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

"You refused to agree that smoking is severely bad for your health"He probably said that because it isn't. Okay so here's what we'll do I'll post the largest study on marijuana and cancer ever done by one of the best medical schools in the country that found no connection between regular, heavy marijuana use and cancer and then it will be your turn: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html Here's the meat of it if you're lazy:"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more positive with heavier use," he said. "What we found instead was no association at all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."Sorry I must have read that wrong. Did he say suggestion of some protective effect??? I thought marijuana instantly gave you AIDS, cancer, cavities, ringworms, vaginitis, and deleted half your brain and turned you into a criminal.I invite you to post a peer reviewed study by a reputable institution that smoking marijuana CAUSES cancer. I want to be sure I make this clear. Every time I say this someone shows me a study that found that marijuana smoke has chemicals that are carcinogens. Find a study that found a link between smoking marijuana and developing cancer. That means they needed to take a bunch of people and compare the cancer rates for smokers and non-smokers. One study is all I ask. I can probably find you as many as you want that did not find an association so I will just ask you to find one."I like Glenn Beck, with him, "they" usually refers to the people that are endangering the country. He's not a hater, he just loves his country, make fun if you want I don't care."Just letting you know your justification of Glenn Beck could be applied to the KKK. "They don't like people who are endangering the country. They don't hate African-Americans, Jews, gays etc, they just love their country."
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Just letting you know your justification of Glenn Beck could be applied to the KKK. "They don't like people who are endangering the country. They don't hate African-Americans, Jews, gays etc, they just love their country."Glenn beck doesn't promote violence.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

That's funny because I don't remember saying he explicitly does. I never said he is the same as the KKK.And while he may not explicitly provoke violence, he does it implicitly. By creating division and strong feelings of hatred toward people he disagrees with through exaggeration and appeals to strong emotion, he creates a greater likelihood of violence. Look at what happened to Dr. Tiller. Bill O'Reilly had been talking about him calling him a murderer and a baby killer, and it turns out the killer was an avid O'Reilly factor viewer.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

If I was saying this you would be telling me to prove that Glenn Beck causes a more likely increase in violence. Or is it just common sense? Just letting you know your accusations of Glenn Beck could be applied to: Kieth Olberman, Bill Maher, those people on "The View", etc. But I'm sure you are not a fan of any of them. One of the things that separates him from them is that he is honest and not one sided. He doesn't hesitate to say when a republican screws up. The only feeling of hate Glenn Beck causes, for the most part are the people that don't like him. But that's their problem. And what does Bill O'Riley have to do with anything?
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

I am not saying Glenn Beck is simply dangerous because he has an ideological position. The problem is like andsoccer says that he makes very emotional rants that appeal to a bad part of human psychology. He activates the ingroup/outgroup method of thinking in people that leads to divisiveness and violence.Keith Olberman - Don't watch him or cable, for-profit newsBill Maher - I liked religious, have seen his tv show once or twice it was funny.The View - I might have seen in while flipping channels. Correct me if I wrong, but is it not just a bunch of idiots who think they are experts on every subject they talk about?So no I am not a fan of any of that. I don't buy into the whole Left vs. Right war. I want news, not partisan commentary. Just tell me what happened, not your opinion.I mentioned Bill O'Reilly because he is similar to Glenn Beck and I could point to an example where he caused violence.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I think it was you he called stupid! His remarks came just after your own.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I appologize, name calling is never good. It's also the lowest type of argument.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I guess scientific evidence = fact in your world. There is "scientific evidence" for a lot of things. I know a lot of very smart people, non of them think global warming is happening. But I'm not a parrot, I have studied this a lot. The reason I brought up Democrats is because, them and the liberal media are the ones saying: "it's their fault, it's those Chevy suburban driving republicans, get them!" [paraphrasing of course] Also, I don't think policy, or law should be formed around such a controversial subject. Besides even if it was happening we would still have to deal with China."Environmentalists like to say that the solution to global warming is for every person to do his or her part. The truth is that their ideas about how we should all do that are almost always symbolic gestures that do nothing to actually change CO2 emissions. So let me try to put this into perspective for you. Just the increase in coal that China will burn by 2020 will send as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions, each driven 15,000 miles a year. The increased burning of one source of energy by one country is equal to the CO2 emissions from 3 billion giant Ford Expedition SUVs. At its current pace, it would take Ford 15,000 years even to sell that many." Glenn BeckSometimes fact can be kind of, ...detrimental, wouldn't you say? (;
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I dispute number 2. The Earth has been this warm and warmer in the past.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Care to back that up with some facts? I showed you my graph, now show me yours ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I don't play "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," especially with young boys. ;)OK, you win.... I got nothing ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

You say that a lot of "smart" people don't believe in global warming...hmmm...., maybe it has to do with DejaMoo (the feeling that you've heard this bull before :).
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Actually it was Jake that said he knew a lot of smart people who don't believe in global warming. I just took him at his word.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I watched the video and the thing is that I don't believe long haired scientists. He looks like a long haired, pot smoking, hippie from the 60's. Not much credibility there :)Then all those swirling color remind me of a psychedelic trip.Also, I don't trust cute, female scientists. She was talking but all I could think of was the methane she was producing ;)The Chinese would have been more believable if he hadn't blinked so much ;)The last guy says what I've been saying all along.... there are too many people on the planet, lets start taking them out! Well, he didn't say the last part but... ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

The environement we live in effects all people, not just democrats. I don't care who conserves, just that it happens.This is not a democratic issue, it's a human issue.I think we've had this conversation before. I'd like you to refer back to our previous conversation on global warming. If, after rereading that, you still have questions, I will be glad to clear anything up for you.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

The Time magazine article got it half-right, but is a misinterpretation of the then evidence. I also first started reading about Global warming and the "Greenhouse effect" in the early 1970s in, I think, Science Fiction magazines. The increase of global temperatures is unprecedented and even if the most drastic action were taken now will continue for at least twenty years due to a lag effect. Remember that soot and other aerosols pumped into the atmosphere actually have a cooling effect so the problem is even worse than thermometers show. Global warming at its current rate will (WILL, not may) displace the Greenland ice shelf. This will displace the Gulf stream (or "Atlantic conveyor") causing a DECREASE in average temperatures in Northern Europe and the reduced salinility of the North Atlantic will also do for what is left of fish stocks. A mass melting of the arctic permafrost may release methane that will trigger an irreversible runaway effect--it has happened before, but it was nature alone not human engineered.The warmer tropical waters ofthe mid-Atlantic will increase the hurricane count and are likely to make New York as popular a target as Florida.Most of the Ross Ice Shelf is on its way North right now, in about a decade its remnants will hit the Bengula and Mozambique currents to recreate the coast to coast african desert that existed 20,000 years ago.So many policticians seem to want to ignore any problem that stretches beyond their period of elected office that they may just end up like the inhabitants of Mohenjo-daro.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Why would I choose to disregard scientific evidence of a phenomenon? This is like asking, "do you believe in rainbows?" Of course I believe global warming is real. The real question is whether or not human beings are primarily responsible for global warming, to which I would also answer yes. Although volcanic activity and other natural occurrences can account for a small percentage of the rise in CO2 emissions, they can hardly account for the total. However, even if humans are not primarily responsible, if there are actions that we are taking that contribute to the rise in CO2 levels, then we have a responsibility to curtail those actions.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

We should not forget that the "purpose" of supporting a view that the earth's temperatures are rising is mainly to alter our behavior in favor of the environment. Whether or not we find conclusive evidence supporting the temperature change, it is almost indisputable that CO2 emissions are not good for the environment on which our survival depends on. The arguments against global warming seem to come mainly from big industry, or from those groups who refuse to change the status quo. We need to change, whether we think that global warming is the main reason or not, the conclusion remains the same.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Global Warming is 50% man made, 50% natural. I still say we need to get off OIL and move to cleaner sources of energy and stop treating the only planet we have the only home we have as a giant waste-basket. We need to start protecting our planet and our environment around us and stop thinking about ourselves all the time and only the here and now. We need to think long term for our childrens future and make the world a better place. We can at least make the planet less toxic and hazardous for our children by stopping nuclear waste and weapons and stop ripping up our landscape.. - stop killing off species, and stop polluting our atomosphere making people sick. Its time to change our ways whether or not there is global warming. I still say there is some global warming ---though maybe not to the degree that Al Gore claims, we still should get away from Oil and I believe part of the reason we haven't seen as many effects from global warming is because we have begun to change our lifestyle and develop alternate methods of energuy.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

there are also controversies these days that global warming is fake due to these decreasin temperatures..but technically, it is the effects of the global warming since the glaciers are melting down..and whatever..the temperature of earth has increased by about 3 degrees celcius..so if u literally see it, the temperature has increased globally --> global warming!
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Did you NOT read this?http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2010/01/un-climate-chief-says-theres-more-errors-in-global-warming-report-.html The glaciers are NOT melting.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: yeah, why not?

You have only to look at the devastation all around us to realize that the earth is undergoing major climate change. It's a common misconception that global warming refers only to hotter temperatures. Some of the signs of global warming are increased storms, including tornadoes and hurricanes, more severe winters, and melting of polar ice caps. In the last few months, we have experienced all of these and more. The only question is how we're going to stop global warming, not whether or not it exists.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: yeah, why not?

Well..., since global warming is created by too many people releasing too many green house gasses into the atmosphere, I propose reducing the world's population ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: yeah, why not?

Wow, you just overturn modern science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: yeah, why not?

Exactly, why not? If there's already evidence of ozone layer depletion allowing more heat, then global warming is also quite a believable theory as well.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

For a long time, I have been anticipating the point when "money" is brought into the game.I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig. I was hoping that he would have his 15 minutes of fame with his earth saving documentary and then hopefully leave us alone. But I must also admit that there has been some good out of this, and that is the fact that car companies are now looking into new engines, hybrids etc etc. That's great!But then ManBearPig wanted more...New taxes. The minute I heard how much money Al Gore is going to make by taxing us on ManBearPig was the minute that every single shred of doubt about this being a lie vanished. So what should we do instead?? What if it's true? What if ManBearPig is real and coming to get us?!I have a suggestion. Instead of taxing the lowest denominator, the individual, how about we focus on the technology and the manufacturers. How about we go to the car manufacturers and say "You got 10 years, to come up with an engine that produces half the CO2, achieves double the miles per gallon, and can run on a fuel that is abundant in nature. Here is $100 million towards the research, and there will be another £100 million for you if you are the first manufacturer to achieve this goal". You say this to all car manufacturers and then sit back and watch them deliver the goods. Instead of spending the $100 million on a week in Iraq, make it an incentive. Make it a prize, and watch how quickly we get results.You can do this with airlines as well. Instead of taxing the passengers, why not put the pressure on the manufacturing companies to come up with cleaner engines? And then give the airlines incentives for buying the new engines, like lower airport taxes for a set of years. Or how about this. How did I not think about this before!Use the talent show formula to find new scientists! Think about it."America's Got Talented Scientists". The prize is one million dollars, and each contestant or group of scientists has to create a new environmentally friendly engine. Voila! In just one season you have a new engine!Now new taxes for ManBearPig!
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

1) Nobody gives a shit about Al Gore, ok? The people who matter are the IPCC.2) We tried that. See also Chapter 5.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Nice first sentance! hahahahahahahaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah "Nobody gives a shit about Al Gore, ok?"
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

I never really bought the "evidence" presented by Al Gore and his theory of ManBearPig.Well that's understandable, because Al Gore is not a scientist; however, you should listen to the real climate scientists who have shown, through tremendous amounts of evidence, that:1. The earth is warming2. This warming is unprecedented, and unnatural (a.k.a. at a rate never witnessed before in nature)3. The warming is predominately being caused by greenhouse gasses4. Human activity in the last 100 years has been the primary cause of greenhouse gasses5. If humans to continue to emit greenhouse gasses at our current rate, the effects on our planet will be dire (massive crop failures, and extinctions due to increased aridity)You are complaining about the money Al Gore makes from this, but to be honest, I don't give a shit about him. He helped to put global warming more in the public's awareness, but at the same time increased the politicalness(?) of the issue. His movie, was in general correct, aside from a few minor exaggerations and errors; however, as I said before none of this should matter. What matters is the actual science.How we address the issue can obviously be up for debate, and the ideas you proposed seemed like good ones; however the important thing is that we do something. Otherwise we will go down in history as the generation that sat back and did nothing as the earth went to ruin.(By the way, I love South Park, but this is one issue that got wrong...and I'm super serial about that)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

What I agree with, is the fact that some goodness/progress has come out of this. I always thought that we have spent too much time in the age of the combustion engine. There are so many other ideas out there that need to be explored. The GW movement, has indeed provided a "reason" for us to make some progress.But let's not confuse that, with whether GW is actually happening or not.For the past couple of years, the media have adopted a whole terminology and an attitude of "indisputability" towards GW. If the time spent on selling the idea of GW was spent instead on explaining the evidence in detail to the public, then we would have a much fairer debate. The problem now is that you have to go looking for the evidence, cause the news is only informing you of the measures we are taking to combat this threat. Naturally, a lot of people will be pissed off at the fact that we are taking measures, even though the theory has not been proved in their minds. After watching The Great Global Warming Swindle, you will find that a lot of the "scientific consensus" has been fabricated. The sheer fact that the evidence is in dispute should be reason enough to not take any measures yet. No court will ever make a decision on a case that is substantiated by disputable evidence. Look, all I am saying is this. Some people are convinced, others don't really care, and others care but are not convinced. To then introduce a new tax measure that will affect all three of these groups indiscriminately, is a travesty of dictatorial proportions.Just because the cause is noble does NOT justify the means...Like I said in my previous post: It does NOT MATTER if Global Warming is happening or not. We have been due a progress with regards to new technology for some time now. If we are concerned about the future then by all means, take measures WHERE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Taxing individuals is making matters worse because what that says is that, the technology and choice that people have will remain the same, but from now on we will punish people for making certain choices. So the Arabs still make their trillions. The car companies are not pressured to invent new technology. And average Joe is the only one to foot the bill for "saving the earth". If the financial crisis hadn't happened, I'm pretty sure we would have had a new tax by now already. This movement has settled so persistently into the media terminology and agenda that I now believe it is pointless to debate if it exists or not. Those that are not convinced are now called "deniers" and there is no longer space for debate, especially given the fact that the "deniers" are seen as enemies to a noble cause. So the only thing that matters now is the kind of measures we are going to take. Our duty as citizens is to make sure no one pulls the wool over our eyes. And in this case, I think those "deniers" will prove to be very helpful in making sure the "believers" are not screwed by their governments.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

The internet is an amazing tool. You can find out information about whatever you want within seconds, so please do not complain that the public hasn't been educated... anyone with a computer and an internet connection can find out information easily.Now, I think I have found one of the reasons you have an issue with GW. The source you quoted (The Great Global Warming Swindle) is an extremely poor one. Before this debate proceeds any farther I think you should watch this video debunking the intellectual dishonesty presented by the creators of that movie. You will find gross misrepresentations of the facts, and in some cases, outright lies.Enjoy:
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

The problem with this video is that in the internet, no body knows you're a fraud ;)
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

in the internet, no body knows you're a fraudIf you do a little research it's pretty easy to find the frauds.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Yeah, why not?

Pigovian taxes have worked very well for Europe and Japan.
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

I have personally seen that the Glacier on Kilimanjaro has all but gone. The one on the Spitzberg is 300 Metres higher than it was in 1936. The North West passage is now navigable after 500 years of trying, the Ross ice shelf is breaking up -- so how come its a 'swindle' ? The anti-innoculation movement (against smallpox) lasted well into the 20th Century in America too!
Debate: So..., you still believe in global warming, huh?
Side: Nope, never did

Record lows? But what about the record highs?are you suggesting that the Earth goes through a process of hot and cold naturally?