Debates can occasionally be a good way to help resolve controversial issues, but there are also a lot of ways they can misfire. For instance, if empirical claims are made as a surprise, the other side cannot realistically check them--but it feels like the side making the claims has the advantage.

Furthermore, I note that the materials you link to are riddled with falsehoods. For instance, the CO2 coalition tries to convince us that global warming is actually caused by piracy by overlaying two graphs of...oh...wait, no, wrong example. They try to do it by overlaying a graph of corn yields per acre (we know why it looks like it does--this little thing called the "green revolution" brought about by nitrogen fertilizers plus intensive breeding) with a vertically shifted and expanded trace of CO2, making us think that a six-fold increase in corn yields was caused by CO2 rising to 1.5x the starting concentration...when...CO2 doesn't really affect corn yields at all (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361343/)!

This, like pirates, should be a textbook example of a spurious correlation. And it's presented as if it's serious!

Their "warming is not unusual" graph is also just flat-out wrong (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_last_2,000_years); I think it's based on some old work that was measuring regional temperature? I forget.

(This is not an exhaustive list--just two things I felt like picking out as particularly egregious examples.)

There's no point debating rubbish like this. You can link to a site that patiently dispels all the misapprehensions. Like this: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Having saved us the trouble of wading through the debate, I will now collect my $570,000.