The Instigator
007566
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Theunkown
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Desalination Plants Are A Waste Of Money

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Theunkown
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2014 Category: Economics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,553 times Debate No: 48927
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)

 

007566

Pro

I strongly believe desalination plants are a waste of time and money. Every year the government uses taxpayers money to build these plants. They are extremely expensive some costing as much as 20 million and are due to regular repairs. They are an eyesore and produce greenhouse gases. There is nothing good about them.
Theunkown

Con

I accept the challenge. I must prove that desalination plants are not a waste of money
Perhaps wherever you live, desalination plants are a waste of money.
BUT in the place I live (Dubai, UAE, Middle East), the land is practically a desert. The only water body close to the city is the ocean and the backwater.
The closes freshwater from Dubai is in Al Ain which is 141 km (2 hour drive) from Dubai.
http://www.distancesfrom.com...

Even that Oasis would not be able to provide for 2.5 million people living in Dubai and Al Ain.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

What is the solution to this problem?
Desalination plants. Providing water from the vast Ocean by removing impurities like salt from seawater and adding minerals.

Without this, Dubai would experience severe water shortages which would be a massive hit to their expat (basically, immigrants) based economy since nobody will be willing to live in this place. Tourism will also take a massive hit.

In the future, Desalination will be even more essential and well worth the 20 million (US dollars I assume).
Water is already so scarce, 1/9th of the world (780 million people) lack proper drinking water, in 2030 this figure will become 47% of the world's population. There is a significant chance that whoever is reading this will be facing water problems 16 years from now.
Wars maybe even fought over water.
People keep complaining about wars fought over oil. Now imagine wars over water.
How pathetic is that?
The answer is - VERY pathetic. The solution to all of this is to use the largest source of water on our planet. The ocean, which contains 98% of the planet's water.
To use the ocean to solve our water problems, we need desalination plants. Therefore, desalination plants are not a waste of money. After all, anything is worth avoiding global drought and war.
http://www.aljazeera.com...
http://science.howstuffworks.com...
Debate Round No. 1
007566

Pro

I live on the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia. In 2010 the Gold Coast council decided to add a desalination plant. This plant has been a massive failure and was a waste of taxpayers money. It has ended up costing a massive 9 billion dollars and is due for ongoing repairs. The parts are extremely expensive and as saltwater is very corrosive they are needed frequently. The Tugan Desalination plant was a massive waste of money.
Theunkown

Con

The future water shortage problems of the world that I mentioned earlier may also hit Australia at some point in time considering a large portion of Australia is a desert, it is the worlds driest continent.
Even now there are water restrictions in place in Australia. I am sure Pro is aware of the 2007 drought.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Even so, in Asia, particularly South West Asia (middle east), desalination plants are a necessity since they supply the water required. Oases in the middle east cannot supply nearly enough water to the population. The only plausible solution to water problems is desalinating water. Which is what is being done, and which is what should be continued.
After all, what use is money if you die of thirst?
Debate Round No. 2
007566

Pro

007566 forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

My opponent forfeited unfortunately. I extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
007566

Pro

Stuff you
Theunkown

Con

Appalling lack of conduct by pro. Stuff you means stfu incase the reader did not know. I extend my previous arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
007566

Pro

007566 forfeited this round.
Theunkown

Con

Vote for Con.
Debate Round No. 5
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
You can't forfiet. It's a lack of conduct. And yes I can extend arguments because you have not rebutted it which means my old arguments still stand strong
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
You can't 'extend' your old arguments
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
wikipedia is not reliable
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
Oh ii have many
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Please show a source with the "correct" facts
Posted by Theunkown 2 years ago
Theunkown
Please show a source with the "correct" facts
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
Just saying your paragraph was really crap
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
Just saying your paragraph was really crap
Posted by 007566 2 years ago
007566
so, they have their facts wrong
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
007566TheunkownTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's examples were very convincing, and Pro couldn't answer them. Whilst Australia might not need such a plant, Dubai, and the like, certainly do. Con's sources weren't overly powerful, but enough for source points, especially considering Pro's. Conduct to Con too, for Pro's forfeits.