficient consumer products which were essential for daily life.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Stalin's leadership helped in economic growth but in order to do so many were sacrificed. The purpose of the economic growth is to give the people better lives however Stalin sacrifices the people and makes their lives harder while carring out the economic policies.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

However, the citizens had very poor sanitary conditions. Shouldn't the leader ensure that his citizens will live in clean environments?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

You can't really prove a government's success based on the people's living condition. In Stalin's case, he was more focused on increasing the production to build Russia into a much bigger power. It is natural to neglect certain points when one is constantly focused on one point.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Even though there was poor sanitary conditions, the people still had food to eat and survive. Wouldn't asking for both proper sanitation and ample food be too much for the government to handle at that point in time, where the government also had to prepare for any potential cause for war?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

They had food, but the bare minimum moreover, even with food, with conditions like those, many would fall ill easily and hence, die.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Stalin's dictatorship was a success, this is due to the fact that Stalin succeeded in what he first set out to do, to industrialize the backward Russia. and succeeded in doing so, there was also a surplus of grain for foreign income, another goal of stalin's leadership. also other than the first famine, there were no other famine.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Stalin was able to remove his opposition during his time and remain in power for a very long time. He was able to improve the economy of Russia even though lives were sacrificed, the country was able to produce more in the industries. The people were given new jobs in factories and the farmers were able to learn new methods of farming to produce more grain. Stalin have been able to industrialize Russia and bring it out to the modern world.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Agricultural production was increased in a way that would have never been achieved. Despite heavy human costs, the extra grain produced may have very well prevented millions others from dying due to starvation
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

The Agricultural success was at the cost of millions of people's that died from starvation. Furthermore, although grain production was increased, most of the grains were never ever eaten by these peasants. "two wrongs do not make a right"
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Although millions of people died in the process, it ensured that no further famines occurred in Russia, which allowed Russia to win an otherwise losing battle of attrition against famine
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

However, shouldn't Stalin, as the leader, think of methods to ensure that no other famines should occur instead of incurring more famines?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

???????? After the initial famine, there were no other famines.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Economic: Stalin increased production of agriculture (from collectivisation) and industrial materials, like coal and iron (from industralisation). This allowed more exports and allowing the country to be economically better.Social: Due to a growth in economy, people had more money to lead better and more comfortable lives.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

People had more money to lead better ...lives. Is this proven statistically that the people had a better standard of living compared to the Tsarist period?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

People in collectivised farms and industrial towns had enough food to eat (Which was produced through collectivisation). People in collectivised farms gained knowledge in agriculture, which includes using a tractor.Young Russians were also given chances for education.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

However, there wasn't enough consumer goods produced for the citizens. They had to live in poor sanitary conditions and didn't even have the time to enjoy family time with their loved ones, if they wanted food since they have to meet their unreasonable targets.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Through the economic policies, Russia was pulled out of poverty. Collectivisation had proved to be success, it had fulfilled its task of providing food for the people after the first great famine which was also the last.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Russia was not pulled out of poverty. The rich got richer while the poor got poorer. Thus, even though it can be said that some people were enjoying life under Stalin's rule, that small minority is overruled by the suffering of many millions more. Also even though further famines were prevented, people had barely had enough food to get through the day. However, the peasants were still starving just like they were during the Tsar's rule, thus, this means that Stalin's policies were not that effective and did not have a very impactful change that majorly affected the peasants.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

WHAT ABOUT THE HUMAN COST?!?! How many Russians suffered due to the five year plan?Millions due to industrialisation alone.Russia was pulled out of poverty,but at what cost?
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a failure

Russia was pulled out of poverty, but at what cost? The suffering of the citizens. That is definitely not role and responsibility of a leader.
Debate: Stalin's dictatorship was a success
Side: Stalin was a success

Althought the economic policies did result in many deaths the success was very benefitial to the future generations. Russia would have taken a much longer time to get to its currnet state without stalin