The Instigator
mongeese
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Earth Day supporters contradict themselves.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,352 times Debate No: 7966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

mongeese

Pro

Okay, the phrase, "Every day is Earth Day," is common among Earth Day supporters.
http://www.starfall.com...

We hear this phrase on the news a lot. I see signs around town saying, "Every day is Earth Day." There's just one problem; I only see and hear these around the regular, established Earth Day.

If every day was in fact Earth Day, then why wouldn't Earth Day supporters publicly announce it when the rest of the world forgets that it is Earth Day, and needs to be reminded.

Earth day supporters claim that every day is Earth Day, only on Earth Day. Thus, they contradict themselves.

Thank you.
Maikuru

Con

I thank mongeese for starting this debate. I've been itching for an unusual topic and I think this qualifies.

My opponent claims that Earth Day supporters contradict themselves by stating "Every Day is Earth Day" only on Earth Day (April 22nd). My goal is thus to demonstrate that no such contradiction exists.

::Year-Round Sentiment::

According to my opponent, publicizing that every day should be Earth Day is only done on April 22nd. However, numerous websites display this message prominently all year long. Some examples include:

1. The Earth Day Network [1]
2. The World Wildlife Organization [2]
3. The Environmental Protection Agency [3]

In addition to constantly advertising this message, these Earth Day-affiliated websites, as well as others [4][5], also instruct supporters on how they can improve their own environmental impact every day. My opponent's own source [6], along with a related book [7], relay this same point to children.

Given that these messages are present regardless of the date, my opponent's claim is refuted.

::Conclusion::

My opponent has come to the faulty conclusion that because Earth Day publicity is greatest on and around April 22nd, the supporters' message of making every day Earth Day ceases after that date. However, the passing of Earth Day does not silence its supporters and their message continues on in numerous locations.

I thank mongeese again for the debate and await his response.

::References::

1. http://earthday.net...
2. http://www.worldwildlife.org...
3. http://www.epa.gov...
4. http://network.earthday.net...
5. http://holidays.kaboose.com...
6. http://www.starfall.com...
7. http://www.amazon.com...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for responding.

You say that these Earth Day supporters have websites that everyone visits all year round. There is only one problem: most people don't know that these websites exist.

People are always watching TV, and listening to the news, and reading signs. Around Earth Day, every year, commercials, news broadcasts, and signs talk about Earth Day. Everybody gets the message. A few weeks later, this message starts to disappear, and most people forget about Earth Day.

However, just because a website exists, doesn't mean that people start to visit that website. These websites are too passive. People don't just randomly feel like going to an Earth Day website. They have to be told to do this by Earth Day supporters, unless they are Earth Day supporters themselves. And do you really see any ads anywhere advertising these sites, and telling the world about Earth Day? Maybe you have, but most of them disappear soon after Earth Day.

The point I'm trying to make is, the websites don't exactly accomplish the main goal of Earth Day supporters, which is to remind everybody that every day is Earth Day. Because anyone who bothers to go to Earth Day websites already believe this, and know this, and perhaps preach it. Websites are just too passive to get a huge message across. A website is not a public announcement; it is just a little page that nobody knows exists.

In conclusion, these year-round websites fail to remind people that every day is Earth Day, because the people who visit them already remembered Earth Day, and just want to do more. Thus, the Earth Day people cannot preach their initial message through websites successfully, and the websites fall into irrelevance. Because the Earth Day supporters only make themselves and their phrase known on Earth Day, they contradict themselves, because they are basically saying that they should be having commercials and signs and such every day, but they don't.

Thank you.
Maikuru

Con

Thank you, mongeese, for your speedy response.

My opponent presented two arguments this round:

1. "The point I'm trying to make is, the websites don't exactly accomplish the main goal of Earth Day supporters, which is to remind everybody that every day is Earth Day."

The resolution at hand has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of Earth Day supporters in their campaigning, only whether or not they continue campaigning after April 22nd. By demonstrating in Round 1 that they do, I have refuted Pro's claim. Questions on the usefulness of websites as advertising tools are irrelevant.

2. "Because the Earth Day supporters only make themselves and their phrase known on Earth Day, they contradict themselves, because they are basically saying that they should be having commercials and signs and such every day, but they don't."

Pro's opening statement claimed Earth Day supporters do not "publicly announce" their message beyond April 22nd. However, I provided numerous sources in Round 1 showing that Earth Day supporters make themselves and their message known publicly all year long. Given that Pro did not restrict publicity to mean only commercials or signs, he has no grounds to argue on this matter. Websites constitute public announcements and Pro's claim is refuted.

::Conclusion::

My opponent has not refuted the fact that my sources demonstrate year-long advertising by Earth Day supporters, effectively defeating the resolution. Instead, he has attempted to shift the focus from publicity to effectiveness, claiming that Earth Day supporters must have "commercials and signs and such every day" to transmit their message. This is, of course, both a delayed attempt to amend the resolution and a blatantly restrictive use of the phrase "publicly announce." As the sources I provided in Round 1 are both open to the public and operating all year long, the resolution is negated.

Thanks again to mongeese and I await his closing statements.
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Pro

Thank you for responding.

I'm going to have to make one point here:

Websites are NOT attention-grabbers. If a random website is out there that you don't know the existence of, will it remind you that today is Earth Day? No, it won't. A website is not a public announcement, due to the fact that the message doesn't even reach the public. The only reason anyone would actually go to any of their websites, is if they already wanted to celebrate Earth Day every day. On the radio, while listening to just about anything, a random Earth Day commercial will pop up, and the people hear it. Only around Earth Day. On TV, while watching just about anything, a random Earth Day commercial will pop up, and the people we see it. Only around Earth Day. While driving around town, you pass by a sign that says, "Every day is Earth Day", like this one: http://green.thefuntimesguide.com... and you read it. Only around Earth Day.

A website does not grab attention. It will not randomly pop up while you are visiting other websites. The website will be sitting there, waiting, but the people will go to the sites they actually know the existence of. Around Earth Day, they might have a few announcements on radio, TV, and other sites, to visit the website, but these soon disappear, and the people forget about them. In the middle of winter, do you ever hear a random commercial say, "Here's just a reminder that every day is Earth Day!"? Just within that phrase, they contradict themselves.

The only three ways to reach those websites are:
1. Google "Earth Day"
2. Start searching websites with complete randomness, stopping when you reach Earth Day
3. Already know about the website from public advertising

1. People would only Google "Earth Day" on a day that isn't near Earth Day if they were already supporters of Earth Day, which is not, sadly to say, the general public.
2. Nobody does that.
3. These public advertisements go away after the Earth Day hype is gone, as was conceded when my opponent when he didn't respond to "[they] disappear soon after Earth Day."

To announce is "to make known publicly" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...).
Because the public don't know their message through their unsuccessful websites, it is not a public announcement.

In conclusion, my opponent's only argument against my resolution is the fact that they still have websites, but as I have proved, people don't actually go to these websites on days other than Earth Day.
Earth Day supporters contradict themselves because they get all hyped up about how Earth Day is every day, only on Earth Day, and they only publicly announce that Earth Day is every day during the Earth Day hype. Because they only tell us about Earth Day on Earth Day, instead of every day, they contradict themselves.

Thank you for reading. Vote PRO.
Maikuru

Con

Congrats to us both for completing this debate so quickly.

My opponent has used R3 to reiterate his R2 argument:

"A website does not grab attention."

Unfortunately, Pro both continues to argue about a non-resolution item and completely ignores by statements to that effect. Once again, the effectiveness of websites as "attention-grabbers" has nothing at all to do with the question at hand. Pro's original stance was that Earth Day supporters contradict themselves because they "claim that every day is Earth Day, only on Earth Day." I have shown this to be false and my opponent has offered no rebuttal on this point. The resolution is negated.

As a side note, Pro has defined "announce" to mean "to make known publicly" and then goes on to say that websites cannot constitute an announcement. Fortunately, as the websites I provided in R1 are open to the public, clearly present the Earth Day message, and can be accessed through numerous means (examples can be found in Pro's R2 argument), they fit the definition of announcements perfectly.

::Supporting Earth Day, Every Day::

While the primary Earth Day event is temporary, its supporters continue their message of conservation all year. Various websites, for children and adults, as well as at least one informative children's book, work to circulate their support long after April 22nd. The very existence of such sources after the Earth Day negates the resolution, but the fact that they provide information for the public on how they might continue to protect the environment further solidifies the awareness.

::Closing::

Pro's resolution was based on an incorrect premise that, following my rebuttal, he attempted to amend. However, the issue of effectiveness is non-resolutional and irrelevant to the current discussion. Because I have provided several examples of Earth Day supporters continuing their work well after April 22nd, whereas my opponent has not offered a single valid source, argument, or rebuttal, I strongly urge a Con vote.

Thanks again to mongeese and thanks to all the readers!
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Well, given that the very existence of those websites immediately negated the resolution, it's understandable that you would argue their legitimacy as "public." I would have focused on the fact that supporters' entire style of campaigning shifts after Earth Day (i.e. from active and aggressive to passive) rather than just discussing the websites. That wouldn't have affirmed the resolution, but it's a start.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
We managed to turn a debate about Earth Day into a debate about whether websites were public announcements or not.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Thanks for the debate, mongeese. I look forward to the next one =D
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Hahaha I know, I'm just kidding around. We're all anxiously awaiting the completion of the vote tab so that things like this can be clarified.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Hey, it's not like I tell people to vote bomb for me. I'm just as annoyed as you are. Okay, maybe slightly less, but whatever.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
Check it out, mongeese. Someone gave you all 7 points, even after you specifically condemned such an action in the death penalty debate. I only ever get all 7 when my opponent forfeits haha.
Posted by McBain 7 years ago
McBain
LOL @ maikuru

The term "pulling a kleptin" is now officially coined.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
I argued that a website is not really public announcement, because the message never actually reaches the public.

In other news, Kleptin is awesome.
Posted by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
I'll pull a Kleptin and try to objectively evaluate my own debate.

Conduct: Tie
S & G: Tie
Arguments: Pro made no attempt to support the resolution, instead focusing on non-resolution issues like effectiveness and mode of advertising. Con's arguments against the resolution were never addressed, thus points go to Con.
Sources: Pro's sources were for viewing purposes only and did not support his position. Con's sources served to negate the resolution, thus points go to Con.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Quick is good...
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 7 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
mongeeseMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Aziar44 7 years ago
Aziar44
mongeeseMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
mongeeseMaikuruTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05