Instigator / Con
14
1702
rating
77
debates
70.13%
won
Topic
#2840
Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 2 votes and with 14 points ahead, the winner is...
fauxlaw
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 15,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Description
Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels
Description:
Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels. That is, by use of petroleum, natural gas, and/or coal.
Con BoP will be to argue against the Resolution. I am Con.
Pro’s BoP will be to argue for the Resolution. My opponent is Pro.
Definitions:
Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements, plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere. Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant. Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration. Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.
Caused: past and present sense of the intransitive verb, to cause, which is to be the cause of; to effect, bring about, produce, induce, make. [OED]
Use [n]: Senses relating to utilization, employment, application. [OED]
Human: All members of the genus, Homo sapiens.
Fossil fuels: Energy sources, to wit, petroleum products, natural gas, coal extracted for use by all current means by humans.
Debate protocol
Three-round debate.
R1, R2: Argument, rebuttal, defense
R3: No new argument; rebuttal, defense, conclusion
All argument, defense, rebuttal, and sourcing will be listed within the context of the debate argument rounds only, except sourcing may also be listed within comments within the debate file to conserve maximum space for argumentation, but only during the argumentation’s three rounds. Neither participant may consult with any person associated with DART to serve as a sourced citation as a feature of participant’s argument.
No waived rounds. No more than one round may be forfeited, or forfeiture of entire debate will result. Concession in any round is a debate loss.
No declaration of victory will be made but in the 3rd round. No declaration of assumption of the opponent’s concession or forfeit in any round. These conditions will be obvious to voters only by either participant’s own declaration.
Arguments, rebuttals, defenses, or conclusions may not address voters directly for voting suggestions beyond statement of validity for arguments, et al, made in all rounds. Participants may encourage voters/readers to read/examine any portion of, or entire rounds.
Note: this debate was inspired by an argument in another debate regarding nuclear vs. fossil fuels.
Round 1
Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels
I Argument: Fossil fuels are not the exclusive cause
I.a The Resolution proposes that human use of fossil fuels is the cause of air pollution. The Resolution does not allow that there are multiple causes; just the human use of fossil fuels. The facts that follow will demonstrate that, while human use of fossil fuels does contribute to air pollution, it is not the exclusive source, and, in fact, is not even the most prevalent source by volume and weight. The facts will demonstrate that human use of fossil fuels is not even one-third of the total cause.[1]
I.b That begs the question: what are fossil fuels? According to the Smithsonian, the answer is in the name, and what the resulting products are used to accomplish.
Fossils are the remnants of living organisms after death, both plant and animal, collecting over hundreds of millions of years. Indeed, ever since living organisms on Earth began dying and decomposing on and in the earth since life began on earth, a few billion years ago. The type of fossil, and the amount of heat and pressure determine which category of fuel a fossil will become.[2] The process is ongoing.
Fuel is the term applied to the result of decomposition of dead organisms, forming natural compounds humans have discovered are useful materials to produce energy to operate industrial, commercial, and residential tools and equipment, heat, or cool our homes and businesses, provide electrical power, lubricate machine parts, vehicle use, and so on.[3] This is energy of a sort that has driven world economy for the better part, one way or another, for nearly one hundred fifty years.
I.c Fossil fuels fit into three basic categories:
1. coal
2. petroleum, or crude oil
3. natural gas
I.d Con’s argument [mine], and BoP, is that fossil fuels, and human use of them, are not the exclusive cause of air pollution.
I.e Pro’s argument, and BoP, must demonstrate that human use of fossil fuels is the exclusive cause of air pollution, and that no other source can be demonstrated.
II Argument: Fossil fuels do not even contribute the majority contribution to air pollution, let alone the only contribution
II.a According to the Yale School of the Environment, there are three primary contributors to air pollution in Earth’s atmosphere. See “definitions” in the Description for what constitutes Earth’s atmosphere and its natural elements. Also listed are various pollutants. Some of them are already a natural part of the atmosphere, such as CO2, N2O, CH4, and O3, but these molecules normally exist in such low concentrations, they do not present the harmful pollutant effect as greenhouse gasses [GHGs].[4]
II.b However, these molecules do have cause of production at sea level as well as lower and higher elevations, both naturally as a function of micro-climates, and by anthropogenic [human] causes. There are three fundamental causes of air pollution:[5]
1. Natural, microbial sources [natural wetlands, rice cultivation, and ruminants] These, combined, present the greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 392 short tons [s.t.] CH4/year, or 63% of 633 s.t. CH4/year.
2. Fossil fuels [coal, oil, natural gas]. These, combined present the second greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 193 s.t. CH4/yr., or 29% of 633 s.t. CH4/year. [Less than half of natural microbial sources.]
3. Biomass burning, combined, presents the third greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 48 s.t. CH4/yr, or 8% of 633 s.t. CH4/yr.
II.c Of these three causes, the first, amounting to nearly 2/3 of total polluting causes, is natural, microbial sources. This is a kind, generic nomenclature for what is, after all, a very natural process of all living things on Earth that consume food nutrients, and subsequently process them by digestion, a process that produces gasses: hydrogen and methane, which are both expelled [flatulence] along with solid [feces] and liquid [urine] waste.[6] It is no wonder there is so much of it [waste gasses]; we all make and expel it, along with exogenous expellant: oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.
II.c.1 The majority contributor of microbial sources are natural wetlands [including rivers, lakes, and oceans], cultivated fields [such as rice], and ruminants [animals, mostly mammals, such as cows] which regurgitate food from the stomach [or stomachs] to re-chew and re-swallow. The quantity of production of microbial-sourced hydrogen and methane is produced in the order of sources given.
II.c.2 One must give credence to the third source, although the least contributor; biomass burning. This, in combination with human use of fossil fuels, is human caused. Biomass fuels generate energy by burning plant-sourced materials such as wood, dried vegetation, and crop residue, but this source amounts to less than 10% of all polluting sources, even though human-caused. The addition of bio-mass sources of energy to human-use of fossil fuels is just over 1/3, a combination amounting to 37%, still far below microbial sources.
II.c.3 Therefore, the greatest volume of microbial sourced methane, the most dangerous of GHGs causing the greenhouse effect to the Earth, is not by human use of fossil fuels, but by non-human, naturally-produced microbial sources from natural and cultivated wetlands and ruminants. Lest one think that because humans cultivate rice, this must also be considered a human-sourced pollutant, let us recall that humans did not create rice, or other water-borne grains; they are naturally-occurring grains that are consumed not just by domestication by humans, but by water fowl and other birds, and other land and water-borne animals.[7] Therefore, the Resolution fails.
I pass R1 to Pro.
Forfeited
Round 2
Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels
Unfortunate that Pro chose to forfeit in R1. Having nothing to rebut, I will entertain my first arguments:
I Argument: Fossil fuels are not the exclusive cause
I.a The Resolution proposes that human use of fossil fuels is the cause of air pollution. The Resolution does not allow that there are multiple causes; just the human use of fossil fuels. The facts that follow will demonstrate that, while human use of fossil fuels does contribute to air pollution, it is not the exclusive source, and, in fact, is not even the most prevalent source by volume and weight. The facts will demonstrate that human use of fossil fuels is not even one-third of the total cause.[1]
I.b That begs the question: what are fossil fuels? According to the Smithsonian, the answer is in the name, and what the resulting products are used to accomplish. Fossilsare the remnants of living organisms after death, both plant and animal, collecting over hundreds of millions of years. Living organisms on Earth began dying and decomposing on and in the earth ever since life began on earth, a few billion years ago. The type of fossil, and the amount of heat and pressure determine which category of fuel a fossil will become.[2]. The process is ongoing.
Fuel is the term applied to the result of decomposition of dead organisms, forming natural compounds humans have discovered are useful fuels to produce energy to operate industrial, commercial, and residential tools and equipment, to heat, or cool our homes and businesses, provide electrical power, lubricate machine parts, and so on.[3] Before that, of course, men realized that living plant life, wood from trees, and dried brush, was an effective fuel for fire; probably the first practical fuel source for cooking food and creating warmth, known now as biomass fuel, a different source than fossil fuel. Although fossil fuel is energy of a sort that has driven world economy for the better part, one way or another by the industrial complex since the 1880s, the real facts are that, “Some forms of petroleum, coal, and natural gas were used thousands of years agoby various civilizations on various continents, according to historical records and archaeological finds.”[4]
I.c Fossil fuels fit into three basic categories:
1. coal
2. petroleum, or crude oil
3. natural gas
I.d My argument, and BoP, is that fossil fuels, and human use of them, are not the exclusive cause of air pollution.
I.e Pro’s argument, and BoP, must demonstrate that human use of fossil fuels is the exclusive cause of air pollution, and that no other source can be demonstrated.
II Argument: Fossil fuels do not even contribute the majority contribution to air pollution, let alone the only contribution
II.a According to the Yale School of the Environment, there are three primary contributors to air pollution in Earth’s atmosphere. See “definitions” in the Description for what constitutes Earth’s atmosphere and its natural elements. Also listed are various pollutants. Some of them are already a natural part of the atmosphere, such as CO2, N2O, CH4, and O3, but these molecules normally exist in such low concentrations, they do not present the harmful pollutant effect as greenhouse gasses [GHGs].[5]
II.b However, these molecules do have cause of production at sea level as well as lower and higher elevations, both naturally as a function of micro-climates, and by anthropogenic [human] causes. There are three fundamental causes of air pollution, each of which are rated by the cited source only by methane [CH4], the worst of the offensive GHGs in causing the greenhouse effect.[6]
1. Natural, microbial sources[natural wetlands, rice cultivation, and ruminants] These, combined, present the greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 392 short tons [s.t.] CH4/year, or 63%of 633 s.t. CH4/year.
2. Fossil fuels [coal, oil, natural gas]. These, combined present the second greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 193 s.t. CH4/yr., or 29%of 633 s.t. CH4/year. [Less than half of natural microbial sources.]
3. Biomass burning, combined, presents the third greatest percentage of atmospheric pollution; average 48 s.t. CH4/yr, or 8%of 633 s.t. CH4/yr.
II.c Of these three causes, the first, amounting to nearly 2/3 of total polluting causes, is natural, microbial sources. This is a kind, generic nomenclature for what is, after all, a very natural process of all living things on Earth that consume food nutrients, and subsequently process them by digestion, a process that produces gasses: mostly hydrogen and methane, which are both expelled [flatulence] along with solid [feces] and liquid [urine] waste.[7] It is no wonder there is so much of it [waste gasses]; we all make and expel it, along with exogenous expellant: oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide.
II.c.1 The majority contributor of microbial sources are natural wetlands [rivers, lakes, and oceans], cultivated fields [such as rice], and ruminants [animals, mostly mammals, such as cows] which regurgitate food from the stomach [or stomachs] to re-chew and re-swallow. The quantity of production of microbial-sourced hydrogen and methane is produced in the order of sources given.
II.c.2 One must give credence to the third source, although the least contributor; biomass burning. This, in combination with human use of fossil fuels, is human caused. Biomass fuels generate energy by burning plant-sourced materials such as wood, dried vegetation, and crop residue, but this source amounts to less than 10% of all polluting sources, even though human-caused. The addition of bio-mass sources of energy to human-use of fossil fuels is just over 1/3, a combination amounting to 37%, still far below microbial sources.
II.c.3 Therefore, the greatest volume of microbial sourced methane, the most dangerous of GHGs causing the greenhouse effect to the Earth, is not by human use of fossil fuels, but by non-human, naturally-produced microbial sources from natural and cultivated wetlands and ruminants. Lest one think that because humans cultivate rice, this must also be considered a human-sourced pollutant, let us recall that humans did not create rice; it is a naturally-occurring grain that is consumed not just by domestication of this grain by humans, but by water fowl and other birds, and other land and water-borne animals.[8]. Therefore, the Resolution fails.
I pass R2 to Pro.
Forfeited
Round 3
Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels
I Conclusion:
I.a Having passed on the first two rounds of the debate by forfeiture, Pro cannot now present argument in the final third round according to the debate protocol announced in the Initiator Description, to which Pro agreed by defacto acceptance of the debate. In fact, having been banned from the site, as evidenced by line-through on his avatar in the debate file, Pro is no longer a site member, and, therefore , cannot further respond at all. All other matters raised by Pro in Comments will not be entertained here; to do so would be inappropriate debate protocol, as defined by DArt policy of appropriate content of the debate.
I.b I conclude that Pro erred in the acceptance of the debate, having produced no argument through two rounds to support the Pro BoP that the Resolution is true; that air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels. Since the Resolution does not speak to other potential causes, and since the debate must be exclusively a discussion of fossil fuels, as evidenced by the Resolution, other potential causes are outside the debate, although acknowledged by some percentage of contribution and, therefore, are invalid arguments. This was, or should have been understood by a complete read, with comprehension, of the Resolution and Description of this debate. Post-acceptance of the debate is not the time to consider how to argue for Pro’s BoP; that decision must be assessed prior to acceptance.
I.c I do not expect to be required to school a debate opponent on this matter.
Since this is my last round, I need not, nor can offer further argument, and, having no rebuttal to my arguments to date, I hereby declare the Resolution defeated, and I request your vote as having proven the Resolution false.
I Conclusion:
I.a Having passed on the first two rounds of the debate by forfeiture, Pro cannot now present argument in the final third round according to the debate protocol announced in the Initiator Description, to which Pro agreed by defacto acceptance of the debate. In fact, having been banned from the site, as evidenced by line-through on his avatar in the debate file, Pro is no longer a site member, and, therefore , cannot further respond at all. All other matters raised by Pro in Comments will not be entertained here; to do so would be inappropriate debate protocol, as defined by DArt policy of appropriate content of the debate.
I.b I conclude that Pro erred in the acceptance of the debate, having produced no argument through two rounds to support the Pro BoP that the Resolution is true; that air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels. Since the Resolution does not speak to other potential causes, and since the debate must be exclusively a discussion of fossil fuels, as evidenced by the Resolution, other potential causes are outside the debate, although acknowledged by some percentage of contribution and, therefore, are invalid arguments. This was, or should have been understood by a complete read, with comprehension, of the Resolution and Description of this debate. Post-acceptance of the debate is not the time to consider how to argue for Pro’s BoP; that decision must be assessed prior to acceptance.
I.c I do not expect to be required to school a debate opponent on this matter.
Since this is my last round, I need not, nor can offer further argument, and, having no rebuttal to my arguments to date, I hereby declare the Resolution defeated, and I request your vote as having proven the Resolution false.
Forfeited
Well, there is that. But, I lead the pack in no-vote ties compared to the number of debates I've engaged, and some of those were opponent forfeits. So, I'm grateful to avoid that stigma. I lobbied to correct that particular niche of debate results when the voting policy was renewed, i.e., no-vote ties of forfeits. but, it is not yet resolved.
Easiest vote of my life
thank you for voting
Thank you for voting
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Not going to honor your word then. Ragnar will not enforce it. Alas, I will just have to crush you. Keep acting like a deadbeat. It's working out well for you.
Wasting time, again? Why do you keep hassling me? This is still obviously an active debate. You want a definition, ask Ragnar. Meanwhile, time's ticking...
Please honor your offer for debate deletion by giving consent to the moderator. He apparently requires something called "positive consent" (I don't know what that is)
As there is most clearly not positive consent from both sides for the debate to be removed, nor extenuating circumstances, the debate shall be left in place.
I don't really want to delete the debate. As I said, I have arguments through 3 rounds already written, just needing to add rebuttals as needed, so I'd prefer to not have to consider that effort wasted.
He consented to it 6 days ago and again yesterday in post 18. You've mentioned wishes twice, but people don't control what they want. That's a feeling. People control what they say and what they do. If you make a decision based on what someone wants, then what you're really doing is deciding based on something that isn't within the control of the debaters.
> Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.
Again:
"I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.
This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago."
Your choice to delay things by so many days, has caused a situation in which both sides no longer consent to the debate being deleted. Deleting a debate against the wishes of one side largely because the other forgot about a debate and then forfeited, would be a massive expansion of moderation powers. Therefore, I've posted it in moderation chat for others to review.
From the extended policies, here are the current rulings on when a debate may be deleted:
"Subsection B1: Content Deletion
I. Debates may not be deleted, barring certain exceptions
II. Exceptions to PA.A2.SB.SbB1.PI are limited to:
a. Cases in which both debaters consent to a debate’s deletion
b. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains personal attacks against another user
c. Cases in which the debate constitutes spam or advertising
d. Cases in which the debate, either in its text or title, contains doxxing, PM-exposing, or seriously threatening content
e. Cases in which the debate was created by an account impersonating DART staff
f. Cases in which the debate was created by a multi-account of a user banned at the time of the debate’s creation"
Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate.
It is the objective intentions of the parties that are binding. It is obvious from the debate description that we did not intend to debate a situation where no air pollution exists. Mutual intentions trump unintended absurdities. Yet, what I foresaw was getting bogged down in a protracted debate over that principle. That's what I didn't want to do. If you really wanted to continue with the debate as it was, then you shouldn't have offered to cancel it. I wanted to debate it with a reformed definition. I waited to see if you would change your mind or I could find a different way to avoid the issue. Neither of those things happened. Then I kindof forgot about the debate and at some point I saw the 1 hour left notification. That's what prompted me to act.
Nothing to talk about, except that somebody accepted a debate after a concessional change was made at somebody's request, and then that somebody decided to let their argument go forfeit, complaining that there were no arguments available to present, after all, when acceptance assumes one has already done some research to determine arguments. The result may be called something else...
A stale dated check is still good. There's no stop payment. The guy says pay it. Nothing to talk about really.
I've posted the issue in moderation chat for group feedback.
This definitely would not have been a problem a week ago.
I didn't see the problem until I began crafting my arguments and researching the concentration levels of the various gases.
Why did you accept the debate? Why?
Go ahead, challenge your watered-down debate. I will not engage it. Never again on any subject. You waste my time.
I have offered to debate this issue if the 0.1% threshhold within the air pollution definition was resolved, either by the creation of a new debate or by stipulation within the existing one. The gases in question do not exceed 0.1% and therefore are not pollutants under the definition in the debate description. The concentration is not even half that. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition ) It's as though air pollution does not exist under the definition, and I don't think either of intended to debate that. I proposed pre-industrial revolution concentration levels for the various gases as a revised concentration level, but you rejected this for reasons I do not understand. If you wish to debate this with a sensible threshhold for the concentration levels, I am open to that.
Meanwhile, waiting on you to make a bloody decision, having already accepted the debate as is, after already making a concessionary change to the Resolution on your request, I am devoting time to research and compose arguments. I'm already prepared with R3 arguments and some anticipated rebuttals while you're futzing around with bloody complaints that you can't make arguments, after all. Well too bloody bad, my friend. You accepted the debate. That means you should have already done some research to see if you could meet the challenge as given and accepted by you. Do the bloody work, damn it. I have. You're wasting my time, and it happens to be valuable to me.
Ragnar, go ahead and delete the bloody debate. I'm tired of the whining. I'm tired of being jerked around. I'm tired encounters with people who seem too lazy to do the work. I will not debate this whiner again. What a goddam bloody time-waster.
There was valid offer and acceptance for debate cancellation. Your offer was good unless you rescinded it, which you did not. Elapsed time or forfeits are not relevant.
Delete the debate.
First, you accept a debate. Then you want to back out. Then you're given a proposal with five days to respond, which you ignore until 30 minutes before clocking out, and at that, Forfeit R1. Come on, dude. Go whine to DebateArt. Again.
"I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered" - You said you would do something and I relied on that representation. Now you want to back out. Come on dude.
As I have stated numerous times in several debate comments, once a debate has been accepted, I prefer to ignore comments. My focus is on the debate. Death23 has had five days to respond to Ragnar's various proposals with a choice, and did not until, apparently 30 minutes shy of clocking out. I do not typically look at comments once a debate is accepted. I look at the clock on the debate page and I respond to it when it has expired. When Death23's clock ran out, I noted the forfeit in my R1 argument and posted it.
Death23 accepted the debate, then raised his truism argument. Too late, gentlemen. If that is the belief, the debate should not have been accepted. It was accepted. I proceed accordingly.
In my opinion, the debate is enjoined. May we deal with it, please?
Or, I suppose one can appeal to DebateArt. Again.
Please cancel debate. The definition for air pollution provides that GHG's are only considered pollutants when their collective concentration exceeds 0.1%. (presumably not counting water vapor) The concentrations have not exceeded 0.1% and aren't projected to for a long time. It makes building a case in good faith overly complicated. I would like to continue this debate with a reformed definition.
I will agree to whichever option of the two you offered, or to continue the debate as is, that is agreeable to Death23
We can't reset the clock (I wish), but if you both desire that link be added to the description (pretty sure I'm seeing that definition already included), that is a change we can make. Similarly, if you both wish this debate can be canceled (even if making another) that is something we can do.
However, I note, to my dismay, that references which were intended to be included with the description did not copy into the Description field of the proposal as intended and I only now notice the absence. Here is the full definition of "Air pollution" with the references included. I will inquire with mods to either reset your clock for the first round to the full week [7 days], or, failing that, cancel the debate and restart a new one. Don't know how they'll respond or if they can do a re-set, etc. Mods, if you read this, I'm inquiring to Ragnar.
Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth. Note: For purposes of this debate, “the natural atmosphere of Earth” is defined as the air from seal level [or beneath in consideration of all portions of land mass beneath sea level] [1], to roughly 100 miles above sea level. Further, the natural atmosphere is understood to be composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21 % oxygen, 0.9% Argon, and smaller amounts of trace gaseous elements,[2] plus some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2], Nitrous oxide [N2O], methane [CH4], and ozone [O3], when these gasses, combined, represent no more than 0.1% of the atmosphere.[3] Pure water vapor [H2O], which varies in percentage on a daily basis, is not included in the definition of pollutant.[4] Included in the definition, and therefore counted as pollutants, are GHGs [as noted above] exceeding the 0.1% concentration.[5] Other trace pollutants [dust, etc] will be considered as natural because they occur naturally [by wind], but generally do not affect sea level earth temperatures by atmospheric solar heat retention as caused by excess concentrations of GHGs], particularly as the effect does not endure over long periods of time.
[1] https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition
[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid
[4] ibid
I made no attempt to force anyone's acceptance of the debate. It was merely offered, as are all others, some of which die on the vine unaccepted. As accepted, now is not the time to take issue, is it?
Caused? I think since the world is first formed the air is dirty. Humans just added to that, that's all.
I've corrected the Description to agree with the topic/Resolution.
The debate resolution being false is a truism because a single example of a naturally occurring greenhouse gas (e.g. an animal exhaling CO2 from cellular respiration) will show the resolution to be easily false using the rules of the debate description, which clarify that the debate resolution is referring to "all" air pollution. ("Definitions: Air pollution: Pollutant in the natural atmosphere of Earth [...] counted as pollutants, are GHGs [...] some gasses, typically referenced as “greenhouse gasses,” [GHGs] consisting of carbon dioxide [CO2]")
"Resolution: Air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels Description: All air pollution is caused by human use of fossil fuels."
Generic generalizations are problematic in debates.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/
Good observation, since trickery is not what it's about. Keep laughing, but not out loud. That's just a frightened little girl.
you ain't tricking anyone here XD
Yeah it's definitely not all