The Instigator
jhate12345
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
larztheloser
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Animals and enviroments

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/1/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 837 times Debate No: 14633
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

jhate12345

Con

i will let any oppnent who is for saving animals and helping them in there enviorment go first, know what your talkin about and give good examples thankyou
larztheloser

Pro

I greet my opponent and wish him luck for this debate.

In this debate, I need to defend animals and environments. I will first defend animals, then environments.

DEFINITIONS:
Animals - any creature of class animalia
Environments - the whole world, including natural and urban environments

ANIMALS:
Animals are worth defending because they contribute to the biodiversity of the planet. Biodiversity is good to maintain because:
1) It boosts ecosystem productivity - so we get more food to solve our food crisis, bio-fuel to solve our fuel crisis, wood to save the rain-forest, we can pollute more and not suffer consequences - for now, and in to the future (http://www.globalissues.org...)
2) It is good for our mental health (http://www.world-science.net...)
3) Having a greater gene pool may help future genetic research.

ENVIRONMENTS:
These are worth defending because people depend on them. Without environments there would be no food (farms are an environment), no water (seas are an environment), no air (also an environment) ... indeed, neither we nor the world would even exist. I think prima face the world's existence is better than the world's non-existence, and if my opponent thinks otherwise I'd be interested to hear his case.

I look forward to hearing my opponent's counter-argument.
Debate Round No. 1
jhate12345

Con

First in this debate i will talk about animal importance and why they arent as important and then economic issues

1st animals don't play a big part in America as people think. There used to be 450,000 lions now there are 20,00 and it hasn't affected us. In this world its natural selection survival of the fittest meaning animals will kill each other off. Animals do not always provide better things for farms. There have been several situations where farms were shut down during irrigation due to a bug that was endangered. We are already at a shortage of jobs why jeopardize more. Sure its not right to move into animals territory and destroy everything. But look over the years animals have show adapt to the worst conditions. The animals are not that big of a deal, we can always breed more or whatever. There environment is fine, we have more trees now then we had hundreds of years ago.

On to my matter of this debate, economy one word that we need to look at before animals. We were projected to be in 600,000,000 dollars in debt as of 2008, why should we stop our cancer research, aid research, and everything else to send money we don't have to save animals. Before looking at helping the environment how do you plan on helping when we as a country don't have the money to do this explain why we should help animals and how we can for me please. (please note i haven't had time to post my sources im still looking for where i found some of my info i will post my sources next round thanks.)
larztheloser

Pro

I'd like to thank my opponent for ignoring all of my arguments and opening their case. Since he gets a one-round lapse on sources, so do I.

"There used to be 450,000 lions now there are 20,00 and it hasn't affected us."
That's because you live in America. I think you'll find that it has changed the African landscape a big deal.

"In this world its natural selection survival of the fittest meaning animals will kill each other off."
True, but ecosystems reach a point of equilibrium, where the numbers in all species are constant. Keeping ecosystems at equilibrium makes them more efficient because that is what they are adapted to. It works a bit like an economic equilibrium.

"There have been several situations where farms were shut down during irrigation due to a bug that was endangered."
Red herring. I would argue that the bug should be moved to a wildlife park. The point is that the bug should be protected. A wrong means can still lead to a just end.

"over the years animals have show adapt to the worst conditions."
Oh, so what do you imagine happened to all the animals that didn't adapt - you know, Mammoths and the like. In New Zealand, our native bird population was almost entirely wiped out a few years ago thanks to rats. They are far from having adapted - and rats have been here for 200 years!

"we can always breed more or whatever"
You make it sound like it is easy. Once the population gets small you start to have in-breeding, which, like in humans, produces inferior offspring.

"There environment is fine, we have more trees now then we had hundreds of years ago."
1) Not all animals live in trees
2) Hundreds of years ago ... I suppose you must mean before 70% of the world's rain-forest was cut down? If so, then where are these magical extra trees planted?

"economy one word that we need to look at before animals"
why? Ultimately, the only reason why the economy is important is because it sustains us. What use is an economy if there is no environment for it to exist in? Animals create environments.

"why should we stop our cancer research, aid research, and everything else to send money we don't have to save animals"
Maybe we shouldn't, but I'm still for animals. If it isn't sensible right now, I agree medicine and health should take priority over spending. But when we have resources, we should do it. Why? See my last round. Our society exists within the wider environmental construct. We need the environment just as the environment needs us.

On a related note, in New Zealand (where I live), we spend only a few million a year on conservation, yet it generates us billions of dollars in tourism revenue. Helping the environment can therefore help the economy too.
Debate Round No. 2
jhate12345

Con

i withdraw my argugment due to i wasnt clear on most tihngs when starting t thanx for your debate u brought good points
Debate Round No. 3
jhate12345

Con

jhate12345 forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

larztheloser forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jhate12345

Con

jhate12345 forfeited this round.
larztheloser

Pro

larztheloser forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
jhate12345larztheloserTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Simple forfeit.