azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Not so much issues as topics for study. The better we understand climate systems, the better we understand how to interact with the world. We could probably come up with solutions for increased CO2 levels through these other areas of study.Radiative forcing is a small aspect.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

We could probably come up with solutionsWe don't need solutions if it is not a problem/issue, right?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

You have confirmation bias.I am saying the other aspects of climate change are not issues at the moment. No sensationalism or bandwagons for those topics yet.The problem is the fear mongering puts all the focus on radiative forcing. People pick a side and hunker down.Look at you. Your question makes it seem like you assume anyone not on your side must be on the other side as if a complicated issue has just two sides.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

You said it was not an issue but that we might be able to find a solution ("Not so much issues" and "We could probably come up with solutions"). I'm just trying to resolve your opinion.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"Not so much issues as topics for study."Same word, same plurality. If I was talking about the first "issue" then I would have responded with "Not so much an issue as a topic for study."Confirmation bias.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Not exactly confirmation bias - one is the topic of the debate the other is not. If you say that there aren't climate-related issues, then you are inherently saying that GW (the topic of the debate) is not an issue (in your opinion).The wording remains unresolved - why would we come up with solutions if they aren't "issues"?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Not exactly confirmation bias - one is the topic of the debate the other is not.I have already noted my focus of the debate was the entire climate change field, not just GHG forcing. Are you saying you misinterpreted three consecutive comments without some confirmation bias?why would we come up with solutions if they aren't "issues"?You can come up with solutions for GW through studies in other aspects of climate change. Again. Climate is a system. No point limiting the focus to one aspect and simplifying it to a black body.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

my focus of the debate was the entire climate change fieldMaybe you should create your own debate for that; this debate is specifically about whether global warming is an issue.You can come up with solutions for GW through studiesWhy would you devote any time to that if GW wasn't an issue?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Why would you devote any time to that if GW wasn't an issue?"I am saying the recent "Global Warming" debate is not as important"Never claimed it was not an issue. I just claimed all the focus is on a small portion which is not as important as the whole picture.You have been stuck on this point for a while now. Not everyone who disagrees with you is on the other side.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Never claimed it was not an issue.In a debate titled "Is global warming an issue?" - you posted under "No"I even tried to clarify by asking "So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"and you said "Not so much issues", etc.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

In a debate titled "Is global warming an issue?" - you posted under "No"There are two choices. I posted under the one that fit my answer better.I even tried to clarify by asking "So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"and you said "Not so much issues", etc.We already went over this."So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"I answered your question with: "Not so much issues as topics for study."Where did I claim that GW is not an issue?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I posted under the one that fit my answer better.If you believe it is an issue, how does "No" fit your position better?Where did I claim that GW is not an issue?Um: "Not so much issues as topics for study." (and posting under no.)
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

If you believe it is an issue, how does "No" fit your position better?I did not believe it to be as important as the people in the yes column were claiming. I was obviously in disagreement with the consensus. This is why "no" fit better.Um: "Not so much issues as topics for study." (and posting under no.)As I already pointed out, you asked a two part question. "So, basically that warming is an issue, but that there are other climate-related issues as well, right?"I responded with "Not so much issues as topics for study." I used the plural "issues" to respond to the second part of your question which also used the plural form. If I had responded to the first part, I would have used the singular form as you did.I have already explained this in an earlier comment. Why are you still confused?
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

I was obviously in disagreement with the consensus. This is why "no" fit better.People can agree that it is an issue and disagree on its importance. You could have posted under yes and explained your concerns, or posted a clarify under someone else - both would have been more congruent with the position you now seem to be taking.Why are you still confused?A) "issues" can refer to the combination of global warming issue and climate-related issues ("issue" + "issues" = "issues")B) "issues" can refer to climate-related issues which include global-warmingC) "issues" can be used to segregate other climate-related topics for further study, and leave unaddressed whether GW is an issue. (An insufficient response to the question.)Also note: you seem to be saying that GW is less important than the other climate related topics - so, can the lesser be an issue while the greater is not?"Global Warming" debate is not as important "Big picture vs little picture.Radiative forcing is a small aspect.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

People can agree that it is an issue and disagree on its importance. You could have posted under yes and explained your concerns, or posted a clarify under someone else - both would have been more congruent with the position you now seem to be taking.So basically, you are telling me how I should interpret a debate and its choices because that is how you would interpret it?A) B) C)Considering I explained what I meant by issues, I don't see how you are still confused at this point. Even with the first comment, you chose to quote the first sentence "Not so much issues as topics for study." without considering the rest of the paragraph."The better we understand climate systems, the better we understand how to interact with the world. We could probably come up with solutions for increased CO2 levels through these other areas of study.Radiative forcing is a small aspect."Also note: you seem to be saying that GW is less important than the other climate related topics - so, can the lesser be an issue while the greater is not?As my original comment points out, GW with focus to CO2 radiative forcing is a small aspect. It would be better to look at the whole picture rather than focus on some hyped up issue and lose sight of the system.I have been repeating the same explanations for a while now. I would understand the confusion after the original comment. No clue how you are still confused.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

you are telling me how I should interpret a debate and its choices because that is how you would interpret it?The debate leaves little up for interpretation - what is global warming and what is an issue - neither of which you have provided an alternate interpretation for.I explained what I meant by issuesNo, you didn't.Even with the first comment, you chose to quote the first sentence "Not so much issues as topics for study." without considering the rest of the paragraph.The first place where I quote you saying "Not so much issues..." was in comment 10 of our repartee and I specifically did quote the second part "We could probably come up with solutions" - refIt would be better to look at the whole picture rather than focus on some hyped up issue and lose sight of the system.Not the current debate - feel free to create that one. (Though I'll also note that you have not named any climate-related topics that are more important than GW.)I have been repeating the same explanations for a while now.You mean you have been avoiding an answer to the debate at hand for quite a while now.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

The debate leaves little up for interpretation - what is global warming and what is an issue - neither of which you have provided an alternate interpretation for.Not the current debate - feel free to create that one. (Though I'll also note that you have not named any climate-related topics that are more important than GW.)You mean you have been avoiding an answer to the debate at hand for quite a while now.Considering you are the only one who has claimed my argument does not fit this debate, you are just forcing your interpretation onto someone else."I explained what I meant by issues""No, you didn't."I have explained several times that I was referring to topics other than radiative forcing by "Not so much issues as topics of study". You keep claiming I meant GW.The first place where I quote you saying "Not so much issues..." was in comment 10 of our repartee and I specifically did quote the second part "We could probably come up with solutions"The first comment where you quoted it directly was "You said it was not an issue but that we might be able to find a solution ("Not so much issues" and "We could probably come up with solutions"). I'm just trying to resolve your opinion."Notice how it is arguing the exact same we are arguing now. You keep claiming the same things without pointing out which part of my explanations to your claims you are confused about.You have avoided discussing my actual argument by claiming it does not match your interpretation of the debate.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

you are the only one who has claimed my argument does not fit this debateWho else are you expecting to chime in? The debate creator hasn't logged in for over 2 weeks.I have explained several times that I was referring to topics other than radiative forcing by "Not so much issues as topics of study".So, you think that by saying that something is not so much an issue that you are describing what an issue is?The first comment where you quoted it directly wasIndeed. Notice that it is exactly as I described and completely contrary to your claim that I did not consider the rest of the paragraph.You have avoided discussing my actual argumentAnd you've avoided answering the debate question.You posted under no and said that GW was not as important as other topics that you do not consider issues, and yet you also said: "Never claimed it was not an issue."Do you have an answer to the debate question, or is this entire chain irrelevant?P.S. This is not the drivel you are looking for. The post mentioned in the other debate that you haven't responded to yet is on the other side and from 4 days ago.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

We're exaggerating the problem.Without Global Warming there would've been no mortal soul here on this planet;The Earth's average temperature due to global warming is 15.5 K which otherwise would've been unbearable.Now that we're modernizing and so to somewhat degree this effect is slowly turning a bit detrimental but there's no cause for worry
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

That is absolutely false. Do you have any idea how much a small change in temperature can do? According to nasa, "at the end of the last ice age, when the Northeast United States was covered by more than 3,000 feet of ice, average temperatures were only 5 to 9 degrees cooler than today." As the temperature continues to rise, more and more dramatic changes like this are going to occur. Making a claim like this without evidence is not making a legitimate point.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: No

Well if you're modernizing,there would be some changes but without global warming there's no life and till now,we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburns;temperatures rise in some parts and if you visit North Asia ,you would see how lower the temperature remains in Mongolia or even southern Siberia;moreover,the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you know
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

Well if you're modernizing,there would be some changes but without global warming there's no lifeThat's simply not true. Global warming (in the context discussed here) refers to man-made climate change. This climate change has only had significance starting about 200 years ago, which is not the age of life on earth. we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburns…which is not the primary negative effect of global warming. temperatures rise in some parts and if you visit North Asia ,you would see how lower the temperature remains in Mongolia or even southern SiberiaThat's like pointing to a snowball and claiming that because it is cold enough to snow, global warming must be false.Some areas are remaining cool does not negate the fact that the entire world's average temperatures have been steadily increasing; and that does not negate the negative repercussions of said increase worldwide. moreover,the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you knowThey do want sunshine. But if the ice caps melt and everyone drowns, or clean water runs out or too much plant life gets destroyed, or there are an increase of natural disasters to an unbearable point; they won't see sunshine, they'll all be dead.
Debate: Is global warming an issue?
Side: Yes

without global warming there's no life and till nowThis is obviously false. we haven't seen any great rate of mass deaths due to skin cancer or sunburnsHaven't we seen a massive increase in skin cancer in the last 20 or so years? Humans don't have to be the only species that dies because of global warming. We still depend on other animals being able to live in order for us to survive.the rise or fall of temperature isn't that much of a concern because the blacks in America do want some sunshine,you knowThis is just plain stupid.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

It is certainly happening. We need to accept the evidence for it and act before its too late. The oceans are warming up, and even a few degrees is enough to destroy ecosystems. The coral reefs which reside in shallow water are dieing off and not growing back as a direct consequence of global warming. Most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced. If we fail to act in time, it will not matter how much money we save in doing nothing.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: No, it is a natural cycle.

It was always happening. ARG. sorry, yeah, makes me angry because people always think before humans, there was no global warming. Anyway, back to the argument. Yes, the oceans are warming up, which will reduce the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which will put out more CO2. If CO2 had a significant effect on global warming, then it's a self reinforcing cycle and we would have been crisp long ago. I do concur that dying coral reefs is quite bad, because it means we're destroying natural resources, it's just that we aren't the ones causing it. Also, 'most of the world's biological scientists believe in global warming as well as the fact that it is human induced', come on, that is blatant appeal to authority. Most of the world once thought the world was flat, did that make them right?
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

The earth has gone through cycles of cold and warm throughout its history, but the global warming now is alarming because it is happening quicker and with steeper effects.most of the time i hate appealing to authority because you're right most of the world thought that the earth was flat at one time. I feel that this is different because we have come to the conclusion of global warming on science and evidence, something they didn't have as much as when they thought that the world was flat. also the whole job of a scientist is to study and learn and i feel that must count for something.Even if global warming weren't true would you want to take the risk? the steps we can take to stop global warming such as changing our source of energy have multiple advantages besides saving the earth. We can eliminate our dependence on oil, and we can start the market for renewable energy which once started and demand increased will lower in price and become profitable.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

I think it is silly to believe us little humans can affect the warming or cooling of the earth.I mean think about how dumb that sounds.Although i do agree we need new energy.More for our economy than for our planet.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

But really, I'm arguing that while it may be alarming, it's not our fault...Um, Im not sure if you realised it, but you kinda said, 'I don't like appealing to authority, but this authority's different'....Also, that's called the precautionary principle, and is a unidirectional falacy. What you do claim to be benefits only benefits the western world, and indeed while I am all for anti pollution and conservation because of other reasons, the same cannot be said about developing nations. Because coal is 1/3 the price of solar power, and much more reliable, it is unrealistic to expect poor, developing nations to industrialize purely on green energies. The other side of that precautionary principle is that if these nations are not allowed to develop, the extreme poverty, including the low life expectancies, high infant mortality rates, poor education and non existant health care will never be provided adequately for those in 3rd world nations. To give you an example, there are african communities out there where two rooftop solar panels power the refridgerator containing vaccines and medicines, or the lighting in the building containing vaccines and medicines. So really, because they purchased such expensive unreliable, emerging technologies, they loose out on both quality of living and medical care, as the vaccines now expire before the use by date due to power failures (cloudy days).
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

I did realize what i wrote. There are a few times where authority is right. Scientists who study climate change know more about that topic than most common citizens so they have some authority over the issue. For instance most of the time if students have a question about a subject (math, science, ect...) they ask the teacher. why because the teacher is expected to have good knowledge about the topic(authority) since that is their job. Why should scientists not?here is a list of of nations that make up this consensus and authority. http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/ consensus.htm solving global warming will benefit the world. at first only the developed nations will really benefit but as they make it general practice prices will decrees so those solar panels are not so expensive that they are might possibly ruin poorer people's lives.also solar power is not the only renewable energy source, so in places that are ill suited for them(areas that are often cloudy) they could use a different form.the reason these "new" technologies are at times unreliable is because few have put in a concerted effort to switch to them because the initial cost seems to high. over time however money will be saved, the earth will be saved and that technology will become more reliable and efficient.also as a human race we should move towards stooping global warming however we can, but i feel the initiative should be from western nations that can take the current high costs while the developing nations work to gain an economy strong enough to switch to renewable energy.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: No, it is a natural cycle.

Yes there are times where an authority might be right, but what gives you the right to say that this is one of those times? Medieval Europe agreed the world was flat. Is that also evidence?Yes, it can be beneficial, but while you're waiting for the price to decrease, people are starving, children are dying, and the poor cry for help. Whereas if you develop your steel industry, if you develop your electricity generating coal plants, the time between investment and return is much shorter, and your people will live longer, more securely, and then give thought to improving the world around them. Also, I've yet to see a developed nation that did not initially industrialise through coal.I used solar power as an example to demonstrate the unreliability and prohibitive costs of green energy to developing nations. And yes, they are unreliable because they are new, but the old technologies, the ones that pollute, are not only cheaper and readily available but also guarantee development. Would you choose the risky, high cost, low return infrastructure over the low cost, low risk high return infrastructure?Yes, it should be the responsibility of the industrialised nations to move towards cleaner energies, and it should not impede the development of lesser developed countries, but the development of lesser nations hinges not on clean power, but on the old fashioned polluting kind.But this gets away from the argument, yes, the industrial nations should develop cleaner industries, yes, developing countries should not be required to jump from wood to silicon, but not neccessarily due to global warming. It is a moral obligation we have to ensure our children breathe a cleaner air than we have.
Debate: Is Global Warming Happening?
Side: Yes, we need to take action.

If authority is wrong than why do we worry about somebodies credentials? If we can't trust authority than why do we need the titles and statues of professors, scientists or doctors? aside from medieval Europe thinking that the world was flat what other examples are there of authority being completely wrong? What right do you have to say that the authority is wrong? is it an authority you have or of some other group's authority you share beliefs with is it a set of facts? and from what authority did those facts come from?maybe i wasn't as clear as i thought i was but i didn't say developing countries had to switch to greener technology now, just that already strong developed countries like Britain and the US should switch. once the developing countries obtain a functioning economy strong enough to begin switching over to green technology they should but i agree they need a decent infrastructure first, not world class quality but one which can support the movement even if it is slow.It appears you are skeptical of global warming but even if global warming is wrong or not as severe as many think, the steps to take to combat global warming would benefit society such as switching to greener technologies. I believe we both want the world to be a better place for future generations and we have a moral obligation to ensure that our children breathe cleaner air, and so why can't you give the benefit of the doubt, because if global warming is true we will have taken proper steps to ensure our children have cleaner air than us.