LetsAllMakeBelieve said:
So im not alowed to stick to my opinion, but he can stick to his? also if thats what Sqrl wanted to say why did he not just say it, rather than making an inflaitory remark? If he wants truth, then surely he would welcome a different opinion, instead he refuses to debate me on the basis that he dosent like my opinion? |
Nah. The point is... in a debate it should be point/counterpoint.
When data is brought into an arguement... said data needs to be debunked before the arguement can go foward. If you can't debunk the data, you should logically concide your point... if you can't because of bias, you should at least bow out of the arguement.
He has offered data and graphs. (note the last page has the same graph but with an axis, so that problem is solved.)
He's debunked all of PS360's data. So right now... it is a matter of debunking his data. If you can't, it's not like anybody is forcing you to change your mind... but your being intelectually dishonest if you can't admit one of two things.
1) I I think I'm wrong.
or
2) I don't know enough about this subject to debate it competantly.
Either way, it's a case of debunk, or concede defeat as far as debating goes.
Like me. I don't know enough about global warming to decide either way. (if it's man-made that is.) Though I do believe I know enough about proposed carbon credit taxes to know they are a bad idea that won't do anything for global warming and instead will just redistribute wealth from 1st world countries to 3rd world countries since every plan i've seen allows said carbon credits to be transferable.
Of course said nations are likely to cut back on their disaster aid and other such things to make up for it... basically hurting the flexability of international aid, and keeping everything else pretty even.
