The Instigator
Shadow-Wright
Pro (for)
Tied
2 Points
The Contender
will9925452
Con (against)
Tied
2 Points

Are people cutting down to much trees

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/23/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 246 times Debate No: 91695
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

Shadow-Wright

Pro

I think that people cut down to much trees because they use too much forest for cities. Thows trees can't defend themselves. people are using wood to make houses we don't need more houses.
will9925452

Con

For starters if you could check you spelling before posting your second round argument. Also we definitely need more houses with all the homeless people who have none.
Debate Round No. 1
Shadow-Wright

Pro

yes but we need trees for oxygen and protect us from posan . the only reason there are homeless people is there are to much pepole so the trees get cut down stop deforestation
will9925452

Con

will9925452 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Shadow-Wright

Pro

trees give us oxgin. we need to breth
will9925452

Con

apparently you decided to ignore my spelling suggestion. Future reference put a reasonable response time for the debate(reason why the round was forfeited). There are many trees still here, and trees can be replanted and grown again. We are not in a dire state to where people can't breathe because of a lack of trees. The homeless problem is actually an issue. The wood from trees provide many benefits to society, then trees are planted to make up for what was used. And if there is not enough trees to supply the needed oxygen, we would die from suffocation not "posan".
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by llaurenthellama 1 year ago
llaurenthellama
I can't vote yet, because I haven't finished three debates, but just know that I would have voted Pro, if it weren't for his/her *highly interesting* grammar. So my opinion is Pro but Con aced everything else :/
Thanks,
LlaurenTheLlama
Posted by will9925452 1 year ago
will9925452
i honestly do not know. i think it was somewhere close to an hour
Posted by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
Before I vote, what was the response time allotted to each side?
Posted by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
too*
Posted by lyokowarri0r 1 year ago
lyokowarri0r
many*
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Biodome 1 year ago
Biodome
Shadow-Wrightwill9925452Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited a round, so conduct goes to Pro. Pro had significant spelling & grammar issues to the point where I couldn't understand some of his arguments. Therefore, S&G goes to Con. I wasn't really convinced by either side in Rounds 1 & 2 - the arguments were short, barely developed and without any analysis. Con tried to make a stronger case in the very last round, but I would find it unfair to give him points for that, since Pro wasn't able to respond to those.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
Shadow-Wrightwill9925452Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Reasons for voting decision: Con came off snappy in the final round, which is why conduct was given to Pro. However, spelling and grammar wise, Con, even with it's numerous typos, still was better than that of Pro's. Niether argument made any sense, though, and thus, my vote is tied.