The Instigator
bettabreeder
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
JLPicard
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Aquarium Hobby

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
JLPicard
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 750 times Debate No: 58664
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

bettabreeder

Pro

Debate over if the Aquarium Hobby is good for the envirmoment.

First Round is for acception only


I own 10 Aquariums so bring it on!
Debate Round No. 1
bettabreeder

Pro


About most to all of the fish in the hobby from both fresh and saltwater are bred in fishfarms. Fish caught out of the wild go for a high price and could of been bred in the hobby. Many countries thought put a ban to collecting fish out of the wild for the trade including Brazil, Colombia, and Thailand. Today you can find wild varities of fish that have been bred in the trade for years.


With draining the wetlands in Southeast Asia and building Dams in the Amazon, Fish are dieing the the thousands each day but those same ecaxt fish are still swimming around the the trade. For example the Zebra Pleco is a rare and exotic fish native to a tributary of the lower Amazon. Brazil put a ban on its collection when the Belo Monte dam was built but the previous collected fish were bred. Bioligist say the Pleco will go extinct by 2030 but they will they live forver in the hobby. Another species in the same condition is called the Redtailed Shark, Not a shark But a minnow that lives in the wetlands of Southeast Asia that is currently Extinct from draingage. Today the Fish is a common fish in the hobby sold a low a $5.
JLPicard

Con

Personal aquariums are bad for the environment simply because they are a worthless waste of time. All the materials, energy, and thought that go into creating these aquariums and breeding these fish are wasted. These fish have to be cared for very specifically, when transporting these fish the Ph must me monitored, salinity, temperature, there must be proper filtration, lots and lots of time and energy is wasted on these fish.

Until there comes a time that Aquariums have zero environmental impact, they will be bad for the environment.
Debate Round No. 2
bettabreeder

Pro

Us aquarist enjoy it. Like some people like to draw some people breed fish and keep fish. Because of most of our fish being bred the Salinity, Ph and tempurture doesn't need to be monitered as it used to be. Is that a bad thing that people enjoy spending time with fish and enjoying caring for them. An organazation came out Called C.A.R.E.S Preservation to help aquarist and other people learn about fish in the hobby that are endargered or exinct in the wild. Having Cares is giving Enviromental impact to all species. I would accually rather keep a threatned species in my aquarium because people out there don't give a crap about that fishes well being as the hobby might be its last resort.

http://www.carespreservation.com...
JLPicard

Con

Whether or not you enjoy it is irrelevant, the fact is that is is not good for the environment. If you want a hobby that is good for the environment you should plant trees, because your hobby is bad for the environment. This is best demonstrated by asking a simple question.

What do Aquariums consume?

Aquariums consume energy, raw materials and time.

and

What do Aquariums produce?

Pollution, and joy to those who harbor them. This is not a hobby that is good for the environment.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by bettabreeder 3 years ago
bettabreeder
Yeah
Posted by ChosenWolff 3 years ago
ChosenWolff
Have you ever considered Aquaculture for a living?
Posted by Ilona 3 years ago
Ilona
10 aquariums dang that is a lot kid.............
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Zarroette
bettabreederJLPicardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: So the resolution pertains to aquarianism as a hobby. I take it that Pro intended to justify this hobby. Pro's unreferenced assertion that some fish are in danger was dropped by Con, yet I am not sure why I need to care about these fish. Why does it matter that these fish are dying out? The other of Con's counter-arguments was that lots of things are wasted on these fish, and since Pro has not given me a reason to care about these fish, and therefore make it a hobby, Con wins arguments. It is clear that this is a pretty bad hobby to have.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 3 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
bettabreederJLPicardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument that keeping an aquarium causes pollution and uses energy and resources is pretty much irrelevant since any human activity meets that definition. In contrast, Pro has shown that endangered species can be kept in aquariums. Not a very strong debate from either side; Pro by a hair.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 3 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
bettabreederJLPicardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Joy doesn't decrease pollution.