azza1625/createdebate-arguments huggingface dataset:
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

The existence of non-Anthropogenic Climate Change does not undermine or disprove the existence of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

The irony of your comments, is that you yourself have not given precise evidence of your personal stance on this topic.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Well as for myself, I do not want to claim my side until I further explore the possibilities held within this topic further.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

The fact that we have already stated that climate change has been happening for millions of year is proving that maybe humans have increased it, but it shows that humans did not create it because we have not been around for that long. Obviously it started as a natural process and way before humans were even around.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

And I stated where I stood when I chose this side of the debate.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Why are you making these convictions of my post, of what I must say would be long overdue, if considering the fact that it was nearing two weeks when I created commentary..? Secondly as a "footnote" to my first questionnaire from the above first line; I was making a critical response to Nana-Ilama about her critique of your post.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Our total effect on Climate Change is only 0.28% of the total.This seems like a misunderstanding of the science, a snippet that hasn't been put in with other evidence or it lacks the comprehension of mechanisms at work. Can you elaborate why you think that human effect on climate is only .28% of the total?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Duplicate. Content deleted.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I duplicated my own post and deleted the content to take up less space. Why do people feel so strongly about that?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I think people thought you were saying that somebody was duplicating content and not making a correct stance.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Except that they keep down voting the clarifications as well. Eh, whatever.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

There's a group of people on here that aren't regulars who seem very "vote happy". Maybe a class? I don't know.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

You are probably correct; a class would make sense on a number of levels...
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Agriculture is a part of human activity, so why are you treating it as a distinct category is beyond me unless you are deliberately trying to skew the data.Human contribution to emissions need not be statistically significant in order to be climatologically significant. If the (purported) 99.72% of non-human (excluding agriculture for some reason) emissions are relatively on par for the planet over the course of its existence then that contribution would not exert any particular influence on climate; effectively, that % is the stable rate to which global ecology is adapted. Even a slight deviation from the norm would be enough to create considerable climate change which would otherwise not occur due to the complexity of the system.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Climate Change is a natural process that has happened for millions of years, that is why I believe it real, but not in the context that humans are the only ones creating it. Also when I say that agriculture is mainly non-human is the fact that huge amounts of Nitrogen is released when animals produce feces. So yes humans control farming, but animals are putting these gases into the air.The question can not just simply be stated as if it's "true or false", but if it's human induced or not.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

When people say "Climate Change", they are generally referring to Anthropogenic Climate Change. Additionally, agriculture is human activity, as Jace pointed out. The animals may be the ones releasing the gasses, but we are the ones who have been breeding them to such populations, and thus their emissions count as part of human emissions along side factory emissions, cars, etc.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I never claimed that humans were the sole or even primary cause of climate change. I argued that we are a significant enough contributor, even at relatively low rates, to exert an influence upon climate change which otherwise would not exist. Climatology is extremely intricate and sensitive to even minor changes. You have not responded to my rationale to this effect, presumably because you have no counterpoint.Agriculture is a human invention. These animals quite simply would not exist at anywhere near the rate that they do now were it not for human agriculture creating them. It is entirely irrelevant that the feces comes from the animals at the point that the animals would not exist were it not for our influence. We created that situation and are therefore responsible for it.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

CO2 is a natural gas that is created by all cycles and without it- No life could survive. So obviously we have to say that humans do contribute to it because we breath it out.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

I believe that climate change is not just all human made. It is a natural process that equals itself out. We do play a small role in climate change, but not big enough to make a drastic change in the world. Yes there are some small changes that have been appearing here and there in the world lately, but those will take care of themselves. That is what the world is made to do. The earth is self cleansing.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

It's all ready been stated the climate change is not completely man made but we still play a role in the change in climate by releasing large amounts of Co2 each year. Although humans are only responsible for a small portion of the total Co2 in the atmosphere it can have a huge impact by off setting the balance between plants and animals. Meaning more Co2 and less things to absorb it final outcome=warmer climate. wright now we are burning more fossil fuels and cutting down more forest then we ever have and this increases every year with the growing human population. sources https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/--http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/--https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

I've seen a few references to God on this prevalent issue. Though I don't fully disagree nor agree with his existence, I do find it peculiar how we twist the words of the bible and/or of God him(it)self. If such an existence is to be, then how are we to know the true ways. In no way do we hear from this prevailing force the words set upon us. We are only given our minds to comprehend things into our own viewpoints. So even if we are to hear the true words from this Ultimate Force won't we just make our individual interpretations rather than what was initially intended from the Creator. So how can one expect our minds to fully develop the knowledge of the truest comprehendance on each word thrown upon us.  Now even if certain individuals viewpoints on God is to be of physical form, then I still have yet to argue. Many supporters of God claim that climate change is, in fact, man-made. So if that's to be true in your eyes, then aren't you contradicting your "own" beliefs? You say God created us, yet we are the ones at fault for worldly issues. Doesn't it, in turn, break down to Gods fault. After all, he is the one who made the decision to bring us into form. For those of you looking for certain biblical quotes to refer to, here you are---> http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-creation-1-quotes-to- study/
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

We chose to burn fossil fuels in abhorrent amounts. So if we are looking at this via a religious standpoint, you are saying that since God created us, and we chose to burn fossil fuels and produce CFC's, then God is at fault for climate change? If two individuals have a child, they are only responsible for that child (by law) until the child turns 18 years old. After this point, the child is fully responsible for their decisions and the parents are no longer responsible for the child. I am not saying that the same rules apply for God being responsible for our mistakes and a parent being responsible for their child as it is an example. And if we are using the Bible as a reference, then I believe it says God knows the future, and he lets us choose the paths we take, and he also created the universe. So if he has full control over everything and he gives us control over our own decisions, he can't himself be held accountable.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

I never mentioned anything what so ever in my comments about God controlling our actions. So, therefore your argument is somewhat invalid. I claimed for those of whom believing in God say that he is our Creator. So if that is to be true, then he is the one at fault for allowing ourselves to exist. So if God is to know the future he would've seen our horrendous behavior towards Earth. Plus, even given our so-called "Free will", he still made the ultimate choice to summon us into existence.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

It is lie often told the by Reverends that God has given us free will but at the same time thank Him for all our graces. But what of all our vices?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

The argument for and against climate change is unneeded and should be headed onto other pressing 'conflicts.' The choice of this debater for choosing "climate change is false" is merely to aggravate the others, who as a majority will inevitably choose the prospective thesis. "Climate change is false" presumably has no chance at overcoming the anti-humanism of the opposing side, so the best that can be offered as 'evidence' for this side of this debate is precise rhetoric-- informal logic versus empirical evidence.The view that will be upheld in this dialectician's side of the debate has inadvertently been stated in the first segment of this stated 'argument.' It is therefore the oppositions job to make a discovery of what was indirectly made as the argument and defend against the initial thesis-- become the antithetical force you know that you are!
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Just because individuals don't believe that climate change is a valid argument doesn't mean that it isn't a problem. It is true that Humans may not greatly contribute directly, but we do play a part indirectly. As humans we have created large areas that create lots of green house gasses. An example is Centralia, Pennsylvania where a plan to burn a little garbage ended up lighting the coal under the town on fire causing what was once Centralia to become a almost ghost town. This coal is also a special type known as Anthracite coal which is 92-95% carbon. This is just one of many things that release green house gasses not to mention the animals we have for food and there effect on the environment.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Throwing big words around incoherently is not nearly as compelling as you seem to think it is.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Yet he has truth to his argument. I recommend that next time you comment you relate your "argument" to the actual debate and not trying to bash the debaters.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

My response was an observation of the nature of the original post in question, and insofar as it may be construed as a personal attack I maintain that it was well founded. The post is unnecessarily verbose to the point of being incomprehensible. When one bothers to parse it all out, one discovers that it effectively advances no substantive argument to which one might respond. Effectively, it is all a very long winded way of announcing an intention to play the devil's advocate without actually getting around to doing it. If an actual argument of substance is advanced I will respond to it.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

I realize this may seem true to you, but if you're going to make a comment like that at least point out the details you find not to your liking within Rivers statement.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

There are no details to dispute because nothing substantive was said; OP used verbosity to replace actual content. That is my point, and I have elaborated upon it elsewhere to those who raised the same objection you are raising now. I recommend you to my responses to them rather than repeating myself here.Repudiating my primary allegation would be a simple matter of explaining what substantive point I missed in the OP. Notably, neither the OP nor anyone else has done so despite having had ample opportunity. I stand by my observation accordingly.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

My initial comments are not to be taken from a subjective of view but objective. So I see issue with your first part: "I realize this may seem true to you..."
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

"Subjective point of view"-- my mistake. I have to have or exceed the amount of characters needed to make my clarification of sentence, so this is why I am typing this.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Thank you for your comment, but I hope you respond with a refute that is more focused on the actual argument.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

What actual argument? Your original post is unnecessarily verbose to the point of being practically incomprehensible, and vague to the point of meaninglessness. When one bothers to parse it all out, one discovers that it effectively advances no substantive argument to which one might respond. Effectively, it is all a very long winded way of announcing an intention to play the devil's advocate without actually getting around to doing it. When you actually make a coherent, clear argument I will respond accordingly.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Your argument is invalid due to the pretentiousness you have brought to this discussion. Please refrain from trying to cause arguments that span away from the debate that is being held here.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

The question asks "Is Climate Change Man Made?" We have already stated with multiple facts that Climate Change has been happening for millions of years. So as proven, Climate Change is NOT man made. We have added to it, but we did not create it.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Climate change is not man made and is a scam. First of all the earths temperature hasn't increased for more than 20 years and if global warming was everything people make it out to be, the temperature should be sky rocketing. Many predictions about things that would happen would because of global warming have already been proven wrong, such as Al Gore predicting that all glaciers would be melted by 2013.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

So why do you believe the global scientific community is trying to employ a "scam", and why do you believe they don't know what you are stating?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

This is in fact a lie. You are even producing a project about melting ice glaciers, are you not? And also many other things have been proven wrong, such as Y2K or 2012. The thing is, we have proof of it happening. The question is, is it man made or not, you are saying Climate change is not true altogether. Please, if you are going to write something on here, at least read the question first.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Not that this is an agreement nor an argument but I have something to say. We have both stated the facts and opinions but are missing another point. Not to say that climate change is not man made or is man made but to say it is, in a way, machine made. When thought about, yes, these machines/factories are made by humans but they are also emitting these things themselves. I am not saying these factories and machines have a mind of there own, I am just stating. Is it really man made? It is a natural process anyways. "We" are just speeding it up. But is it really our fault? The answer is, sort of inconclusive. No, it is a natural process, but yes, "we" are releasing these toxins into the air and making it happen at a faster pace. But another question about it is, How do we fix it?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

So obviously climate change does happen naturally but we as the human race ( though not all humans have contributed.) have given it a nice big push to help it move faster. The question shouldn't be, is it man made or not but, what are we doing to slow it down and is it enough.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

I agree climate change is accelerated because of human activity, but no matter what we do we will have some sort of an impact. And as to your suggestion to changing the question, we are doing many things to slow climate change, but I can't see it ever being enough. But if we can extend the life of our race's existence on the Earth a few more years, why not?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Saying to "Change the question" was vague on my part. What I was trying to imply is "what are major things we could do to cut down on some of the larger producers of greenhouse gasses.". A problem in this topic and in many is money we do have ways to slow it down but those ether cost a lot to make or companies don't want to allow them to be made because it would effect their profit. It most likely will never be enough to completely stop climate change but any time we can create to slow down the effects will give humans a better chance of survival.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

What about all the accelerated climate change BEFORE man appeared on Earth. That had nothing to do with human activity, now did it? The Earth in the past was warmer than it is today and CO2 levels were higher in the past than they are today. Reading articles from biased, government funded scientists is not a good way to gauge the accuracy of the history of the Earths temperatures.Also, did you know that a warmer Earth is a more beneficial Earth.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Yes it is true that it was warmer before people appeared, but if humans want to continue to exist we need to slow the process. It may be beneficial for the earth but not for the life on it.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Refrain from using 'I', essentially with 'I' this becomes personal to only you. Instead you should have said "yes climate change is accelerated by/because of human activity.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

From what the European Environment Agency has stated, I have gathered that the major way humans impact climate change is through affecting concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Two of the largest ways humans do this are: Aerosols (and more specifically chlorofluorocarbons) and the burning of fossil fuels. I do realize that climate change does exist, however, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the surface temperature has risen about 1 Fahrenheit above the average (up to 2010). And since 1880, the average surface temperature has increased roughly 1.3 Fahrenheit. Of course, if we continue this upward climb in temperature indefinitely, it will be the end of, at the very least, the human reign of the Earth. The use of aerosols has been severely cut back in the last 3-4 decades and in 1987, representatives from 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol which reduced the production of CFC's throughout the world.As to the burning of fossil fuels, other alternatives are being looked into as I am sure everyone sees on the news. But it will undoubtedly take awhile for a full switch over to occur as fossil fuels provide over two-thirds of America's electricity generation (UCSUSA). http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate/faq/how-do-human-activities-contribute-to-climate-change-and-how-do-they-compare-with-natural-influenceshttps://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earthâ€™s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decadehttp://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.htmlhttp://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels#.Vl8Di4BOoqV
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

I believe climate change isn't man made, but is a cycle (this is an opinion, not a statement or fact btw) as scientists have seen through many plants and elements (Ice, water, the atmosphere's "air" made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, and Carbon Dioxide) that at different large amounts of time there has been really high levels of CO2 and then many many decades later the CO2 level drops again bringing back ice and colder weather in the ocean, and the polar ice caps.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

From your link: "Because of this the layer of greenhouse gas is getting thicker, which is in turn making the Earth warmer.Thus the ongoing unlimited burning of fossil fuels is the cause of climate change."You say Climate Change is not man made and then, for supporting evidence, you provide a link that says Anthropogenic Climate Change exists.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

Yes it would seem quite ironic of this debater to imply that he or she personally feels a certain way but to then give a fact that contradicts their initial statement of belief. Maybe this falls into that categorical impression of the conflict between belief in something to knowing something [to be true]?
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

Climate Change is only based on computer models with information inputted by so called scientist. What Climate Change is really about is control of the people which is the Leftist Dream ! But the Leftist Leaders that preach Climate Change will never stop burning fossil fuel !
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

This is wrong and completely biased. There is physical evidence that the earth's climates are changing. We are seeing more and more erratic weather and large differences in temperature. To say it is "only based on computer models" is not a valid argument.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is not manmade

The Earth's climate has been changing for 4.6 billion years and will continue to change for as long as Earth is around. It will alternate between warm and cool no matter what people do about it. The computer models are based on the future, which should be taken with a grain of salt since we can't even get a five day forecast even remotely accurate but yet these global warming scientists tell us they can predict what the Earth will be like in 5, 10 or 100 years from now. Yea right.
Debate: Climate Change
Side: Climate change is manmade

When people talk about ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) they are talking about Climate Change that is man-made and happening alongside natural changes in climate. So if someone asks "Is anthropogenic climate change happening", and you say "climate has always changed", you simply haven't answered the question.Additionally, "weather" and "climate" are two entirely different things, and the ability to predict the two use two entirely different methods. The comparison simply doesn't work, at least scientifically.