The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Deforestation is a Bad Thing

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 3/2/2015 Category: Technology
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,321 times Debate No: 70891
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I claim that deforestation is NOT a bad thing in today's society.
Waiting for a Contender.


I'm arguing that deforestation is a bad thing. I'm guessing the first round is acceptance.
Debate Round No. 1


Yes, sorry. Round 1 was acceptance. Now for Round 2.
I want to thank Debatefox for accepting this debate. Here's what I have to say about deforestation:
If you've ever played Minecraft, you would know that wood is probably the most important resource you can find. You need wood to build tools like axes and swords. You need wood to build a chest to store your materials. Wood is a necessity in Minecraft. Now, Minecraft is hardly realistic to real life (there are zombies and skeletons) but it proves that wood is actually very useful and very important. I imagine that people find wood to be so useful (even in the real world) because it's so malleable; it can be cut and glued and ground but is still very sturdy. Back in the caveman days, wood started fires that became necessary to keep people warm and cook food. Without cooked food, we humans would have to spend over 9 hours a day eating (!) due to our brains' neuron capacity, according to neuroscientist Suzana Herculano-Houzel.

So it's clear that wood is important. In fact, because of the high demand for wood, our society appears to be excessively cutting down trees and not taking into concern how much we are destroying. However, this is not entirely the case. There are organizations like Rainforest Trust, and in fact, many store-bought items today have a "Rainforest Alliance Certified" seal on them. Because of this, we can assume that deforestation IS accounted for (at least somewhat) and that it is not an entirely bad thing. Also, we now know that the human race actually DOES care that trees are getting cut down and that ecosystems ARE disappearing. And we're taking care of it.

All of that should take the guilt off of cutting down so many trees. And if it doesn't, then this will:

One tree can provide many resources. Some of these resources are necessary for an ecosystem, and taking them away would make the ecosystem crumble. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about that. Fortunately, though, we can take just that one tree and squeeze all the resources we can out of it. Take the wood it has, take the apples it produces, and take the leaves it grew, and you have just made that one tree a lot more valuable. By doing this - by cutting down trees "Native American" style - we can reduce the number of trees we cut down.

A good example of this is a business my dad started called "Caja Del Campeon." He creates cigar boxes out of wood that came from old rubber trees. The rubber trees no longer produced sap and would be considered useless if he didn't use them to build his cigar boxes.

IN CONCLUSION, deforestation may damage ecosystems, BUT wood is a vital resource in today's society and we can limit the number of trees we cut down by squeezing the resources out of every one. On top of that, there are organizations like Rainforest Trust and the Rainforest Alliance that help repair the damage deforestation creates.

And we all get our supply of wood in the end! Now I'm curious of what could possibly be negative about deforestation.


I hope this is a good argument and we both have a little fun.
I will start by saying although you have mentioned a few of the losses caused by deforestation you have lacked to mention the severity of each situation. According to in one hundred years all the rain forrests will be gone. now destroying the rainforests will cause. over 10 million species of living organisms live in the rain forest. that means if deforestation is continued to be thought as being a good thing or at least something that is not bad these living organisms will all die out in only 100 years. the fact that wood is a necessity it does not change the fact that deforestation is bad.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent states that the fact that wood is a necessity does not change the fact that deforestation is bad. I disagree; I claim that our need for wood makes deforestation a GOOD thing (at least to the human race). He also claims that over 10 million species of living organisms will die in just 100 years due to the destruction of rainforests. But to be fair, human DEFORESTATION does not have to be the only thing that kills rainforests.

I want to make it clear that mankind is not a rainforest's only enemy; in fact, a typhoon ruined a Japanese rainforest in 1996 and in 1883 a volcano killed everyone living in an area now known as Ujung Kulong National Park. You can read more about nature's impacts on rainforests here:

These natural disasters are not typically considered deforestation. . . . They're the result of a natural event that humans did not interfere with.

I also want to say that while deforestation is good, an dead forest full of tree stumps is bad. What I mean is, deforestation is okay, but without recovering the damage done, a person has done something bad. If you deforest an area and leave it that way, that's immoral, but if you deforest an area and plant new trees in its place, that's good. Either way, the deforestation itself is not cruel in any way.

That's all I have left to say.
Thanks for debating!


I see my opponent has not learned to specify his argument. you stated that "deforestation is good (at least to human)" but you see the argument is not "is deforestation bad for humans" it is just is deforestation is bad. so lets look at the facts shall we.

economical: deforestation causes the us to lose 5 million dollars a year while it losses other country's up to up to 10 million dollars a year.

environmental: as I Stated above in my previous argument deforestation is killing these animals. although I do admit deforestation is not the only cause it is defiantly the biggest. in the recent decade brazil has lost 9.4% of it's rain forrest due to deforestation. that is almost 1/10 of it.

The need for wood does not change the fact that deforestation is bad even to humans. humans need oxygen and without trees supplying that oxygen we will die.

and on to the last part of my argument.

their are other ways to get wood then deforestation. such as selective cutting or creating new forms of wood like substance.

I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me to join this wonderful debate and i hope that i can argue against him again.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Etagnard 3 years ago
What a stupid debate. Of course wood is very useful, but unscrupulous deforestation will make you run out of wood and oxygen. That's very bad.
Posted by Acarr130 3 years ago
I would be happy to debate, but could you please clear up the topic
No votes have been placed for this debate.