Debate Voting Thread (FORMER)

Pretty short read (about 3 pages if printed), and should be an easy vote. I also wouldn't mind feedback on the formatting I use, to ease readability in future on this site.

Your formatting was good and effective (also better than your opponent). However, since the debate uses a "winner selection" voting system, I couldn't really factor that into my vote at all. 

Not worried about it in terms of the vote, merely in making debates more enjoyable to read.

thanks in advance

Simple debate on the death penalty.

You didn't address Somebody's actual argument which is that co2's warming effect dimishes with increasing concentration so adding more co2 now will have negligible effect.

Yeah I did, it’s under the section “Contribution of heat from Carbon Dioxide”

And also in round 5 under “Carbon dioxide ineffective.”

From the title of the debate, I'd say the greenhouse effect is the only thing that is actully relevant.  Solar cycles and whether the ipcc is a communist front or not have no bearing on the relationship between co2 and climate.

The joannenova article suggests we can double, quadruple or octuple the level of co2 with negligible temperature rise.   I don't believe that for second, but you didn't explicitly refute it.

Yes, I explicitly refuted it: this was covered under the sections I just mentioned. Even if you don’t think round 1 where I made the argument, or round 2, where I pointed out how round 1 addresses it, were not quite explicit enough for your tastes, round 5 went out of its way to explicitly explain why round 1 negates that specific claim.

If you take note: pro argues that there is a cap in effectiveness of co2 based on a blog post, that it is has limited effect beyond a certain point, I explain  that it’s a logarithmic process (with evidence), and I quantify (with evidence) what that logarithmic identity that , and use it to explicitly argue that doubling co2 will lead to a temperature rise of 1 degree even without taking into consideration any other process. I point out in round 2 that this explanation runs counter to his argument of the exception efectiveness, and then again explicitly corrected him in the final round, by pointing out co2 concentrations do not work the way he says, and refer him back to the science I pointed out in round 1.

If that isn’t “addressing his argument”, then shrug: all I can say is that he definitely had no detail or response to what I raised either: meaning it’s solid scientific data vs a blog post.

I hold you to a much higher standard than I do Somebody!

A religious debate which did not bore me to death, could use another vote or two before time runs out...

• Islam is a religion of peace
  

"Capitalism is ill-equipped to deal with Climate Change"